The Soviet Story (2008) User Reviews

Mass genocide: How Hitler was condemned and Stalin commemorated.

[onlinehero · 8/10 · 11 February 2009]

This documentary focuses on the atrocities committed against innocent people, mainly by Stalin and other high ranking Soviet leaders in the name of Marxism and Communism prior, during, and after the Second World War.

The documentary consists of much original footage, newspaper clips, interviews with witnesses and even some present day footage, all very well edited and cut.

The story told in this documentary is the best one I've yet to see regarding horrible crimes committed against humanity, because it is very well substantiated in terms of source-material and historical argumentation. The delight of seeing this educational footage is strengthened even more due to its addressing of one of the most inconceivable facts in the post-WWII world: How Adolf Hitler was forever after unconditionally condemned by close to everyone across the globe for his crimes, and how Joseph Stalin was commemorated for aiding the Allies in liberating Europe of fascism, regardless of the fact that in total more than 20 million (some even claim up to 50 or 60 million) people was murdered by the hands of the Soviet Gulag State. A fact which nobody in the western world seems to care about.

What this documentary furthermore achieves which is what eventually made me give it the 10th star, was the fact that the story was told very honestly and very unbiased, unlike much historical media, and the scriptwriters have done an extremely well job in mastering the whole aspect of the stories, and not just focused on narrow one-sided details.

Regardless of the fact that most people see Hitler as the "far-right", and Stalin as the "far-left", this documentary raises the ultimate question: were they indeed that different, after all?

Documentary about crimes of Communism, Nazism

[naurimas-1 · 9/10 · 12 December 2008]

Watching this documentary will provide many interesting insights into history of the Soviet Union as well as the Nazi Germany through analysis of the documents, ideas of historians, memories of witnesses.

Firstly, it should be noted that the documentary focuses on the critical discussion of mass killings, concentration practiced by the Soviet secret state. It is shown while citing K. Marx and Fr. Engels why the soviet leaders (Lenin, later Stalin) killed people, set up concentration camps seeking to establish their own authority.

Secondly, the makers of the documentary revealed how the Nazi government used experience, some ideological ideas of K. Marx, and shocking experience of Lenin, NKVD to set up killing machine of Jews and other people of Germany.

Thirdly, there has been shown how the Soviet officials and the Nazi government collaborated before World War II in order to improve killing machine mechanism and annex territories of free states in Europe. Later, the shocking crimes of the Soviet state has been shown in the Baltic countries.

Finally, the film-makers have revealed shocking legacy dealing with justification of the communism crimes in some social groups of politicians in Russia.

In conclusion, watching this documentary will form critical approach towards similarities of Communism and Nazism.

great documentary

[julius-vogeler · 8/10 · 3 October 2011]

Well i think this whole thing was very interesting. It was a different perspective on history, some details like the soviet controlled famine in Ukraine i knew about already, and some details like the collaboration of the SS and the red army i didn't. But of course i would not believe everything this documentary says, because the Latvians really aren't too good with Russia these days. Of course for me, Stalin still is the biggest Massmurder of our time (right next to Hitler), but on some aspects of the Soviet Union, this documentary does get a little polemic, since they forget to mention about the part after Stalin's death, were people could actually sleep at night without being scared of getting arrested every second. But still, very interesting take on history.

Excellent film which has angered those who like Stalin.

[gints250 · 10/10 · 3 August 2009]

I believe The Soviet Story is an excellent film. Some reviewers here seem to oppose this view. It is understandable. However, what I do not understand is why they use lies to denounce the film? For example, Mr Frank Roberts review here. Dear Mr Frank Roberts, if in your review you are telling the truth, answer the following:

A) Frank Roberts states: "there was a scene where corpses were being thrown from a wagon onto the snow, and in the film it's claimed that these were the victims of the Ukrainian famine. But these were in fact dead Russian soldiers from the First World War." >>> If so, why did these "Russian soldiers" had civilian clothes on them, Mr. Roberts? Moreover, I saw the film twice, the footage you mentioned was NOT used to show Ukrainian famine victims, as you claim. It was used to show victims of the Communist terror.

B) Frank Roberts states: "Another good example is the scene where several officers are shown drinking and giving a toast. The Soviet Story claims that this is proof of Nazi-Soviet collaboration. In reality there were no Russians present at that meeting." >>> Really? Who is then the officer in the Red Army uniform? A Japanese? What about the Order of the Red Banner on the officers chest?

C) Frank Roberts states: "Soviet Story tries to make the current Russian government look bad. How is this done? By showing a clip that the film claims involves Russian Neo-Nazis. Now what does this have to do with the Russian government? Nothing at all." >>> Who is the man performing Nazi salute in the film? Nikolay Kuryanovich. Was not Nikolay Kuryanovich a member of Russia's parliament?

