Interesting and Humour - page 3848
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
What else can you expect from someone who judges historical events by feature films. That's not even a question.
Every government is rewriting history to its own advantage. Some facts are simply suppressed, buried in the grave, something is taken out of the coffin.
Actually, it is very interesting to live on the juncture of transition from one state to another, the reference dates are change of power, 1917, 1953, 1964, then a long marathon to 1985-1991, then a new spiral to 2000, from 2000 to the present day another. At each stage they manipulate history as they wish. History is not a science, it is a tool.
Yeah sure, the oversight was awesome. In the Chikatilo case, a very different person was executed (and according to some reports, even two). That's in an unconventional case, but what about the everyday trivialities?
Well, you have to give credit where credit is due, at least in not so distant times - the USSR. There was no such lawlessness in judicial practice as nowadays. At least the courts were not as corrupt as they are now. Now the courts are corrupt, judging by the fact that the judge with only two million annual income manages to make a wedding on 50 years of income, it speaks that the Themis opens her eyes when coins are tossed. Just cut out the early days, the so-called tees. In those years, high-profile trials worked to the order of the chief. However, high-profile trials at all times were held with an eye to the top. Nowadays the golden calf rules the court. In Chikatilo case, it was either a mistake or a plan. The courts and the investigation were not just wrong, the investigation and the court had the main task to close the case and report back, this is a vice of the system.
Well, you have to give credit where credit is due, at least in the not so distant USSR era. There was not as much lawlessness in judicial practice as there is now. At least the courts were not as corrupt as they are now. Now the courts are corrupt, judging by the way the judge having only two million annual income manages to make a wedding on 50 years' income, it speaks that the Themis opens her eyes when coins are tossed. Just cut out the early days, the so-called tees. In those years, high-profile trials worked to the order of the chief. However, high-profile trials at all times were held with an eye to the top. Nowadays the golden calf rules the court. In Chikatilo case, it was either a mistake or a plan. The courts and the investigation were not just wrong, the investigation and the court had the main task to close the case and report back, this is a vice of the system.
That's fine.
What do you need to do to rectify the situation? What have you done on your part to prevent arbitrariness?
Fine.
What do you need to do to rectify the situation? What have you done on your part to prevent arbitrariness?
Vitaly, I tried to change this world, to make it better at my level, and I even succeeded, and then I decided I needed to change myself, at some point it became more interesting to me. And now, I'm just interested to observe and study this world - to learn from it. We live in an interesting time. I don't know what needs to be done and nobody knows, the world is rolling and changing under the pressure of various madmen, fanatics, perfectionists, adventurers, scientists, generators and implementers of ideas.
To change something in this world, you have to impose your will on it. And sometimes in a violent form, often with violence.
Marshal Yazov: truth and lies about Stalin
"A conversation with the last USSR Minister of Defence Marshal Dmitry Timofeyevich Yazov.
Corr.: Filmmaker Nikita Mikhalkov recently suggested that the activities of Gorbachev and Yeltsin be declared criminal. It would be nice to join them "dear Nikita Sergeyevich. There is also a suitable occasion: it is the 60th anniversary of that very "historical" report, which Nikolai Starikov called "a collection of tall tales, lies and slander", and American historian Grover Ferrer called "anti-Stalinist meanness".
D.T. Yazov: Notice, having begun his analysis of Khrushchev's report, the meticulous American, when confronted with the first inconsistencies, draws a cautious conclusion: "criminal fraud?" So far with a question mark. By the end of the piece he had no more doubts: "Of all the claims of the 'closed report' that directly 'exposed' Stalin or Beria, not a single one turned out to be true." We have had a lot of honest, serious research on this subject. I am referring to the books by Arsen Martirosyan, Yuri Zhukov, Elena Prudnikova, the same Nikolai Starikov. You just need to want to hear the truth.
Corr: But the problem is that our opponents do not want the truth. Though they are taking the stiffness off of them little by little. Recently, in a television programme that discussed the "jubilee report", anti-Stalinists were given a worthy rebuke by: Nikolai Starikov, Vitaly Tretyakov, Karen Shakhnazarov, Sergey Shargunov. I know that in 1956 you were in your final year at the Frunze Military Academy. How did your class perceive Khrushchev's "revelations"?
Be sure to read on:
https://nstarikov.ru/blog/82989
It's morning in the village...
Well, we're used to it here.
