"History of Russia - Rurik to Revolution" Topic

A fairly objective, although not flawless, overview of the history of Russia until the beginning of the 20th century

link

A deeply subjective story, with many openly false or questionable at least narratives, but timeline of incorrectly presented accidents is correct.

To clarify: The Russian Federation, one of the successor states to the Soviet Union will soon be 32 years old and has recently started teaching its pupils in its school textbooks that the Federal Republic of Germany annexed the German Democratic Republic in 1991.
"Russian History, 1945 – early 21st century", co-authored by presidential adviser Vladimir Medinsky, formerly Russian culture minister.
In the Duma, they have been waffling that nonsense since the annexation of Crimea by the then 23-year-old Russian Federation.
In international law, annexation is the forcible appropriation and assertion of legal claim to the territory of one state by another, usually after military occupation of the territory. In current international law, it is generally considered an illegal act.

Which, as a German, I find insanely funny.
We joked at the time that the GDR was Stalin's late revenge on Germany.
When the inner German border was opened back then, more East Germans fled the GDR because they didn't trust the historical situation, and especially not the Soviets/Russians, than Russians flee Russia today because they don't want to be wasted for Russian history in Ukraine.

I know their history.
And I know, why they teach it the way they do.
Because I also know, what they want.
So, I think I'll pass their history lessons.
Which is no loss, on the contrary.

Are you a famous historian, Sho Boki? This film was created not by a Russian or pro-Russian channel. These people are telling academic history created by professional historians (Western ones at that), and not by nationalist dreamers from failed countries.

This is where I agree with you, Arjuna. The history textbook written by Medynsky is simply a disgrace. Medynsky is as much a historian as I am a ballerina))) However, those textbooks written with foreign grants, which Medynsky's textbook will now replace, were no better. Only the lies were directed in the opposite direction.

"This film was created not by a Russian"

This cannot be an excuse.
Even here in TMP muscovites propaganda is spread by allegedly non-Russians.

Only the guilty need excuses. Academic science has no need to justify itself ;-)

I agree with you, Arjuna

Well …
That's really a mean punch below the belt that I have to take.
But I respect that.

Though still fascinated that the dialectical rhetoric of giving ground to reach a higher win works on me, I'm more interested in this:

science has no need to justify itself

This is clearly out of the scope of this forum, but I justify its discussion by the thesis that the historical and social sciences are inevitably perspectival because there can be no comprehensive view of their objects of study.
As an aside, the often-assumed irrefutability of so-called facts I consider not at all plausible.
Since this is the "General Historical Discussion Message Board", I think the discussion of claims regarding the philosophy of (historical) science is probably boring for most people here, but legitimate.

On the contrary, I believe that scientific claims in particular need to be substantiated, because the scientific method also involves an explanation of what is going on, a narrative that may well be false, though useful.
In a sense, Newtons theory of gravity is less true than Einsteins.
The possibility of the incorrectness of a theory is even a prerequisite for being considered as a theory at all.
A scientific explanation must be falsifiable.
From a more practical point of view,
it is part of the scientific methodology to subject preliminary findings and the way to them to an examination by other scientists in order to justify them.
Not doing so is just a sign of dubiousness.
Just see the replication crisis in the social and natural sciences.
There are estimates that claim that thousands of scientific papers are simply methodological bs.
Another point is simply, is science the only way to produce knowledge?

It seemed fairly accurate to me and hardly complementary or slanted in favor of some pro-Russian outlook. The dominant theme seemed to be a consistent history of repression, autocracy and territorial aggrandizement with a touch of the classic use of religion in service of the state virtually throughout their history prior to Communism and I believe all can agree that 1917 to 1991 did not improve anything.

That modern Russia would be rather poor at finding their way to a modern western democracy seems quite logical given they had essentially their entire history as a substantially Asian state consistently repressive, autocratic and xenophobic (somewhat justified given their earlier history).

While not excusing modern actions it certainly places them in context.

I did find it interesting in that while most European powers in the 19th Century were playing the Imperialism card in a colonial context, Russia was primarily operating on an annexation basis.

LOL