Thread: Russia acts against Western falsification of history

BBC NEWS | Europe | Russia acts against 'false' history

President Dmitry Medvedev recently announced the setting up of a commission to counter the falsification of history. He said this was becoming increasingly "severe, evil, and aggressive".

"This is absolute poppycock," says Robert Service, professor of Russian History at Oxford University. "History is all about argument. There is no absolute historical truth about anything big in history."

Many Russians, though, agree with their president.

Natalia Narochnitskaya, a former deputy in the Russian parliament and now a member of the new Historical Truth Commission, says that she is surprised by what she terms the "almost hysterical reaction" in the West."
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is there such thing as "historical truth" or is it all down to propaganda?

Originally Posted by Alma

BBC NEWS | Europe | Russia acts against 'false' history

President Dmitry Medvedev recently announced the setting up of a commission to counter the falsification of history. He said this was becoming increasingly "severe, evil, and aggressive".

"This is absolute poppycock," says Robert Service, professor of Russian History at Oxford University. "History is all about argument. There is no absolute historical truth about anything big in history."

Many Russians, though, agree with their president.

Natalia Narochnitskaya, a former deputy in the Russian parliament and now a member of the new Historical Truth Commission, says that she is surprised by what she terms the "almost hysterical reaction" in the West."
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is there such thing as "historical truth" or is it all down to propaganda?

While I agree that history is much more subjective, than what people want to admit, reading some of the details of the article it seems they don't want to admit their past actions.

For example:

This is what appears to anger today's Russian historical establishment: accounts of Red Army crimes on the march to Berlin; assertions by the Baltic countries and others in Eastern Europe that Soviet forces came as occupiers as much as liberators;

If they can't be honest with this, then why should we listen to them about the rest of it? If they were not occupiers why did they control all the "liberated countries"? If not occupiers why did they build the Berlin Wall? If they were liberators they would have let th countries govern themselves. They would have had a point if they had only occupied Germany, as they were the offending country, and not all of Eastern Europe.

Originally Posted by Alma

Is there such thing as "historical truth" or is it all down to propaganda?

There is truth in the sense of "X did happen". However, where the grey starts to enter the picture is when people try to say "X happened because....". Still, I wouldn't call that propaganda.

Originally Posted by fishjoel

While I agree that history is much more subjective, than what people want to admit, reading some of the details of the article it seems they don't want to admit their past actions.

For example:



If they can't be honest with this, then why should we listen to them about the rest of it? If they were not occupiers why did they control all the "liberated countries"? If not occupiers why did they build the Berlin Wall? If they were liberators they would have let th countries govern themselves. They would have had a point if they had only occupied Germany, as they were the offending country, and not all of Eastern Europe.

1. The article was written by BBC. On how many occasions (we are not talking about Russian theme here) have you heard that BBC is Biased Bullshit Corporation, British Bullshit Corporation, or Bollocks and Bullshit Corporation?

2. Going with the above, what makes you think BBC is truthful when it reports on Russia?

3. If as you say "history is much more subjective, than what people want to admit", how can you be sure that what you were told about accounts of Red Army crimes on the march to Berlin; assertions by the Baltic countries and others in Eastern Europe that Soviet forces came as occupiers as much as liberators, is factually true and not subjective?

Originally Posted by Alma

3. If as you say "history is much more subjective, than what people want to admit", how can you be sure that what you were told about accounts of Red Army crimes on the march to Berlin; assertions by the Baltic countries and others in Eastern Europe that Soviet forces came as occupiers as much as liberators, is factually true and not subjective?

First hand accounts and documented evidence?

Originally Posted by Alma

3. If as you say "history is much more subjective, than what people want to admit", how can you be sure that what you were told about accounts of Red Army crimes on the march to Berlin; assertions by the Baltic countries and others in Eastern Europe that Soviet forces came as occupiers as much as liberators, is factually true and not subjective?

Well, since they didn't leave and controlled everything in Eastern Europe, you tell me? Why did a wall have to be built? Why were people stopped from trying to leave? I liberator with leave these liberties to the people.

Originally Posted by fishjoel

1. If they were not occupiers why did they control all the "liberated countries"?

2. If not occupiers why did they build the Berlin Wall?

3. If they were liberators they would have let th countries govern themselves.

4. They would have had a point if they had only occupied Germany, as they were the offending country, and not all of Eastern Europe.

1. Fact: the decision to divide the world onto the spheres of influence was taken jointly by the USSR (not Russia!!!), Britain and the US during the Yalta conference.

2. The East German government (not the USSR, and not Russia) made a decision and built the Berlin Wall following the tensions with the West German government which were a result of willy waving on the part of the US, the USSR (not Russia!!!) and Britain.

3. The Eastern block countries were as free to govern themselves as their counterparts from the Western block. For example, true to Yalta agreement, the USSR (not Russia!!!) did not interfere and allowed Britain and the US in collusion with the pro-fascist forces to stop free elections in Greece and effectively start a civil war there in order to put in place Greek government allied to the US and Britain.

1. You can read the agreement.

2. Hallstein Doctrine:
Hallstein Doctrine

The Berlin Ultimatum:
Reinventing Germany: German ... - Google Books

3. Unless you have facts to support that Eastern block countries were governed by the Soviet (or Russian) officials...
Mind you we are not talking of local puppets, since such puppets were in all the countries of the divided world, just the puppeteers were different...

Originally Posted by ThorHammer

First hand accounts and documented evidence?

First hand accounts are VERY subjective. Documents, yes. Not their "explanations".

Were are they, the documents, all of them, not just the ones that suit the agenda?

OOOOOH.... You mean the way we in the West have falsified the origins of Moscowy the last 500 years? Was it that what you meant Medvedev? Damn Muppet.

Originally Posted by Muthsera

You mean the way we in the West have falsified the origins of Moscowy the last 500 years?

Did you?