It is quite understandable that The Soviet Story is so acrimoniously denounced by Communists and those who believe Stalin was "a successful manager". No surprise that some pro-Putin gang even burned the effigy of Edvins Snore in Moscow. The anger and hatred is clearly there. What is missing - is counter-arguments.

the dangers of ignorance

[juliahro · 10/10 · 29 September 2011]

I have to make a comment for zvesda and its followers (do read his other review and please get that he is a pro-socialism pro-imperialism creature who could theoretically almost justify to the ignorant the enormously tragical mass murders of the Soviet Union). The most unbelievable thing is, though, that some would buy his strange endeavor - could be because of lack of knowledge.

Please also get that Russia has no enemies, as zvesda imperiously sustains, and that the theory of "hatred" is extremely dangerous and entails the majority of the citizens of a nation to incredible crimes justified by noble ideas such as "patriotism" and "defense from the enemy of the state". The documentary shows us the atrocities carried out by some dictators, and is not a personal attack to you, zvesda, or to the citizens of Russia, whether old or young (not to mention those crimes were against the Soviet Union's own citizens!). But stating expressions such as "the Jewish fascism" in today's Russia is mind-blowing (of course, the 20.000.000 killings in the Soviet Union, solely in terms of number, is quite mind-blowing too...).

Those atrocities did exist, whether you acknowledge it or not, and everyone should be reminded of the possible crimes of any dictatorship through fear, censorship, craziness, torture and murder. Whatever dictatorship that might be, at the shadow of whatever ideology.

It's hard to see the harsh images of afflicted children, women and men; but ignorance is never an excuse, and this documentary will definitely wake you up, if only to make you read a bit more about our recent and insane history.

Excellent

[preeriaorav · 10/10 · 12 January 2014]

The movie is excellent. It is well known that winners are writing the history- so the truth of soviet mass murders and genocide is still not truly known for the world. The movie is well-structured and compares two parallel regimes, so opposite but at the same time so similar. People from the countries that were occupied by red plague, know these stories from they parents and grandparents. it is rough to realize for a western world- but the soviet Russia was in no case better than Nazi Germany. For Baltic States people for example, actually it was in number of times worse, the real "holocaust" was created by red army. I have spoken with a lot of people who were in WW2 (for example my grandpa and grandma and et.) and all of them are describing Germans as "at least culture nation" but red soldiers as "dirty brutal people with no honor and compassion". Number of killed persons was several times bigger by Stalin than by Hitler. So who was the worst dictator? That is the question that this movie adduces and it is good, there are so much to bring to daylight and rewrite the history.

The Soviet Story is a documentary film about socialist terror and Soviet-Nazi collaboration in mass murder.

[Yuri-73 · 10/10 · 5 August 2009]

Of thousands of films, books, and plays on the communist experience, this one stands out above all the rest — a monument to millions of innocent victims and a charge against a bloodthirsty socialist theory that killed almost two hundred million people in the 20th century and continues its murderous trail into the 21st.

The film was directed by a talented Latvian producer Edvīns Šnore.

In its synopsis Šnore writes: This is a story of an Allied power, which helped the Nazis to fight Jews and which slaughtered its own people on an industrial scale. Assisted by the West, this power triumphed on May 9th, 1945. Its crimes were made taboo, and the complete story of Europe's most murderous regime has never been told.

The film argues that there were close philosophical, political, and military relations between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union before and during the early stages of World War II. It highlights the Great Famine: the infamous "holodomor" which wiped out seven million Ukrainians, the Great Purge in Moscow and elsewhere in the USSR with over eleven million murdered, as well as the Katyn massacre of tens of thousands of Polish officers.

The film sheds the light on Gestapo-NKVD collaboration in mass murder of Jews and German opposition, Soviet mass deportations, and inhuman medical experiments in the GULAG.

The Economist praises the film by saying: "Soviet Story" is the most powerful antidote yet to the sanitisation of the past. The film is gripping, audacious and uncompromising. The main aim of the film is to show the close connections—philosophical, political and organisational—between the Nazi and Soviet systems Those who keep a soft spot for Marxism may flinch to hear that the sage of Highgate referred to backward societies as Völkerabfälle (racial trash) who must "perish in the revolutionary holocaust." Or that the Nazi party in its early days idolised Lenin (Josef Goebbels said he was second only to Adolf Hitler in greatness).

This is a revelation for some. Ludwig Von Mises wrote about Nazism and communism as two forms of the same socialist tyranny for a long time. He analyzed "two patterns for the realization of socialism" when he wrote: The first pattern (we may call it the Lenin or the Russian pattern) is purely bureaucratic. All plants, shops and farms are formally nationalized (verstaatlicht); they are departments of the government operated by civil servants. Every unit of the apparatus of production stands in the same relation to the superior central organization, as does a local post office to the office of the postmaster general. The second pattern (we may call it the Hindenburg or German pattern) nominally and seemingly preserves private ownership of markets, prices, wages, and interest rates. There are, however, no longer entrepreneurs, but only shop managers (Betriebsfuhrer in the terminology of the Nazi legislation).

Both systems, as Von Mises pointed out, were inevitably doomed to result in "barbarism," as they promptly did.

