For those who care about Russian lies and history

[geetrue]

Nice article brings back memories of how Russia lies to everyone

Soviet and Russian leaders: Their illnesses and deaths

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-20171951

Mr Putin's spokesman Dmitry Peskov has played down concerns about the president's health, saying he suffered a minor sports-related injury but is still able to carry out his duties normally.
Suggestions that Mr Putin was limping, and reports that he had postponed several foreign trips prompted some media to speculate he had suffered an injury during a hang-glider flight last month which was getting worse.
No-one has suggested there is anything more seriously wrong with Mr Putin than back trouble.
The BBC Russian Service has been investigating how Moscow's authorities have dealt with the illnesses of its leaders since 1917, and the deaths of those who died in office.

Vladimir Lenin (1870-1924)

Josef Stalin (1878-1953)

Nikita Khruschev (1894-1971)

Leonid Brezhnev (1906-1982)

Yuri Andropov (1914-1984)

Konstantin Chernenko (1911-1985)

Boris Yeltsin (1931-2007)

[Oberon]

Russia lies to everyone?

What makes Russia so different to any other country in that respect.

Nice article though.

[CCIP]

Originally Posted by Oberon

Russia lies to everyone?

What makes Russia so different to any other country in that respect.

Yuuuuuuuuuuuup

What makes Russia so different to any other country in that respect.

yep, for a prime example look at the physical and mental state of Churchill in the term when he was actually elected to the office of Prime Minister.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

yep, for a prime example look at the physical and mental state of Churchill in the term when he was actually elected to the office of Prime Minister.

Becoming PM was a godsend for him, otherwise I think the biggest thing he would have been remembered for was Gallipoli...

A certain stubborn element that went through with things no matter what people told him, it was a good thing and a bad thing.

Becoming PM was a godsend for him, otherwise I think the biggest thing he would have been remembered for was Gallipoli...

yes, but I am talking about his condition during the term he served when he was elected not the term when he got appointed after his disasterous adventure in Norway collapsed the existing government.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

yes, but I am talking about his condition during the term he served when he was elected not the term when he got appointed after his disasterous adventure in Norway collapsed the existing government.

Well, true, I think if he came into power today that the press would have a field day with his alcohol problem and manic depression. Confidence wasn't exactly high with him either, I mean if the Battle of Britain had gone worse then Halifax probably would have couped him, but he managed to present a good public image and that is 75% of what a leader does that people remember.

[geetrue]

One thing USA and UK have in common is that they don't lie about history.

I have often thought someone should start a www.truthinhistory.edu

[Oberon]

Oh, I dunno about lying, but we have been known to view things with rose-tinted specs a lot, or only one side of the story. Just ask Tribesman.
We tend to just skip over bits of history where we were...not very nice people...such as Cromwells jaunt to Ireland, or the Concentration camps during the Second Boer War.

It's the old adage that nearly always rings true, history is written by the victors. It's a case of walking that fine line between being proud of your nation and being patriotic to the point of jingoism. I admit, I sometimes stray across that line, particularly when it comes to harking back to the days of the Empire, but I try to keep myself grounded by reminding myself of things like the Jallianwala Bagh massacre, but even then it's hard, as someone born in England, and aware of the days of Empire, not to feel a little bit of nationalistic pride in our accomplishments of the era, even if they were written in the blood of many others. Of course, the milage may vary, I think most people in this country of my age are only aware of what is on television or facebook, and couldn't really give two hoots about history outside Downton Abbey perhaps. A mixed blessing, because it lowers the likelihood of nationalistic tendencies amongst the populace of the future (as the BNP are finding out, although the fact that they are morons also works against them) but it also builds walls around us and fractures society a bit when you don't look at where you've come from before you look at where you're going.
Still, c'est la vie et c'est la guerre, as my terrible GCSE French would say.

[Jimbuna]

Churchill, the only one who could lead the nation in wartime but was unable during peacetime.

Just ask Tribesman.

Yep Cromwell is still fondly remembered in town, and Galway wasn't even one of his more extravegant parties.

It's the old adage that nearly always rings true, history is written by the victors.

I don't know, they didn't actually win but your history books are getting updated by the Mau Mau after it turns out the "lost" foriegn/commonwealth office documents hadn't all been destroyed.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

I don't know, they didn't actually win but your history books are getting updated by the Mau Mau after it turns out the "lost" foriegn/commonwealth office documents hadn't all been destroyed.

Touché, and that's the beauty of the modern era, and indeed any era after the dawn of writing, some scraps of even defeated empires remain, things that enable us to get a better understanding of the history of the time rather than purely relying on the victors testament.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by jimbuna

Churchill, the only one who could lead the nation in wartime but was unable during peacetime.

I think that's because it is easier to lead people in a war than in peacetime.

In war, you have an external adversary upon which you can direct the focus of of not only the government but the citizens. Nothing shields like wrapping yourself in the flag.

In peacetime, the political adversary is often internal to the government.

As far as the US is concerned, I think pretty much any viable candidate can be a good wartime president. Doing a good job in peacetime is the tricky part.

[Stealhead]

Originally Posted by geetrue

One thing USA and UK have in common is that they don't lie about history.

Your statement is true to an extent in the US and UK you can learn the truth in most cases but this does not mean that the typical person via the standard educational means (in other words the "official" truth that is taught as part of normal education) learns every detail of our history positive and negative at face value.From the "official" point of view the rocky bits are viewed from an idealistic point of view.

For example when I was in high school(early 90's) the history book and official course did not really go into much detail about either the Korean War or the Vietnam War.The Korean War was barely mentioned in the book and Vietnam was very vague.

I myself knew alot about Vietnam because my dad was a grunt in that war my class mates got lucky because our teacher Mr.McGovern happened to be a Marine officer and Combat Engineer in Vietnam he did a very good job of explaining things in his matter of fact un-skewed by political leanings way not just about Vietnam but about all history and life in general.I recall one day in class the topic of the Apollo 11 mission being fake came up in class with the usual batch of derps claiming that it was faked McGovern simply said "Well I was in the middle of no where in a foxhole in Vietnam when I heard about the moon landing and I believed it".

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Oberon

Oh, I dunno about lying, but we have been known to view things with rose-tinted specs a lot, or only one side of the story. Just ask Tribesman.
We tend to just skip over bits of history where we were...not very nice people...such as Cromwells jaunt to Ireland, or the Concentration camps during the Second Boer War.

Possibly in your school books, and ours, but one of the hallmarks of Britain and the US and some other Western countries is that people can freely question the 'official' histories and publish contrary books without fear of jail or censorship. Anybody can publish pretty much anything he wants, which makes it hard sometimes to ferret out the truth, but is still far preferable that having nothing investigated for fear of being sent to the gulag.