Guys,is there anything funny today?
Maybe some video footage.
P. S.
That's what I like to say!
https://youtu.be/9jgxbR7qGtc
History is not a science, it is a tool.
History is a science with its own subject and method. At our everyday level, we have to understand that any fact becomes a historical fact if this fact is interconnected with its historical context.
For example.
They write: a barrow was looted and all its contents were lost to science. But the robbers made their profit by selling what they found.
So what is the loss to science?
The fact is that before taking the shard in hand, it must be described: where it was lying, next to what it was lying on, to date it - a long and painstaking process, which was not done during the looting of the mound. The found shards have therefore lost their significance for historical science.
The standard method of blackening our history is to snatch a fact out of its context, evaluate it according to modern criteria, and then receive a warning. You can see countless concrete examples on this thread from certain trolls.
History is rewritten by every government to its own advantage.
History is not usually rewritten: with the change of power, spies become spies and spies become spies. But the historical facts remain, and the EVALUATION of these facts has changed.
Another thing is that at all times there have been fantasies on historical themes: about musketeers, about GULAG. And people want to consider such works as historical truth, even if the author considered his work as a work of FICTION, rather than a historical chronicle.
In these cases one must always remember that history is a science with its own subject and method. The credibility of the facts must be repeatedly cross-checked, these facts must be placed in a historical context.
...
History is not usually rewritten: with the change of power, spies become spies and spies become spies. But the historical facts remain, and the EVALUATION of those facts has changed
...
It is rewritten, and where it cannot be rewritten, it is presented in a certain way, and where it cannot be presented, it is suppressed.
Marshal Yazov: truth and lies about Stalin
"A conversation with the last Minister of Defence of the USSR, Marshal Dmitry Timofeyevich Yazov.
Corr.: Filmmaker Nikita Mikhalkov recently suggested that the activities of Gorbachev and Yeltsin be declared criminal. It would be nice to join them "dear Nikita Sergeyevich. There is also a suitable occasion: it is the 60th anniversary of that very "historical" report, which Nikolai Starikov called "a collection of tall tales, lies and slander", and American historian Grover Ferrer called "anti-Stalinist meanness".
D.T. Yazov: Notice, having begun his analysis of Khrushchev's report, the meticulous American, when confronted with the first inconsistencies, draws a cautious conclusion: "criminal fraud?" So far with a question mark. By the end of the piece he had no more doubts: "Of all the claims of the 'closed report' that directly 'exposed' Stalin or Beria, not a single one turned out to be true." We have had a lot of honest, serious research on this subject. I am referring to the books by Arsen Martirosyan, Yuri Zhukov, Elena Prudnikova, the same Nikolai Starikov. You just need to want to hear the truth.
Corr: But the problem is that our opponents do not want the truth. Though they are taking the stiffness off of them little by little. Recently, in a television programme that discussed the "jubilee report", anti-Stalinists were given a worthy rebuke by: Nikolai Starikov, Vitaly Tretyakov, Karen Shakhnazarov, Sergey Shargunov. I know that in 1956 you were in your final year at the Frunze Military Academy. How did your class perceive Khrushchev's "revelations"?
Be sure to read on:
https://nstarikov.ru/blog/82989
A very competent post, beginning with the words "Filmmaker Nikita Mikhalkov has decided once again to buckle under the new authorities..." "filmmaker Nikita Mikhalkov has offered to recognize himself as the world's greatest director" "filmmaker Nikita Mikhalkov has offered..."
And the article itself - not a single argument, but already discussed by opponents who do not want the truth... and there goes the song - Stalin the god Stalin the saint.... brrr... and you eat it up?
Stupidly pointed finger at one paragraph:
Corr.: Now, in connection with the "anniversary" the subject of repression has been brought up again. Again our anti-Stalinists have captains commanding divisions, as all those above have been exterminated. "Show me even one such captain! - repeatedly called out to his opponents Vladimir Sergeevich Bushin. A brilliant publicist, a veteran and an old friend of mine. I decided to look for it. I found a clue. Allegedly, on the eve of the war in the Leningrad Military District, the divisions were headed entirely by captains. So I went to the Volkhov front. I read Kirill Afanasyevich Meretskov's memoirs. And, guess what, I found one great captain.
That's crazy. I know that in wartime military ranks can be promoted very quickly. That's quite an argument - they've looked for and found no captain. Naturally, the rank was promoted before being posted.