The film features interviews with western and Russian historians such as Norman Davies and George Watson from Cambridge, Boris Sokolov, Russian writer Viktor Suvorov, Soviet dissident Vladimir Bukovsky, members of the European Parliament and the participants, as well as the victims of Soviet and Nazi terror.

Eminent British literary historian George Watson proved in his research that Karl Marx is "the ancestor of the modern political genocide." Marx used the term "racial trash" (Völkerabfälle) in relation to a number of some European ethnicities who were left behind by economic progress and should be "disposed of."

As former Soviet dissident (now a dissident again under the Putin regime) Vladimir Bukovsky explains: "When Communists come to power, it does not matter where, let it be in Russia, in Poland, in Cuba, in Nicaragua, in China, initially they destroy about ten percent of the population" in order to restructure the fabric of society. Then the "real work" begins with destruction of the designated target groups: priests, peasants, intellectuals, entrepreneurs, certain ethnicities – Ukrainians, Chechens, Jews, Crimean Tatars and others.

The making of the film is timely as the FSB/KGB regime in Russia increasingly embraces its Stalinist roots. Joe Bendel of The Epoch Times, mentioned that producer Edvīns Šnore was burned in effigy by Neo-Soviet Russians for his in-depth survey of Soviet crimes against humanity: It is an ominous badge of honor. This film that you are not supposed to see in Putin's Russia tells us how the ultimate government inevitably becomes the ultimate evil.

A couple of reviewers here tried to trash The Soviet Story as a propaganda movie. It is not. It is a very angry, but accurate film. Some footage, however, is somewhat repetitive. I can see why. Unlike their Nazi colleagues, Soviet mass murderers were trying to conceal their crimes and did not leave us many pictures or film about their crimes. Even officers in the Soviet Army were not permitted to own a camera. They could be shot as "spies" just for having one. Nazis, on the contrary, were proud of their crimes and left us with a lot of pictures and footage of their victims.

I do not care how accurate is the episode with a wheel barrow cited in one of negative reviews. If Soviets murdered 40-60 million people of all nationalities wouldn't they occasionally toss some corpses from a train car? It is believable to me.

I agree with reviewers that Mr. Šnore does not like the USSR and current Russian rulers. Should he? There is an ongoing hysterical campaign orchestrated from Kremlin against him, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Poland and "historical revisionism" i.e. exposure of socialist criminal regimes.

The Soviet Story is a must see for any friend of liberty. You can either watch The Soviet Story for free on YouTube or order a DVD from www.sovietstory.com.

Great Movie! Explores the close ideological similarities between Nazism and Stalinism

[virtualriga · 10/10 · 13 August 2009]

For his in-depth survey of Soviet crimes against humanity, including Soviet cooperation with the Third Reich, Latvian director Edvins Snore was burned in effigy by Neo-Soviet Russians. It is an ominous badge of honor.

Soviet Story acts as an effective corrective to the popular notion that the Communist experiment only turned horrific when Stalin ascended to power. The film documents orders mandating mass executions, estimated in the tens of millions, originating with the father of the revolution, Lenin. Still, it is devilishly difficult to outdo Stalin's sheer capacity for terror. For instance, the deliberate use of famine to pacify Ukraine is explained here in chilling detail. In a crime against humanity largely ignored by the West, seven million Ukrainians were intentionally starved in the cordoned Republic, as foodstuffs were confiscated at gunpoint by the Red Army.

The heart of Soviet Story explores the close ideological similarities and barbaric collusion between the Soviet Socialists of Stalin and the National Socialists of Hitler. There is an eerie sequence juxtaposing thematically similar propaganda posters from both regimes, side-by-side on-screen. Even more damning are the documents Snore uncovers establishing close links between the SS and the Soviet NKVD (the precursor to the KGB), discussing among other issues, the "Jewish Question." They did not just talk—they carved up Poland between themselves, and at Stalin's prompting, staked their claims to the rest of Europe.

Soviet Story is most devastating when discussing the ways in which the more advanced Soviet killing machine served as the inspiration and model for the Holocaust. According former Soviet intelligence officer Viktor Suvorov: "A delegation of German Gestapo and SS came to the Soviet Union to learn how to build concentration camps." Snore has produced a chilling indictment of the Soviet experience with socialism. He calls some very convincing witnesses, including Bukovsky, and the eloquent Cambridge historians Norman Davies and George Watson. As evidence, he produces some shocking archival film and documents. However, as the film makes clear, none of those who did (and still do) the Soviet dirty work has ever faced justice for their crimes. All told, Snore has produced a passionate but thoroughly reasoned case against the Soviet regime.

How was it ever possible?

[smorg99 · 10/10 · 2 January 2010]

The Soviet Story is a very important contribution for understanding a series of questions about leftism and Marxism outcomes. But other questions remain. First, _how_ is it possible at all that so many young people, as well as oldies, are still impressed by such ideologies? _How_ could it ever be possible that a historian such as Hobsbawn considers himself a communist socialist today, having declared not long ago that if it was not for being a Jew, in the 30s could very well have enthusiastically joined Nazism? With a huge lot of information and discussion nowadays freely available?

