You are entirely missing the point. Is it possible that books on the topic are in error, or have a political bent? Of course it is, very possible.
That can be reduced, but not eliminated, by dealing with reputable historians who deal with primary sources, but even then you never really know.
But the point here is that actual professional history written by primary source historians, despite all of its potential flaws and weaknesses, it’s still not false just because you claim it is without any basis or evidence.
And when actual researched primary source history contradicts your baseless, uneducated assertions, hiding behind wild conspiracies is just silly.
I cited actual laws, and dates, which are easily verifiable, and proved you wrong. Your response was to assert that anything out there which contradicts your baseless assertion must be rewritten conspiracies. That’s not an argument, it is hiding in embarrassment.
As far as I can tell, and if I am in error please correct me with actual substance, you made something up and then asserted that any evidence to the contrary must be rewritten conspiracy lies simply because it contradicted what you made up.
By what means? Only way to really verify some historic document is to get a time machine and observe its creation. Even then, it could turn out to be a curved mirror of reality. Do you have a time machine?
must be rewritten conspiracies.
Russian history is permanently rewriting. Even right now. F.e., do you know that now, it was not a Russian people who defeat Germany in WWII. It was a "multinational antifascist army". And they fight not for their homes against occupants, but "against fascism". Right about time. Nearly everybody who could disprove that dumb bullshit is already dead. If even that basic fact of Russian history changed now to fit the narrative, what make you think that other facts is untouched?
And there was a lot of actual conspiracies in Russian history and still is.
Again, you are entirely missing the point. Is it possible the facts I cited are erroneous, and subject to having been rewritten? Sure. Absolutely.
But you don’t get to just blindly SAY they are wrong because they don’t agree with your assertions. The ‘ everything that disagrees with me is a conspiracy‘ argument is just lazy.
You are entirely missing the point. Is it possible that books on the topic are in error, or have a political bent? Of course it is, very possible.
That can be reduced, but not eliminated, by dealing with reputable historians who deal with primary sources, but even then you never really know.
But the point here is that actual professional history written by primary source historians, despite all of its potential flaws and weaknesses, it’s still not false just because you claim it is without any basis or evidence.
And when actual researched primary source history contradicts your baseless, uneducated assertions, hiding behind wild conspiracies is just silly.
I cited actual laws, and dates, which are easily verifiable, and proved you wrong. Your response was to assert that anything out there which contradicts your baseless assertion must be rewritten conspiracies. That’s not an argument, it is hiding in embarrassment.
As far as I can tell, and if I am in error please correct me with actual substance, you made something up and then asserted that any evidence to the contrary must be rewritten conspiracy lies simply because it contradicted what you made up.
Reputable by whom?
released by whom?
How do you know they are actual?
By what means? Only way to really verify some historic document is to get a time machine and observe its creation. Even then, it could turn out to be a curved mirror of reality. Do you have a time machine?
Russian history is permanently rewriting. Even right now. F.e., do you know that now, it was not a Russian people who defeat Germany in WWII. It was a "multinational antifascist army". And they fight not for their homes against occupants, but "against fascism". Right about time. Nearly everybody who could disprove that dumb bullshit is already dead. If even that basic fact of Russian history changed now to fit the narrative, what make you think that other facts is untouched?
And there was a lot of actual conspiracies in Russian history and still is.
Again, you are entirely missing the point. Is it possible the facts I cited are erroneous, and subject to having been rewritten? Sure. Absolutely.
But you don’t get to just blindly SAY they are wrong because they don’t agree with your assertions. The ‘ everything that disagrees with me is a conspiracy‘ argument is just lazy.