Originally posted by Dowding
I've read books on Stalin, Beria and the Russian Revolution. I was not taught anything about Russia at school. Of course, these will be unacceptable to you, as are the primary sources they use. You much prefer to use back issues of Pravda (I'm still incredulous that you use it as a source for your information).
Why inacceptable? Some information, I mean the basic facts, if they are not too distorted, must be usefull. The twisted logic, based on the "fact that all Russians are evil and eat babies for breakfast", incorrect understanding of some events and intentional falsifications are what makes your picture of events in Russia so strange.
As for Pravda - it IS a good source of information, a picture of time, and, if understood correctly - a great help in understanding. You simply have to keep in mind the contemporary state of affairs and employ your ability to read between the lines. It's easy if you try
Originally posted by Dowding
To understand something, I have to be presented with it. For whatever reason, you are unwilling/unable to so.
Great. I envy you. That's the main difference: you have to be presented with the information and opinions. So far you are presented with centuries-old russophobic hallucinations, traditional for Western culture, especially after brave "crusaders" got their prettythanges kicked by "barbaric Slavs".
I only can advise you to try developing some opinions of your own. "They all lie" is a good starting ground.
Originally posted by Dowding
Hardly. Isolated incidents in a long ago age compared to a catalogue of repression up to 1991. I'm assuming you have apples and oranges in Russia?
Catalogue of repressions up to 1991?! Go look for some British "justice" buckups, with dozens of innocent people spending decades in jail! Yeah, it's all "isolated incidents"! It simply can't be the judicial system that appeared, developed, and ebded up as corrupt assistant to ruling class and then to certain political and economical parties!
Originally posted by Dowding
You must mean Northern Ireland - we gave Ireland to the Irish, if you remember. Something the Russians would never have considered doing.
No I meant Ireland not Ulster.
You fail to understand my example. I have chosen Ireland as a country loyal to UK to some extent.
JFYI, in case you are stuck in 1988: we gave Europe to Europeans (in fact - to NATO agressors), Ukraine - to Ukrainians, Tajikistan to Tajiks, etc, the list includes all 15 Soviet Republics. Now guess what percent of their population want good old USSR/Russian Empire to come back. Then think why it is so, and compare it to British colonies. Damn, you can even count how many Afghani people want Soviet Army to come back and restore order, and compare with how many want Brits back.
/* The last example is the only country "occupied" both by Russians and Brits. */
Try to understand your own faults before accusing others.
[comments on misunderstood example with Ireland and Hungary skipped]
Originally posted by Dowding
That's right, because of course the RAF now flies from bases in Poland and the British Army hasn't withdrawn a huge proportion of its cold war garrison from Germany and US hasn't scaled back its presence in Western Europe.
Yes, and now NATO establishes bases in Baltic states, supporting their obviously fascist regimes, who build monuments to SS hangmen and praise nazi "veterans".
About West Berlin isolation and "airlift" - try to find Miko's thread about Marshall plan. The whole "airlift" story is a good example of stupid hostile propaganda for ignorant masses, and how your "truth" is composed.