Many good comments on the documentary have already been made. But the main question that remains after it is: _how_ came that a Marxist "theory", that started copying the condolent humanitarians in the XIX century, defending egalitarianism ... terminated by practicing the most cruel and extensive genocides of the whole History of mankind?

Unfortunately, the answers to these questions are not short, and not without some work. And perhaps not bound to be contained in movie documentaries, however well performed as is this one. Only through some reading can we begin to see the answers, in analyses made clear along the last century by people such as Isaiah Berlin (as in 'Against the Current') and Karl Popper (as in 'The Open Society and It's Enemies'). Do enjoy them piecemeal.

could've been better, but it WAS an Evil Empire, actually

[ej-43 · 7/10 · 4 December 2009]

The Soviets and the Chinese Communists killed about 100 million of their own peoples. There is not the slightest historical doubt about this. The fact that some imbecile here says this is propaganda and "why bother" since the USSR disintegrated 20 years ago merely amplifies one of the film's points -- that the history is being whitewashed. We continue to hear, almost daily, about Hitler this, Hitler that, Hitler the other thing ... and he was a freakin' pantywaist compared to the Soviets and Chicoms. It matters, particularly since the so-called intellectual left in the West was complicit, starting with Walter Duranty and his phony reporting for the NYT. It's a reminder that today's fathead libs don't want. I am also quite down on the GOP, so don't lump me with them. I am a libertarian, actually, and find nothing to respect in either major political party in the U.S. today. However, it's the left that bears the greatest complicity in the murder of millions, by providing cover for the killers. Screw 'em.

Quality documentary

[chilla-black · 8/10 · 16 March 2010]

the narration by a guy called Jon Strickland is excellent. It is one of the best narratives I have heard in a documentary of any kind. Poignant, direct and unbiased. The script is well put together and in many cases resembles a lecture or essay in its form, breaking down areas into sub texts and making comparisons between far left and far right socialism. The documentary does not really sum up or offer a conclusion but as a piece of academic research, the Director has clearly put the work in to make this as accurate as possible. The DVD also contains a statement from the guy, which adds to the authenticity. Pros: well researched and a clear argument. Cons: not enough focus on key points such as the post 1917 with Lenin and the assassination of Trotsky. More recent times including the break up of the USSR in 1991 are also loosely covered. However as a documentary surrounding the 1930's and WWII years, this is as good as any of The World at War programmes.

Propaganda movie

[kovackornelije · 21 June 2018]

It was so-so until I saw that mass murderer, Javier Solana somewhere at 53rd minute. Than I was sure it was new age nazi propaganda movie.

we were the main beneficiaries

[hughjones100 · 7/10 · 22 October 2013]

The horror was inexcusable but there is no mention of our own benefit from this horror. All the World, or at least the elites controlling all nations, were opposing the Soviets. Thirteen nations invaded to help the White Russians put down the Communist revolt. From the beginning Stalin knew well that Germany wanted a resource rich empire and that the Colonial powers had always thwarted any effort to compete with them in Africa and Asia, so they needed to go east. Stalin also had the Japanese threatening on his eastern border where they had been fighting since the Battle of Tsushima. He was desperate to industrialize and build a modern army but the rest of the World wouldn't help a communist country and refused all trade. It was only through confiscating the grain for sale on the international market that he managed to buy enough modern tools to start industry. Thinking the Japanese the lesser threat he built much of that industry in the East. In May of 1939 he attacked the Japanese and defeated them in what was the largest tank battle up to that time. Having started from a feudal society this was an amazing accomplishment. Without this attack by Stalin, well ahead of war in Europe, the army would have won the argument in Japan and joined Germany and Italy in attacking Russia from all sides. Instead the Navy won the argument and the Japanese went south. In August he signed the pact with Germany stalling off their attack and pushing his western boundary west to the centre of Poland. He may also have sent some resources to Germany, as depicted, again to stave off the attack he clearly knew was inevitable. Once Germany attacked the Russians fought back as best they could. They were the proletariat with no hundred year old military colleges so their command and control was the worst possible against German officers with a hundred year tradition behind them. They built more tanks and more planes in every month of the war than did the Germans but the planes especially were no match for the Messhersmits. It was a victory if a Russian plane could kill one German tank before it was shot down. In the largest tank battle ever fought at Kursk 100,000 Germans were killed or wounded vs. 850,000 Russians. They fought poorly, but if they hadn't been tying up the bulk of the German army, Britain would certainly have fallen and the Third Reich would be with us still. I repeat we are the major beneficiaries of Stalin's stealing of the grain, the nerve to attack the Japanese and the resolve to sacrifice any number of his 'comrades' fighting the Germans.

Pure Propaganda

[andrewmcdonald-05451 · 1/10 · 28 July 2018]

Never have I seen anything quite so stupid and puerile. It is complete propaganda, most of it so far-fetched as to be completely lacking in credibility to anyone with a modicum of knowledge of Soviet history. Complete rubbish.

