Historical books by A. Bushkov. — Philosophy

Saruman

19 years ago

Auto-translated

The well-known writer Bushkov, in addition to detective and science fiction novels, has published several books on history, where he conducts his research and often makes unexpected conclusions. What is your opinion on such books? Do you think they are reliable?
I like his books, but he overemphasizes a single argument. For example, he takes the thesis that the Mongol army of Genghis Khan could not consist of such a large number of soldiers and provides five arguments, each taking up 30 pages. At first, it's interesting to read, but then it quickly becomes tedious.

Пандора

19 years ago

Auto-translated

I don't know, I haven't read it... What does she write about, what books (titles)?

Saruman

19 years ago

Auto-translated

He wrote "Russia That Never Was" (three parts) – a new look at history, similar to Fomenko, but much more well-argued; one can agree with some of his points. I wrote a lengthy post about his books but accidentally deleted it:( In general, besides "Russia," he wrote:
Rasputin: Shots from the Past
Beria
Stalin: Red Monarch
Stalin: The Frozen Throne (like in Warcraft;)
Chronicle of the Turbulent Times
Genghis Khan

AlexeyPank

19 years ago

Auto-translated

I have a decidedly negative opinion of Bushkov as a historian. Firstly, he is not a historian and doesn't know how to work with historical information. Secondly, in his view, everyone else is a fool and a liar, while he is the only honest and intelligent person. Thirdly, consider this statement (from his book about Genghis Khan, I'm not quoting it exactly): "So what if I used to say that the Mongols didn't exist? Now I've changed my mind." That's an argument worthy of a kindergartener.
And he handles facts very loosely, using only those that support his views.
And, by the way, he didn't write the book about Beria :) (The author of that book is Elena Prudnikova).

Драко

18 years ago

Auto-translated

I've read almost everything.
As a historian, he's really not very good (my parents, who are both historians, say it's nonsense).
But I like his ideas.

Best regards, Draco

P.S.: It would have been better if he hadn't gotten involved in this. But on the other hand, the other historians write even worse things (I've come across it – the same goes for Suvorov).

In reply to Драко

Пандора

18 years ago

Auto-translated

Draco;112282

P.S.: It would have been better if he hadn't gotten involved in this. But on the other hand, other historians write even worse things (I've come across it – the same Suvorov).

Yes, V. Suvorov, as far as I know, wasn't a historian at all.

In reply to Пандора

Ларс

18 years ago

Auto-translated

Suvorov is a traitor to his homeland. In the Soviet Union, he was sentenced to death. Now living in the USA, he continues to write books that cast a shadow over the lives and system of Soviet society.

Гур

18 years ago

Auto-translated

Dear Larsson! If I'm not mistaken, Suvorov lives in Great Britain. And also: perhaps one of us didn't read Suvorov's works carefully enough? Tell me, where exactly does Rezun "darken the life and structure of Soviet society"? Sincerely, Gur

In reply to Гур

Ларс

18 years ago

Auto-translated

Dear Gur! With your post, you made it clear that you disagree with me. I have nothing against differing opinions and I don't have a habit of imposing my views on anyone! ;) Thank you for the correction; indeed, I made a slight mistake. Since 1978, Suvorov has been living in the United Kingdom. For example, in the book "The Shadow of Victory," V. Suvorov, to put it mildly, criticized Zhukov's personality. I believe that such statements about one of the best military leaders of that time, who did so much for the victory of the USSR, are a distortion of the Soviet system... This is not the only example.

In reply to Гур

Пандора

18 years ago

Auto-translated

Gur;179386

Could you please specify where Rezun "darkens the life and structure of Soviet society"?

That's an interesting question. But I think it would be more accurate to ask not "where," but "how." Perhaps by distorting facts. :rolleyes: Don't you think so? If we take his most controversial work, "Ledokol," it presents the theory of a preemptive strike by the Soviet state. With such "discoveries," Rezun tarnishes the Great Victory of the Soviet people, and therefore also "the life and structure of Soviet society." This theory is untenable and, fortunately, has been debunked for quite some time. There is plenty to read about it.

Sincerely, Pandora.

Гур

18 years ago

Auto-translated

I agree, the question was not phrased very well. By "where," I meant some quote that would show that Suvorov, in his books, "darkens the life and structure of Soviet society..."
Regarding "darkening": yes, Rezun, from the point of view of Soviet historiography, distorts the truth about the war with his works, but, on the other hand, Vladimir Bogdanovich, with his statements (for example, that the purge of the Red Army's high command before the war was not an act of idiocy, but a manifestation of Stalin's military genius, and that the General Secretary was not a cretin, but almost a sage), rather EMBELLISHES "the life and structure of Soviet society" than darkens it. So, saying that Suvorov-Rezun "darkens" something is incorrect.

Sincerely,
Gur

Пандора

18 years ago

Auto-translated

Regarding the "distorting" of history: yes, Rezun, from the perspective of Soviet historiography, distorts the truth about the war with his works, but, on the other hand, Vladimir Bogdanovich, with his statements (for example, that the purge of the Red Army's high command before the war was not an act of idiocy, but a manifestation of Stalin's military genius, and that the General Secretary himself was not a cretin, but almost a sage), rather EMBELLISHES the "life and structure of Soviet society" than distorts it. So, saying that Suvorov-Rezun "distorts" something is incorrect.

Respected Gur, it's nice to see the principle of dialectics even in such dubious "research": D At least it's something...

yes, Rezun, from the perspective of Soviet historiography, distorts the truth about the war

If this phrase reflects your fundamental position regarding the books of Mr. Suvorov-Rezun, then I consider further discussion simply pointless. :)

Гур

17 years ago

Auto-translated

Dear Pandora, The irony is that even Suvorov could have agreed with the statement: "Yes, Rezun, from the point of view of Soviet HISTORIOGRAPHY, distorts the truth about the war with his works..." Sincerely, Gur P.S. I decided to refresh the topic a bit...

In reply to Гур

Пандора

17 years ago

Auto-translated

Gur

The irony is that under the words "yes, Rezun, from the point of view of Soviet HISTORIOGRAPHY, distorts the truth about the war with his works," Suvorov himself could have signed...

Yes, I know. Rather, he doesn't "distort" it, but, in his opinion, dispels myths, opens the eyes of brainwashed communists and similar simpletons. He would be more willing to sign under that. Moreover, such explanations and posing give him great pleasure.

Gur

P.S. Decided to refresh the topic a bit...

There will be a lot of honor for the traitors.

Гур

17 years ago

Auto-translated

Dear Pandora, Thank you for supporting my desire to keep the topic alive... However, I wanted to discuss something else... A few posts ago, you mentioned that there are works that debunk Suvorov's theory and demonstrate its inconsistency. Could you share links to these sources? Sincerely, Gur

Reading content in

Interface language

Posts from Historical books by A. Bushkov.

Statistics

Library

Users Online 11 users 1361 guests

Today's Visitors 13