Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Russia sets up commission to prevent falsification of history

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Russia sets up commission to prevent falsification of history

    http://en.rian.ru/russia/20090519/155041940.html

    MOSCOW, May 19 (RIA Novosti) - Russian President Dmitry Medvedev has ordered the establishment of a special commission to counter attempts to falsify history to the detriment of Russia's interests, the Kremlin said on Tuesday.

    The commission will be led by the presidential administration chief of staff, Sergei Naryshkin.

    The president has repeatedly criticized attempts of foreign states to falsify history, in particular post-Soviet countries' positions on World War II and the Stalinist repression.

  • #2
    Seems the Soviet Union is still very much alive (or revived).

    Comment


    • #3
      Where do I apply?
      “For there is nothing more serious than a lunatic when he comes to the central point of his lunacy.”

      Max Sterner

      Comment


      • #4
        Erkki, do you want me to send you my contact details so you can make arrangements with the goon squad? Or will you track them through my IP number?

        To make matters easy for your commission I'll just restate some of my "false" positions so that you don't have to dig up any posts:

        1. Stalin sucked and killed a lot of innocent people. He also allied with Hitler to start WWII. And no, Chamberlain did not make him do it.

        2. Occupation sucked and a lot of innocent people got killed, many got raped too, and that when Stalin was still Hitler's ally. It didn't get better then they quarreled.

        3. Liberation means setting free, not occupation. BTW this view is shared by most of the world's nations and forms the basis of our diplomatic relations. This view is further confirmed by ECHR, of which member Russia is.

        [Bonus incriminating evidence: Some of the supposed medals for heroism issued during the war (even the highest classes) weren't given for heroism at all, but were issued for political reasons for non-existent or wildly exaggerated events]

        ---

        Seriously, the furious attempts to rewrite history and the nonsense made-up controversies is just dragging Russia into more and more isolated position. Just how obsessed can Putin be with history? If Russia wants to regain its power and influence it should try to start facing facts (finally opening up archives might help) and stop pretending Stalin's reign was something it wasn't.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by pp(est) View Post
          Erkki, do you want me to send you my contact details so you can make arrangements with the goon squad? Or will you track them through my IP number?
          Oh donīt worry, when we are done with the really "fat fish" you would have died by old age long ago

          To make matters easy for your commission I'll just restate some of my "false" positions so that you don't have to dig up any posts:

          1. Stalin sucked and killed a lot of innocent people. He also allied with Hitler to start WWII. And no, Chamberlain did not make him do it.
          It will only be "my" commision when I get my paycheck. Hovever I am still avaibel for hire

          2. Occupation sucked and a lot of innocent people got killed, many got raped too, and that when Stalin was still Hitler's ally. It didn't get better then they quarreled.
          Ocupactions still sucks

          3. Liberation means setting free, not occupation. BTW this view is shared by most of the world's nations and forms the basis of our diplomatic relations. This view is further confirmed by ECHR, of which member Russia is.
          Liberation is missused by more then the USSR and Russia

          [Bonus incriminating evidence: Some of the supposed medals for heroism issued during the war (even the highest classes) weren't given for heroism at all, but were issued for political reasons for non-existent or wildly exaggerated events]
          Nothing special there at all, happens all the time everywhere.



          Seriously, the furious attempts to rewrite history and the nonsense made-up controversies is just dragging Russia into more and more isolated position. Just how obsessed can Putin be with history? If Russia wants to regain its power and influence it should try to start facing facts (finally opening up archives might help) and stop pretending Stalin's reign was something it wasn't.
          "History is on our side, we will bury you"
          Nikita Kruchov

          Altough I feel for something more up to date

          "I can insure you that we wonīt bury you. There will be nothing left of you to bury..."
          “For there is nothing more serious than a lunatic when he comes to the central point of his lunacy.”

          Max Sterner

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Erkki View Post
            Oh donīt worry, when we are done with the really "fat fish" you would have died by old age long ago
            So who are these mysterious "fat fish"? Who are the heads of states denying Soviet victory? Which facts are being falsified?

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by pp(est) View Post
              So who are these mysterious "fat fish"? Who are the heads of states denying Soviet victory? Which facts are being falsified?
              Oh come on, donīt be so picky, it doesnīt have to be falsification, like say Souverov, there can be ignorance aswell as plain stupidity like those writting Swedish History books.
              It can also just be about selling pappers.
              Last edited by Erkki; 20 May 09, 12:10.
              “For there is nothing more serious than a lunatic when he comes to the central point of his lunacy.”

              Max Sterner

              Comment


              • #8
                Suvorov? Russia needs Medvedev to set-up a commission to fight him? Man, I always thought Suvorov as rather fringe and not to be taken seriously as a historian, I guess I was wrong. Maybe I should start reading his books? And which of Suvorov's principal claims does thecommission need to debunk?

                According to wikipedia the following are Suvorov's main claims
                1. Soviet Union was intrinsically unstable, as any other communist regime.
                It had to expand to survive. According to the permanent revolution theory the communist system must expand and occupy the entire world to survive.
                umm, not too controversial is it? As discussed in many of the other threads, due to the intrinsic inefficiency of command economy vs market economy, if the two exist side-by-side, the command economy must either heavily suppress its own population (who want the good life offered by market economy) or destroy the market economy.

                Is this what the commission is to debunk?

                2. Soviet Union made extensive preparations for the future war of aggression during 1920s and 30s.
                Another no-brainer. Sure Suvorov makes a lot of fantastic claims with regard to details and jumps to conclusions, but while there's lot to argue about the details, the basic premise is sound. Stalin did make extensive preparations for the war.