Movie is an excellent sobriety of the socialists

[vsegda-559-824052 · 9/10 · 26 June 2021]

As I see some reviewers rated the movie as "poor" with different agendas. Explanation? - Emotional reaction to disclosure of the disinformation narrative. And i see it often even in 21 cent. No socialist ever meant something good, it's a pity they have a voice now and are lying to people once more. The movie depicts what happened during 1917-1991. Even them themselves hatted the regime that day USSR crushed and proved the atrocities that regime done to most of the people.

Some of those socialists on comment say that movie should be taken with a grain of salt. May be, But they forget to add that situation might has been much worse, then we know. As USSR killed and destroyed everything that could prove their crimes and what IS told here is what HAS been already proven, thigh we know - it is not everything yet and we will find more crimes,

For me personally the greatest crime was to ignore the suffering of people, leaving Ukrainians to the enemy alone, pretending nothing happened. And we yet have very little desire to openly discuss what was done by the world, turning a blind eye as much as later with concentration camps, It should be revealed and publicly shamed - to prevent any such crimes to be possible in the world.

Not for the squeamish

[clanciai · 9/10 · 5 March 2022]

This is a sledge-hammer documentary that even the most partial viewers would find difficult and hard to digest - many simply cannot or refuse to endure it, the stuff being too heavy. It is important to observe, that the film is Latvian, it is written and directed by a Latvian, and Latvia has a special trauma from the Soviet days, having suffered more from the Soviet ethnic cleansing after the war than both Estonia and Lithuania, large parts of the population being simply abducted to Siberia and concentration camps in other remote parts of the union with no possibility of any return, since most of them died, like people usually do in concentration camps. These Soviet crimes against innocent Latvian people, the Russians have never been brought to account for, in contrast to the Nazis for their crimes, which is one of the major points of the film. Latvia was not alone. The Soviets did the same although on a lesser scale in Estonia and Lithuania and in most east European countries under Russian occupation and above all in Ukraine, where in a single year seven million were intentionally starved to death. Already Lenin started persecutions in Ukraine, but Stalin expanded them into a holocaust from fear of losing Ukraine, and he saw a major reduction of the population as a means of reducing that danger. Edvins Snore, who made the film, points out the fact, which few have been aware of, that already Karl Marx in 1849 professed it as a necessity that all parasites of society and lower races (like Basques and Scottish highlanders) should be cleansed out of humanity to provide room for abler people, an inhuman philosophy that even Bernard Shaw as a socialist advocated and which turned into a trademark for all kinds of socialism, Russian Bolsheviks first of all and later Nazis. The documentary actually shows how Bolsheviks and Nazis learned from each other and instructed each other, Stalin and Hitler collaberated closely all the way up to 1941, Stalin using the Ukrainian harvests for export abroad to let the Ukrainians starve, and Nazis showing Stalin how to organize death camps. There is a grotesque irony in the film, showing Bolsheviks and Nazis partying and toasting each other in one scene to in the next show the harvest of corpses of starvation in Ukraine - the film is full of such horrible social penetrations into the dictatorial system. The film is vital for its message of telling inconvenient truths that so far haven't been generally known and can be seen as actually a resounding cry for retribution for all those millions unknown and buried alive who were intentionally sacrificed to suit the inhuman long term strategy of this ideology and its dictatorships.

Neo-fascist revisionism.

[Zvesda · 1/10 · 27 January 2010]

Supported by a fringe, neo-fascist faction of the European Parliament, which includes pro-Nazi glorifiers, xenophobes, and anti-Semites of the Fatherland and Freedom (Latvia), Lega Nord (Italy), and the Law and Justice Party (Poland), this propaganda piece with lies and innuendo seeks to generate hatred towards Russia and blacken the image of progressive forces throughout the world.

There is nothing new with the approach of this film. Desperate attempts to blacken the Russian Government and equate it to Nazi Germany is part of the old Cold War propaganda struggle waged by the United States Government and neo-fascist organizations like the John Birch Society. This is ironic given the fact that this film has received the enthusiastic support of the crypto-Nazis of Latvia's For Fatherland and Freedom party. Especially disturbing about the revisionism of this film is the denial of the Holocaust by seeking to shift blame from the actual criminals to Russia.

To start, this piece of pseudo-history does not include contributions from any respected, qualified scholars specializing in Russian history or political science from institutions of higher education. One contributor to the film, George Watson, fabricates and misinterprets quotations from Marx and Engels. Watson, it should be noted, is not a professor of history, political science, or any field relating to the film's subject. And while this film presents itself to be some kind of groundbreaking investigation of Russian history, it is curious how not a professor of history from Russia is found in this film. Rather, the documentary features a freak show composed of degenerates from radical right-wing parties, such as Kristovskis of the the aforementioned For Fatherland and Freedom party of Lavia.

