Thread: George W. Bush in Georgia

http://www.bmwclub.ru/auto/gallery/data ... e_duke.jpg

Originally Posted by Geoduck

The reverse would be my most likely guess, but of course I can't read too many Soviet era Russian History texts. I don't think, however, that I am leaving my bounds to say that there was a different ideological slant to the histories then than there is today in Russia.

Of course: there was "different ideological slant": before 1990 approach to history was pro-marxist and pro-communistic, afterwards it was not. However, this has a little relation to Georgia.

Originally Posted by Geoduck

In June 10th, 1988, exams in secondary schools were canceled because there was a decision made to re-write history. This just demonstrates that there have been times in Russia's history when the history-writing has experienced big shifts.

As I can remember, this is right. 1988 is the peak of Gorbachev's anti-Stalin campain -- so, the history schoolbooks were changed, they were changed in mostly antistalinist way (more truth and more myths about "Stalin's repressions", etc.) Again, nothing concerning Russian-Georgian relations.

Originally Posted by Geoduck

Therefore, when I hear a certain historical statement (for example, “Georgia wanted to join Russia”), I have to think about the people who could have benefited from such a statement being believed. I probably don’t even need to be arguing this, it’s mostly common sense.

Correct logic. But reverse is true as well.
For example, if somebody claims "Georgia was conquered by Russian Empire agianst its will", somebody may benefit from this claims as well -- for example, Saakashvili's regime officials, who want to attract people's attention from Georgia's woeful economic state.

Originally Posted by Geoduck

Also, I was just trying making the point that you should not be able to claim that you don't have any idea what Soviet scholars were saying, as you must have plenty of experience reading current as well as Soviet works.

I know perfectly well, a) what Soviet scholars were saying; b) what post-Soviet scholars are saying; c) what, if it comes to history of Georgia, there's no much difference between their statements. This is my point.
Of course, this all isn't a proof, what this opinion is the only true one. You are try to argue this, but on strictly factual basis, please. Give me example of at least one battle between Georgia and Russian troops, please. Conquer without battles don't look like a conquer for me.