Author Topic: Why we must believe the official history?  (Read 31796 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Annie

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4757
    • View Profile
    • Anna Anderson Exposed!
Re: Why we must believe the official history?
« Reply #75 on: September 08, 2006, 09:27:20 PM »
.I feel comfortable saying this. Propaganda isn't always written by the victorious.



Just wanted to clear this up, the quote never meant that only the winning sides used propaganda. Of course everyone does in some form, even today. What it meant was that the winners usually get to tell the story 'their' way, making the losers look as bad as possible, and everyone will believe it. Writers after the fact in most cases tend to lean toward the victorious side of anything, and villianize the losers instead of being honest and fair to all sides. I have noticed this more since the internet has come about. People always tell things a particular way until it becomes so well known and accepted everyone goes along with it and perpetuates it, even making things worse, until the real truth is buried somewhere between and will never be believed.

It happens with lots of things. For example, VH1 did a lot of music documentaries claiming that 'blue jeans and rock and roll' killed communism in Europe because the younger generations wouldn't accept the anti materialistic dogma. While this may have been a factor in its failure, it was hardly what destroyed it alone. There were many factors. Yet this gets spread around and people believe it! On other boards, I have actually seeen people posting 'rock and roll killed communism!' and I think, oh, they got that from those VH1 docimentaries. But that's how it becomes spread around and believed, and no one bothers to search any deeper until over time the true story is lost or changed.
« Last Edit: September 08, 2006, 09:36:08 PM by Annie »

Offline zackattack

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 51
  • I Love YaBB 2!
    • View Profile
Re: Why we must believe the official history?
« Reply #76 on: September 09, 2006, 02:53:40 AM »
Quote
I do take your point about Andersonville -- but for how long after Sherman's army marched through were those men still imprisoned?

Until the end of the war, because they weren't allowed to release them because of the ban on prisoner exchanges. They were stuck there because of Lincoln's own law. Same with the ones in Elmira.

Which brings up another topic- the fact that many mothers and wives in the North hated Lincoln and called Grant a  'butcher' because he thought nothing of losing 3 men to the Rebels' 1 if it would help them gain a victory. Many in the North did not give a damn if the South had its independance or not, and just wanted the slaughter to stop. Lincoln came very close to losing the 1864 election to ex Union general George McClellan who had  promised to end the war if elected. There were also anti-draft protests in the North (the most famous one in NYC was acted out in "Gangs of New York") A man could buy his or his son's way out of the draft for $300, which really wasn't fair to the poor of any ethnicity. Also, black soldiers were often treated unfairly by the Union army, putting them in more dangerous situations in which larger numbers were likely to be killed (same with the Irish)



Just another pont, though this is off topic: isn't it a point of arguement that America had a Civil War in the first place? If you accept the definition that a Civil War is a fight to control a central government then it was certainly a civil war from the north's point of view, but from the south's point of view it would have been a war of independence. Or am I wrong? 

Offline Annie

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4757
    • View Profile
    • Anna Anderson Exposed!
Re: Why we must believe the official history?
« Reply #77 on: September 09, 2006, 09:27:11 AM »


Just another pont, though this is off topic: isn't it a point of arguement that America had a Civil War in the first place? If you accept the definition that a Civil War is a fight to control a central government then it was certainly a civil war from the north's point of view, but from the south's point of view it would have been a war of independence. Or am I wrong? 

Techically you are correct, and many southerners have pointed this out as more 'Yankee' propaganda.  I know one guy who is an avid relics collector, and when he takes his stuff to shows, he always labels his collection as relics from "The War for Southern Indepedence."  That's correct, because as you point out, it wasn't really a civil war, because the south never wanted to take over the north or the main government, they only wanted to break off and become a new country, just like the colonies in the Revolutionary war- which brings up another problem- that wasn't really a 'revolution', either, because no one was overthrowing the British gobernment.That too was just a war of independance.

Alixz

  • Guest
Re: Why we must believe the official history?
« Reply #78 on: September 09, 2006, 10:51:35 AM »
And from the British point of view the Revolution was a "Rebellion" and would have remained so had the colonies lost.