Concerning the invented quotations of Marx and Engels, it is claimed in this film that Engels called Slavs "dirty" and opposed the existence of Poland. But this is a a falsification of history because Marx and Engels had long been some of the most passionate supporters of Polish independence, particularly the 1863 uprising. The film makes the outrageous claim that Marx and Engels called for a "revolutionary holocaust" against specific peoples. But Engels did not call for the destruction of what he called counter-revolutionary nations, but only predicted that such people would experience setbacks as they struggled with the progressive nations. In 1890, Engels would write positively on these backwards nations, believing in their right to self-determination: "Magyars, Romanians, Serbs, Bulgars, Albanians, Greeks, and Turks will then finally be in a position to...manage their own internal affairs according to their own judgment." It should be noted, however, that Marxism is not some kind of immutable dogma; Marx and Engels regularly revised their work and acknowledged their errors and mistakes that they previously made.

The film makes the spurious claim that a famine throughout Russia and elsewhere in the Soviet Union constituted a genocide against Ukraine that killed 7 million. But as scholars have noted, the famine was in no way limited to the Ukraine, but affected much of the country. To talk about a "Ukrainian Golodomor" is a misrepresentation of history. Contrary to what the film and its sources claim, the death toll was nowhere near 7 million. Professor Wheatcroft, for example, estimated that the death toll amounted to an estimated 4 to 5 million throughout the USSR, including 1.5 million in Ukraine. And as Tauger proves in his research, the famine to a large extent resulted from natural disasters. In particular, Extremely dry weather had the effect of reducing crops while extremely wet and humid weather later on led to infestations. And rather than desiring the famine, the Soviet Government took measures to provide relief to those areas affected by the famine.

Other monstrously false claims made in this film include the lies that Russia refused to enter into an anti-fascist alliance with the Western Powers, Gestapo staff trained the NKVD, Russia's extradition of Jews to the Gestapo, and Russia's involvement in the extermination of Jews, which I do not have the space to go into detail about.

Rather than wasting your time with this pathetic excuse for a propaganda film, a better choice would be to go to college and study the work of respected scholars to learn the truth.

Don't be tricked by this film.

[chheidze · 1/10 · 30 November 2009]

Complete Propaganda! I agree that film is made by quite artful and smart men, but definitely not very moral one's. Not many people know about nowadays harassment of Russians and Russian history by Latvian authorities. Exactly Latvia is the place where the film came from. This film selectively shows you a little pieces and parts from it's own deliberated angle. They ask an opinion of a few odd people and we get a conclusion that USSR was and Russia is a hostile country, a huge history is packed in a small reel and thoughtful director carefully shifting our attention to present days, so we could see this "fascist country" (few Nazi are shown in 140 million people country) and certainly we'll conceive this fake attitude. But one can't judge about something if he hasn't seen the whole scene yet. I appeal to people - be objective, use some more source's about Russian history. Avoid a superficial knowledge, don't make hasty conclusions, be candid, don't let someone think for yourself!

Sensationalised, unbalanced, lacking in objectivity and low budget.

[harryduns · 2/10 · 6 September 2016]

I am very interested in Soviet history and was looking forward to checking this out but sadly I couldn't take any more and switched off after about 20 minutes. Whilst some of the factual content was interesting and made me go back and re-examine other sources regarding the Soviet famine, the documentary's style is unwatchably sensationalist. The narrator's voiceovers are laden with faux-gravitas and incredibly pejorative language. He nearly spits the word 'communist' like he's leading a McCarthy-era US commie witch hunt.

The interviews are very one-sided and strangely seem to have been conducted in the 1980s; why, given this was made in 2008, did they not interview current experts in the field instead of digging out old footage of historians from 30 years ago? What it lacks in evidence it tries to make up for by bombarding you with explosive sounds and graphics, which becomes very old very quickly.

The overall quality of the documentary is about the level and style you'd expect from one of those shows constantly rerun of the History channel. I guess I've been spoiled by the high quality and measured tone of BBC historical documentaries, but this just feels tacky and lacking in objectivity to me. I'm really surprised by the number of glowing reviews this has received on here.

Why is it called 'The Soviet Story'?

[neilvokey · 1/10 · 21 November 2010]

Waiting for this film to end was painful, but I felt I needed to in order to prove my point. The film is titled 'The Soviet Story' when the entire argument is shaped around the totalitarian regime of Stalin. Instead of merely stating the factual evidence behind the atrocities in Stalinist Russia, 'The Soviet Story' tries to tie in his dictatorship with Communist ideology in its entirety, and even demonize the modern Russian state. Clearly the director had little sense of his story's antagonist.

Using written quotes from Marx and Lenin, the audience learns in 'The Soviet Story' about the Marxist belief that violence and death will occur in revolutionary uprisings, sweeping away masses of people as part of the process. While the film tried to make these ideas sound ghastly, one only has to turn to the modern western democracy to find its roots in the bloody French Revolution. Weren't entire sects of a society wiped out in that instance? Revolutionary tactics are not exclusive to Communism.

The film goes on to say with a negative tone that the Soviet state was content to wipe out entire nations to further the progress of it's superior nation. However this is implying that imperialism is also unique only to Soviet Russia. Did the European colonial powers not exploit and exterminate native nations around the world for hundreds of years? Once again, the totalitarian regime of Stalin and his predecessors did not commit their heinous crimes in the name of socialism, but rather, in the name of power.

