To know what is typical of our "arguing strategy" as you put it, you should first live among us for 10 - 15 years and only then draw your conclusions. Otherwise it's nothing but labelling.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mordan
There is no irony involved.Quote:
Nevertheless you non-answer shows the irony.
That is correct. But did I ever suggest we should do so?Quote:
But the main point holds. One should not based his opinion on History with just a single source of information.
Again naivity at its utmost. Take pills or something, you need to get the effects of your country's brainwashing campaigns out of your digestive system somehow.Quote:
While in the USSR there was only the official line of thought
Bald-faced lies, barefaced lies, blatant lies, brazen lies, downright lies, monstrous lies, outright lies, transparent lies, whopping lies. Which pack of lies do you prefer? Choose freely.Quote:
in the West there are, I think, more than one source of information concerning History.
Ask yourself this question - who benefits from this? There's no free nothing in this world, everything's under someone's influence.Quote:
Historians in the West are free to battle their line of thoughts without the interference of the political police.