                3. Stalin escalated tensions in Europe by providing a combination of economic and military support to Hitler. (see Soviet-German relations before 1941). Stalin's plan and vision was that Hitler's predictability and his violent reactionary ideas made him a candidate to the role of "icebreaker" for the Communist revolution.
                I don't believe in too elaborate conspiracy theories. I'm sure Stalin wouldn't have mind using Hitler. If we look at point 1, Stalin's purpose would've been fulfilled also if Hitler established a command economies throughout the rest of Europe (which would've eventually suffered from similar economic inefficiency). Of course I don't think Stalin would've thought quite like that.

                In any case this is a fringe theory not supported (to my knowledge) by any respectable historian. Hardly something worth to convene a commission for.

                4. World War II was initiated by the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany which became allies after signing the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.
                quite correct

                5. Stalin planned to attack Nazi Germany from the rear in July 1941, only a few weeks after the date on which the Axis invasion of the Soviet Union took place.
                A bunch of speculation on details that cannot be known, unless of course there's something in the closed archives. Suvorov is quite unconvincing and yet again makes giant leaps to reach his conclusions.

                While there is a high likelihood that Stalin would've attacked Hitler eventually, I don't think it that likely it was in July 1941.

                Yet again this is a fringe viewpoint regarding a rather minor detail (given that it didn't happen). Why would you need a commission to debunk this?

                6. Hitler's intelligence identified USSR's preparations to attack Germany.
                Basically the same as point 5. Suvorov isn't too convincing and it is a controversy over a minor detail that doesn't change anything.

                BTW I admit to only reading a very limited amount of Suvorov. I don't like his exaggerations and sometimes huge leaps of logic.

                ----

                Somehow I doubt Medvedev was thinking about Suvorov then setting up the commission.

                And what's wrong with Swedish history books? Can you provide some false facts that are being perpetuated (and please let's talk important stuff, not some minor details, commissions like this don't get set up to discuss how many tanks were lost at Kursk) and need to be countered with such a high-level commission?

                ---

                As clarification - as a person very interested in military history I do actually find the number of tanks lost in Kursk an interesting question. I even find details such as what was a typical ammo load for an infantryman on this or that operation interesting. However, while interesting to me, these are nevertheless unimportant minor details in the grand scheme of things. This commission and the way its setting-up was arranged makes this a clear presidential level political move. These kinds of political moves are not made to settle details which I might find fascinating, but which does not interest the population at large.
                Last edited by pp(est); 20 May 09, 12:58.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Another idiotic initiative of the government. They should've realised it long ago it's much better to sponsor independent authors that share your point of view via various "independent" foundations.
                  www.histours.ru

                  Siege of Leningrad battlefield tour

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Ah I donīt consider Rezun worthy to discuss. But if you insist:
                    http://www.battlefield.ru/content/view/208/108/lang,en/

                    And what's wrong with Swedish history books? Can you provide some false facts that are being perpetuated (and please let's talk important stuff, not some minor details, commissions like this don't get set up to discuss how many tanks were lost at Kursk) and need to be countered with such a high-level commission?
                    Ignoring Kursk completely...
                    Using 5-6 pages to talk about the Holocaust and 2 lines about the 27 million dead civilians in the USSR.

                    I donīt remember to much... Didnīt care to much about that cursed book, wrote a approximetley 100 pages essay on the eastern front instead.

                    If I get a hold of a copy of it I can go through it properly
                    “For there is nothing more serious than a lunatic when he comes to the central point of his lunacy.”

                    Max Sterner

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Erkki View Post
                      Using 5-6 pages to talk about the Holocaust and 2 lines about the 27 million dead civilians in the USSR.
                      So you think this commision is going to fight the prominence of the Holocaust in the WWII curriculum's of basic education? Personally I think that the prominence of Holocaust is somewhat justified, the industrialized genocide is unique in world history. Lots of dead people in war isn't that unique. There's only so much that can be covered in basic education and the amount that can be dedicated to WWII is only going to get smaller as WWII fades further into history.

                      Oh, wikipedia gives the number of total USSR deaths at somewhere 23,1 of which military deaths are 10,7 (the discrepancy in numbers maybe that you count the Soviet occupied territories into the Soviet total). China seems to have had 16,2 million civilian casualties. Somehow I have a feeling that your history book didn't even have the 2 lines about China's casualties.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        You see a problem with the education donīt you?
                        “For there is nothing more serious than a lunatic when he comes to the central point of his lunacy.”

                        Max Sterner

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          I know Sweden is behind both of my countries when it comes to high school (there was a recent study on this). But Holocaust gets a more prominent treatment here too and I think there is good reason for it. While history was my favorite subject, it is not the only nor even the most important subject. We cannot and shouldn't expect high school curriculum to match the standards of history buffs (not even amateur history buffs).

                          However this commission is not about high schools and you've still to answer what falsehoods are promoted to such extent that it needs a presidential commission to deal with?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            An article in one of our dailies had some curious additions to this story:

                            - apparently the commission consists of only three historians who, according to Russian historian Roi Medvedev are not authorities. The commission is clearly a political body and not academic body, there isn't even a pretense of independence

                            - the commission includes some people in charge of the archives and the intent is to selectively release documents from the archives to prove the commissions positions. Unfortunately this will only undermine the already doubtful reliability of Russian archives.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Help me understand. Is this for internal consumption? Positioning to justify acts against former Soviet states? Another device for Putin control? A reaction to the disparagement of Russia's loss and effort to WWII? Or the most likely, have I completely missed the point?

                              It seems to me Russian's know better than anyone else what and who Stalin was. But, I'm not Russian hence the question.
                              Last edited by jackl; 22 May 09, 02:15.
                              Fit Via Vi

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X