While 'The Soviet Story' is a great example of government manipulation, political oppression, and megalomaniacs, it does not justify it's own doomed thesis that the entire Soviet State was founded on oppression. The short scene on fate of Trotsky (who was a Leninist) is enough to prove it was Stalin, not Lenin who was the true villain. I have only taken a high school history class, yet I have learned that Lenin was strongly opposed to Stalin being his predecessor.

The Soviet Story fails at being informative because it's first and foremost propaganda.

[khanbaliq2 · 1/10 · 1 November 2018]

There was a bit of fuss about this film so I watched it (it's not easy to find though). It can't be taken seriously because it's obviously propaganda. The film's poster alone should tell you that; the statue of the worker and the peasant on top of a pile of human corpses. I've seen similar anti-Soviet documentaries before. The film includes a creepy narration, huge red titles, constant footage of corpses, and it's full of errors. If you already have a good knowledge of the Soviet regime and of the two World Wars then you won't find much that's new in The Soviet Story. This film just turns up the heat on what's been said before, and the way it does this is by showing gruesome footage backed by an effective musical score. Is it an objective film? No. Any good documentary should be. This film's intent is to just be anti-Soviet. It's because of this that The Soviet Story won't be taken seriously by viewers in the future. The best documentary about the Second World War is called The World At War (1973). The World At War does not demonize the Nazi regime but provides an objective look at it's failures, evils and even triumphs (which mostly happened in war). It shows what caused those evils. The Russians are shown in a positive way, as they should be because Hitler was broken in Russia, and the Soviet Union suffered 19 million civilian deaths. No one can argue with that. None of this information is included in The Soviet Story. One of this film's strongest points is that Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union were allies before 1941. Not true. They did have a pact, but Stalin approved it only because he wanted the USSR to stay out of the war at that time. It's well known that Stalin's purges caused the deaths of many people. Perhaps as many as 1.2 million. The Soviet Story makes a case that this spread to Soviet occupied lands. That's mostly true, but there were hardly any such murders in the Baltic states. Another thing that puzzles me is why the film is called The Soviet Story. The Soviet Union lasted until 1991, and yet what's shown in the film happened before 1950. Shouldn't it be called something like The Evils Of Stalin's Regime? There were no famines or purges after Stalin's death in the Soviet Union. What about the Cold War and the Space Race?

I read that several members of the European Parliament (all from Eastern Europe) gave this film positive reviews. And yet there are others like Tatjana Zdanoka (Latvian MEP) and historian Alexander Dyukov who said that the film has errors and that it's a propagandistic odd job, which is given out to be "a new word in history". Dyukov alleges inconsistencies in the film and questions the credibility of some of the film sequences and conclusions of some of the Russian and Western historians interviewed in the film. Latvian political scientist and cultural commentator Ivars Ijabs offers a mixed review of The Soviet Story. On one hand, it is a well-made and "effective piece of cinematic propaganda in the good sense of this word", whose message is clearly presented to the audience. On the other hand, Ijabs does not agree with a number of historical interpretations in the film, asserting that it contains errors.

Edvins Snore, the director, should really be ashamed of his film. He included scenes which weren't even about what was said. There was a scene where officers are drinking and giving a toast. The film claims this as proof of Nazi-Soviet collaboration. In fact, there were no Russians present at that meeting. Another example is a scene where Russian war dead were shown from World War I. The film instead claims that these were Ukrainian dead from the 1932 famine. I know this because this same scene was shown in the acclaimed British documentary series The Great War (1964). And these are just the scenes that I know of. There are definitely more of these. A news story about the film informed me that pictures taken at Nazi concentration camps were presented as pictures taken at Soviet labour camps in the film, and that a Latvian pro-Nazi parade was said to be a Soviet parade. A fake picture made by Nazi followers was presented as proof of Nazi-Soviet collaboration, in it Heinrich Himmler is shown touring Soviet labour camps and "learning" from the Soviets. Can a movie that has so many errors (some even intentional) be taken seriously? Of course not. And what's more disturbing is that Snore at the end uses his film to take a stab at the second president of the Russian Federation, Vladimir Putin. How does a Russian president fit in a film about the Soviet Union? No wonder The Soviet Story wasn't released on home video. No one would buy this historically inaccurate horror flick.

I guess the question is why was The Soviet Story released? The answer is to spread anti-Soviet and anti-Russian sentiment. The Soviet Union disintegrated two decades ago, so what is the point of a film that strongly criticizes a regime that hasn't existed for a generation already? The answer is, yet again, politics. Latvia (the country where the film was made) and other former Soviet satellites are afraid of Russian domination. Even with the fall of communism the situation in those countries hasn't improved much, and in some cases deteriorated. The current government blames Russia, even though Russia isn't involved in those countries' internal affairs. The Soviet Story is a badly made film, but those with anti-Russian feelings are going to eat it up. I don't recommend it because The Soviet Story is in parts untrue and in all parts extreme. To say that the far right is just like the far left is a major mistake. Those looking for trustworthy information should find something else (preferrably a history book).

An awful film.