The South looked at the "Civil" was as a war of secession.  The right to "un join" what they had previously joined.

Up until a few years ago, I taught basic US income tax law and I had one student who was adamant about the South and its right to leave the Union.  And I live in New England.  That is why I said that the war is still being fought in one way or another today. (One of the first income taxes was levied during the Civil War, if anyone wonders why the topic would come up in an income tax class.)

Look at the southern states who now want to remove the Confederate Battle Flag from their state flags because they no longer find it PC to have it there.  Whole communities and states are trying to rewrite history by removing all presence and mention of what was and will always be a part of the heritage of the US.  For good or bad.

Changing the words we use or removing the Battle Flag from the  public view, does not in any way change what was.  One side of my family came to Canada right around the time of the Mayflower coming to America.  All sides of my family lived in the north during the Civil War and not one of them were slave holders.

I have an ancester who fought in the Revolution from Rhode Island ( he also had a daughter Elizabeth born in 1776) and this particular ancestor was related to Francis Lewis who signed the Declaration of Independence from the colony of New York.

So my ancestors and my family were not "personally" involved in slavery.  But it makes me angry when Anglo-Saxon Americans or WASPS as we were called in the 1960s (White Anglo-Saxon Protestents) are blamed historically for the roots and spread of slavery in the US.  Some were to blame and some were not.

Again, history was written in such a way that is requies a great deal of digging to get to the truth.  And so we must not always believe the official story.

As to my mention of Empress Marie, I acknowledged that she was a grieving widow and an exile herself.  I also stated that her denial was probably from her inability to deal with the horrible truth.  I only mentioned her view to say that if hers was the only view that someone read about, then that someone would be also convinced that everyone survived.

So again, digging is necessary.  (not so much with the Romanovs as their are now countless books, but in other history topics, the need for digging is primary.)
« Last Edit: September 09, 2006, 10:53:44 AM by Alixz »

Alixz

  • Guest
Re: Why we must believe the official history?
« Reply #79 on: September 09, 2006, 10:59:38 AM »
And one more thing, knowing even in grammar school that the Civil War information that we were taught was rubbish, did not put me in good stead with my teachers who were so very sure that what they were teaching was the truth and the only truth.

I spent a lot of time being told that I was wrong.

I suppose a lot of my teachers are deceasd now, but I hope that some of them lived to see that what they "knew" to be the truth was in fact a lie.  I wonder if any of them remember that one student who questioned everything in history class and drove them to distraction.    ;)
« Last Edit: September 09, 2006, 11:02:17 AM by Alixz »

LondonGirl

  • Guest
Re: Why we must believe the official history?
« Reply #80 on: September 13, 2011, 02:58:32 PM »
[size=12]I still hold true to "Occam's Razor" (The simplest explanation is almost always the correct one), or as a Superior Court judge once said during a trial...."If it doesn't make sense, it just can't be true!".  I've been questioned about why I take such a hard line about no one surviving. This is the answer.  When the situation is assessed logically, not emotionally, and the known facts examined, and the ONLY possiblilties of anyone surviving given some real evidentiary weight, the sheer volume of speculation, "divine intervention" and multiplicity of steps of illogic and tiny probabilites involved to make the survivor story plausible seem to me to run totally contrary to logic and genuine realistic "making sense".

Sorry if that annoys you, but I just don't see some "hero Bolshevik" risking his life to snatch even ONE badly wounded grand duchess (not to even discuss Alexei) off the truck in the forest, and go the the impossible steps of treating, healing, caring for, clothing, feeding, sheltering, hiding, transporting, rescuing, etc etc etc ad nauseum as being remotely making sense. It's just TOO complicated and relies on TOO many tenuous assumptions. period.
[/size]
[/font]


Occam's razor is too frequently used as a blunt instrument, lol. I am a physics student, and the history of science has been a progression towards the more complex, rather than the more simple. Occam's razor actually requires speculations are not multiplied unnecessarily - not that the simple answer must always be right.

Given the identity of the Imperial family, their political importance and their relation to most of the monarchies of Europe including maybe most significantly and intimately King George V, then ideas involving potential survival become immediately less esoteric.

