May be.It was not dictatorship. Autocracy yes, but not dictaorship.
---
And a quick note on Chud: I checked a Russian-Estonian dictionary -- Chud is described as a member of Finnish people (fex Finns and Estonians. But indeed not pejorative).
Then you said:Interesting, who were these mysterious Russian White heroes, who saved the inferior almost-Bolsehvik Chuds from Bolsehvism?
Forum rules forbid national insults, and the characterization "inferior almost-Bolsehvik Chuds" is insulting. This is a warning. Don't post remarks of this sort here again.And a quick note on Chud: I checked a Russian-Estonian dictionary -- Chud is described as a member of Finnish people (fex Finns and Estonians. But indeed not pejorative).
This is already surrealisticForum rules forbid national insults, and the characterization of the the Chuds as "inferior almost-Bolsehvik Chuds" is insulting. This is a warning. Don't post characterizations of this sort here again.
They surely aren't censored in Russia today. But there are indeed some problems with Russian history literature (and not all Russian history literature has these problems):I don't believe the Russian speaking sources.When was USSR all information was censored now when came to power Putin the same.
The section rules are posted at http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=53962 Read them and comply. That is the reality here.This is already surrealistic
I think it is simple insult, if you don't read my post. What I also said was that:Your generalization is simple insult. There are many honest and systematic authors in Russia...
I would also say that actually majority of Russian authors are honest and systematic.(and not all Russian history literature has these problems)
You probably should delete the Russian part of yuor Russian-Estonian Dictionary to get the correct information from it.Reigo wrote:May be.It was not dictatorship. Autocracy yes, but not dictaorship.
---
And a quick note on Chud: I checked a Russian-Estonian dictionary -- Chud is described as a member of Finnish people (fex Finns and Estonians. But indeed not pejorative).
You are a little bit mistaking about the source criticism. When reviewing the French eintelligence report a scholar is to check if the report is fake or authentic. If the report is authentic than the source-criticism was applied. The information it contains may be wrong. That is true. But the report itself is a historical source. So the question is are there any counter-claims proving that the information contained in this historical source is wrong?Reigo wrote:
-there is apparently no source-criticism: if some claim somewhere fits to the fantasy, then it is claimed again without any hesitation. For example this claim with the French intelligence. A smart author would
a) apprehend that intelligence information may be very well wrong
b) try to find supporting or unsupporting evidence for this claim
c) try to find if these problems are discussed in Estonian history-literature
Source criticism includes something more -- checking into the authenticity and reliability of a source.You are a little bit mistaking about the source criticism. When reviewing the French eintelligence report a scholar is to check if the report is fake or authentic. If the report is authentic than the source-criticism was applied.
Yep, however this isn't the style of some authors. Also honest authors don't call intelligence info simply as "investigation".So the question is are there any counter-claims proving that the information contained in this historical source is wrong?
It is very easy- a gistorical source against another historical source.
Interesting. Kara-Murza is not a historian and never reviewed the question of Estonian independence. He is a communist journalist who writes about the collapse of the Soviet Union and the post communist processes on the territory of the former Soviet Union. His articles are debatable, preconceived and polemic. He has his audience but the claim that he represents a approach of Russian scholars towards the Estonian independence is an exaggeration.Reigo wrote:I think it is simple insult, if you don't read my post. What I also said was that:Your generalization is simple insult. There are many honest and systematic authors in Russia...I would also say that actually majority of Russian authors are honest and systematic.(and not all Russian history literature has these problems)
Some brainwashing authors: S. Kara-Murza; V. Shambarov (I just "love" his chapters concerning Baltic in his book "Belogvardeishchina".)
I see. So you mean that the source is not authentic.Reigo wrote:Source criticism includes something more -- checking into the authenticity and reliability of a source.You are a little bit mistaking about the source criticism. When reviewing the French eintelligence report a scholar is to check if the report is fake or authentic. If the report is authentic than the source-criticism was applied.
Watch again and take a wild guess why the reliability is underlined.I see. So you mean that the source is not authentic.
Sorry, but you and allkind of Pykhalovs have to give proof that there was an investigation. But things are actually so that to give credibilty to your fantasy you talk about investigation (hearing witnesseses and included parties?), instead of saying exactly what it was - intelligence information.About the reliability. If it were a note of of a French belly-robber home it is one thing. If it was the report of the French intelligence to the Office it is quite another thing. So you mean that they spent the time in restaurants and did not make any investigation? Any proves?
In conclusion I have to say that you have neglected to back up all of your statements. Pykhalov referred to the Report. I referred to Pykhalov and said "there is the report". If you think that tarring anybody with the Stalinist brush is enough to justify your position than I should say that you are mistaking.Reigo wrote:About your first post: well I see that you enjoy discussing with me. Flattering. However I have other things to do than discuss another tirade of your's.
Second post:
Watch again and take a wild guess why the reliability is underlined.I see. So you mean that the source is not authentic.
Sorry, but you and allkind of Pykhalovs have to give proof that there was an investigation. But things are actually so that to give credibilty to your fantasy you talk about investigation (hearing witnesseses and included parties?), instead of saying exactly what it was - intelligence information.About the reliability. If it were a note of of a French belly-robber home it is one thing. If it was the report of the French intelligence to the Office it is quite another thing. So you mean that they spent the time in restaurants and did not make any investigation? Any proves?