[khanbaliq2 · 1/10 · 30 April 2012]

From the disturbed mind of Latvian director Edvins Snore comes an evil masterpiece titled The Soviet Story. It's so bad that it has to be seen to be believed. It's filled with lies, lies and more lies. The poster alone should tell you that it's purely propaganda; the statue of the worker and the peasant on top of a pile of human corpses. The film includes a creepy narration, huge red titles, and constant footage of corpses. The Soviet Story won't be taken seriously by viewers in the future. The best Western documentary about the Second World War is titled The World At War (1973). The World At War has faults, and one can say that it's also anti-Russian. But at least it tries to provide a somewhat objective look at what happened during that war. Adolf Hitler was broken in Russia, and the Soviet Union suffered 19 million civilian deaths. This sort of information surely isn't mentioned in The Soviet Story. Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union did have a non-aggression pact due to convenience, but Joseph Stalin approved it only because he wanted Russia to stay out of the war at that time. Stalin knew what the British and the French were plotting, and he had good reasons to distrust the imperialists. In addition to this Stalin's critics exaggerate the number of victims of his regime to numbers beyond belief. This tells me one thing; they don't care about the dead. The several million deaths resulting from state policies are attributed to political repression and rapid industrialization. The Soviet Union lasted until 1991, and what's shown in this inaccurate horror flick supposedly happened before 1950. I wonder what results Snore would have had if he instead channeled his criticism towards Nazism and Fascism, European imperialists, or the slavery and landgrabs of the Americans. There's also the matter of Western financiers and monopolists against whom Stalin had to fight. I'm not going to go into this matter, but I will mention that they brought Hitler to power and they seriously opposed the Soviet Union ever since Stalin abandoned the project of world revolution.

Reliable critics and historians already heavily criticized The Soviet Story. One of Snore's tactics is using footage of the dead and claiming that these were the victims of Communism. Can someone sink any lower? The supposed dead from the famine of 1932 here are in fact Russian and German dead from World War I. How do I know this? It's because I've seen the same footage in the acclaimed 1964 documentary series The Great War. But this doesn't bother a man like Snore. He just throws anything that he can find into the blender and hopes for an effective result. So what you get is pictures taken at Nazi concentration camps presented as pictures taken at Soviet labour camps. It's really disturbing how much false footage is used in this film. He claims that his countrymen were brutally oppressed by the Russians. Well, there was some oppression during the Stalin period, but it certainly wasn't like what Snore imagines. Snore somehow didn't mention that his countrymen joined the Wehrmacht and the SS during the war, and then hunted down and killed thousands of Jews and Socialists. Some even participated in the slaughter of civilians in Russia. At the end of the film Snore takes a stab at the second president of the Russian Federation, Vladimir Putin. Now we get to see why this film was actually released. It was released by a Russophobe to spread anti-Russian sentiment. The dissolution of the Soviet Union took place 20 years ago, and life got worse in the countries which were part of it. The Soviet government is no more, but history continues. Russia was hit hard by the economic problems caused by Capitalism and the West. But countries like Latvia fared little better. Populations in former Soviet republics have been decreasing ever since. The current Western-backed regimes of the Baltic states want to hide what really happened and instead blame and lie about Russia. Deranged people like Edvins Snore are going to praise this awful film. These poor souls need emotional healing. Those who want reliable information should find something else, preferably a good history book.

Utter drivel

[gb-76038 · 1/10 · 23 August 2017]

filled with historical inaccuracies and falsehoods this film is not a documentary it is fiction with a few facts thrown in. It is a clear work of propaganda funded by the EU. It makes out that the Russians hated the Jews and ignores the fundamental differences between the Nazi's and soviets, for starters how the soviet backed communists where regularly attacked and killed in Germany by the Nazi's.

Propaganda

[Nikitn · 1/10 · 5 August 2010]

Well.. Some documentaries are biased others are not. There is no doubt that the Soviets behaved badly in Germany, albeit they were extremely merciful, if you consider the "you reap what you sow" word of wisdom.

Basically, what this documentary does is exaggerating and making claims (like the casualty figures, completely unsourced and without substance). In truth ~ 10 million people (and only 8 million "proven") died due to Stalin's rule. Vast majority (85%+) were due to starvations, which can not solely be attributed to the massive taxation and incompetence, but also to self-destroying actions by the Kulaks (burning their crops, slaughtering farm animals) as well as droughts.

I'm giving it a 1 because some of the interviews were legit, but it does not show the grand picture but instead tries to distort it.

Final point: Stalin was an average, human-less dictator. He just happened to rule a very big country. Though in the end, it could be argued that his brutality united the country, and him treating people as a resource, created enough industrial power to defeat Nazi Germany.

Interesting film in that it did cover the Soviet genocide of its own Russian people

[Viktoria_Shvareva · 5/10 · 17 June 2020]

I found it a very interesting film in that it did cover the Soviet genocide of its own Russian people, a subject few films really go into. It is estimated that around 65 million Russians were killed by their own Soviet government as cheap slave labor in the Gulag camps. I appreciated the research that went into this film.