We know that the Imperial family wished for exile in Britain, and we know an initial offer was made. History conventionally and maybe superficially records that the offer was subtly withdrawn due to risks inherent in the political climate in wartime Britain regarding potential socialist uprising. We know George V (who would have been acting in concert with his government without question) feared such potential anarchy at a time when it would have been disastrous. Clearly an open assistance would have been undesirable - but that does not preclude the feasibility of a private assistance. And what better way to make people vanish than for the world to presume they are dead?

Offline Romafan96

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 98
    • View Profile
Re: Why we must believe the official history?
« Reply #81 on: August 20, 2012, 10:50:20 AM »
Yurovsky's main concern was getting rid of the bodies as fast as possible as the White Army was nearing Yekaterinburg, so I don't think he would have considered having a photo shoot with the bodies. Not to mention, the photo would have probably fallen into the hands of the White Army and Russia wanted to cover up the murders of Nicholas's family as it would have not gone down well with the Germans if they knew they had killed the entire family.

Offline TimM

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 1937
    • View Profile
    • Rex and Hannah Chronicles Wikia
Re: Why we must believe the official history?
« Reply #82 on: August 20, 2012, 12:57:11 PM »
Like the murderers they were, the Bolsheviks covered up their crime.  It remained covered up for more than 70 years.
Cats: You just gotta love them!

Offline Kalafrana

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 2912
    • View Profile
Re: Why we must believe the official history?
« Reply #83 on: August 21, 2012, 09:05:04 AM »
'Yurovsky's main concern was getting rid of the bodies as fast as possible as the White Army was nearing Yekaterinburg, so I don't think he would have considered having a photo shoot with the bodies.'

Agree entirely. Having carried out the massacre, Yurovsky and his men were in a prolonged state of panic and desperate to cover up what they had done. The only logical reason for photographing the corpses would be as proof that they were all dead. The Bolshevik leadership seems happy to accept Yurovsky's word that the job had been done, so no need for photographs.

As to why it took so long to find the last two bodies, we can perhaps draw a parallel with the Moors Murders, which are once again in the news here. For non-British readers, these were five murders committed by Ian Brady and Myra Hindley in 1963-65 in the Manchester area. Bradley was originally convicted of three of the murders, and Hindley of two (and being an accessory to the third), and they would both been hanged had the death penalty not been abolished while they were on remand. There was suspicion that they were responsible for the other two, but there was no solid evidence until they admitted them in the 1980s, and said that the bodies were on Saddleworth Moor to the east of Manchester. 5 square miles of the moor was searched over a period of weeks, and one body was found, but the second, that of Keith Bennett, aged 12, is still missing. The whole business continues to exert a peculiar fascination over the British press, if not the public.

There is no question that Keith Bennett is dead - no trace of him was ever found after he disappeared on the way to his grandmother's house, on a route which would take him past the house where Bradley and Hindley were living. The killers confessed to the murder, and gave some indications to the police on where they buried the body (I go carefully here on how strong the indications were, as I don't know). A large area has been searched very thoroughly, not only by digging but by the most advanced scientific techniques available in the 1980s, but Keith's remains still haven't been found. The latest twist to the case is that Brady (Hindley died in 2002) has allegedly written a letter to opened after his death, stating where the body is, and just as all this was across the newspapers from the end of last week, Keith Bennett's mother died.


Offline Kalafrana

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 2912
    • View Profile
Re: Why we must believe the official history?
« Reply #84 on: August 21, 2012, 09:12:10 AM »
To continue:

As far as I'm aware, Brady and Hindley made no attempt to destroy or disguise Keith Bennett's body, though over a period of 20 years, up to 1985, a lot of natural processes will have been at work (Saddleworth Moor is mostly covered in peat). But still, over a long period and determined attempts, nothing has been found.

Ann

Offline TimM

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 1937
    • View Profile
    • Rex and Hannah Chronicles Wikia
Re: Why we must believe the official history?
« Reply #85 on: August 21, 2012, 12:05:51 PM »
Yeah, if they can't find a body even though the killer told them where it was, one can imagine how hard it would be to find bodies of a murder that have been covered up for decades.
Cats: You just gotta love them!