How the Romanovs falsified history

As it turns out history can be rewritten endlessly. This is proved even by history textbooks, the interpretations of which vary depending on the situation and preferences of those who write these textbooks and those who order them.


How the Romanovs falsified history

Mikhail Romanov


It is even more difficult when they try to present history as journalism, not exploring specific facts, but putting forward hypotheses, on the basis of which they build judgments.

One topic for discussion: falsification of history in history itself. Experts discuss such a question as "the falsification of Russian history by the Romanov dynasty."

The discussion, published on the Day TV YouTube channel, discusses the figure of Anastasia Romanovna, who is designated as the first stone in the dynastic foundation.

The video presents the study of a pedigree specialist Igor Yakovlev, who claims that Anastasia Romanovna, who has been receiving dynastic references since the 17th century, has nothing to do with the real "Romanov" branch.

A bold version is voiced with the justification (which itself needs to be deeply analyzed) that the Romanovs are “not quite what they say they are”, and the whole Romanov story is a political order to justify the ornate accession after the troubles.

Photos used:
Wikipedia
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

97 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. u4iy 10 September 2019 17: 25 New
    • 11
    • 16
    -5
    In 1914, the king introduced prohibition. For this he was shot several years later. That's all you need to know the rest of fiction!)))))
    1. Ravil_Asnafovich 10 September 2019 17: 32 New
      • 14
      • 1
      +13
      Yeah, we also introduced the labeled one, the country was ruined, and fascia lives on uuc
      1. Plantagenet 10 September 2019 19: 00 New
        • 3
        • 3
        0
        “Some of his haters call Gorbachev an agent of the CIA. But in reality, he could very well become the head of the KGB. Of course, it is now difficult to imagine Mikhail Sergeyevich in a general's uniform. But once he was almost taken to the state security organs. And the Sevenfold prevented this.
        In the sixty-sixth year, a team of employees of the central department of the state security committee was sent to Stavropol with the task of checking the work of the regional KGB department.

        The brigade was led by Colonel Nordman of the Second Main Directorate (Counterintelligence) of the KGB.
        In Stavropol, Nordman had one delicate assignment from the KGB deputy chairman for personnel Perepelitsyn, who had previously led the Belarusian security officers. Perepelitsyn asked Nordman to look among the local party workers for a man who could be made the head of the regional department of state security. Listed the criteria:
        - Young, no more than thirty-five, with higher education, with work experience.
        Secretary of the Regional Committee for Personnel Nikolai Lyzhin advised Nordman:
        - You will not find a better candidate than Gorbachev.

        At that time, Mikhail Sergeyevich Gorbachev had just been elected the first secretary of the Stavropol City Party Committee. Perepelitsyn liked the candidate:
        - What you need: young, walked up the party ladder.

        Perepelitsyn went with this candidacy to the chairman of the KGB Semichastny. Vladimir Efimovich rejected the proposal categorically:
        - Gorbachev? Not suitable, do not even offer it.
        Why the KGB chairman rejected the proposed candidacy is now impossible to find out. ”

        Leonid Mlechin "Iron Shurik"

        PS And you imagine if Semichastny V.E. changed his mind? Our entire recent history could have gone a different way. :)
        1. Greg Miller 10 September 2019 19: 16 New
          • 21
          • 1
          +20
          You shouldn’t believe Mlechin .... The liar and the falsifier is still the same ....
          1. Plantagenet 10 September 2019 19: 26 New
            • 1
            • 2
            -1
            He interviewed Semichastny when he wrote this book. Do you think Vladimir Efimovich is the same liar?
            1. Greg Miller 10 September 2019 19: 47 New
              • 11
              • 0
              +11
              Are you sure that Sevenfold said exactly what Mlechin is telling us now?
              1. Plantagenet 10 September 2019 19: 51 New
                • 2
                • 8
                -6
                Sevenfold is already deceased, but relatives can sue if he considers that a falsification has occurred, and Gorbachev may also apply.
                Personally, I think it's not falsification. Meaning?
                1. Beringovsky 10 September 2019 20: 48 New
                  • 4
                  • 0
                  +4
                  Interviewed by Mlechin, how can a family know the details? And they would hardly have become, even if they knew why?
                  Mlechin is actually the same beetle he has noticed more than once. Why would he lie? Well, you never know why, why journalists are lying at all - to give out another "sensation" to the mountain or add fried "facts" for the spice in their broadcast, etc. In general, you never know the reasons.
                  You will not deny the lies of the media at all?
                  1. Plantagenet 10 September 2019 21: 31 New
                    • 1
                    • 4
                    -3
                    "You will not deny the lies of the media at all?"

                    Of course not. But this book, about Shelepin, I liked. In general, I like Mlechin, writes interestingly.
              2. Krasnoyarsk 10 September 2019 20: 19 New
                • 14
                • 3
                +11
                Quote: Greg Miller
                Are you sure that Sevenfold said exactly what Mlechin is telling us now?

                That's it. Mlechin is an anti-adviser. And an anti-adviser, by definition, cannot be honest. No, of course he can be honest and decent with you, but as for the Soviet period in the history of Russia, he is a liar.
                1. nickname7 3 October 2019 14: 23 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  And an anti-adviser, by definition, cannot be honest.

                  The correct definition, as fearing of spiders, cannot be an entomologist, blood-fearing will not be able to work as a doctor. Engaged and suffering from phobias, they cannot properly describe the subject of their phobia.
              3. dzvero 10 September 2019 23: 25 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Seven-part, Seven-part ... the best pro-adviser - Suvorov-Rezun ,,, oddly enough ....
          2. Plantagenet 10 September 2019 19: 27 New
            • 3
            • 2
            +1

            Can you give an example of falsification of Mlechin? Specifically, in a conversation between Nordman and Perepelitsyn and the further refusal of Semichastny?
            1. Greg Miller 10 September 2019 19: 51 New
              • 7
              • 4
              +3
              Quote: Plantagenet
              Can you give an example of falsification of Mlechin? Specifically, in a conversation between Nordman and Perepelitsyn and the further refusal of Semichastny?

              Easily ... At least about the fact that Stalin was an ally of Hitler in 1939-41 .... Google to help ....
              1. Plantagenet 10 September 2019 20: 00 New
                • 5
                • 14
                -9
                But the USSR and Germany did conclude a non-aggression pact and divided the countries of Eastern Europe among themselves in the secret part of this pact. So if it’s not allies, then it’s certainly not enemies.
                1. Greg Miller 10 September 2019 20: 06 New
                  • 4
                  • 0
                  +4
                  Quote: Plantagenet
                  But the USSR and Germany did conclude a non-aggression pact and divided the countries of Eastern Europe among themselves in the secret part of this pact. So if it’s not allies, then it’s certainly not enemies.

                  Yes ... Sevenfold said exactly that to Mlechin ....
                  1. Plantagenet 10 September 2019 20: 09 New
                    • 1
                    • 7
                    -6
                    About the contract? No, the Sevenfold had nothing to do with him. The contract was concluded by Vyacheslav Mikhailovich Molotov. Well, of course, with the consent of I.V. Stalin. By the way, in Germany this agreement was called the Hitler-Stalin Pact, according to the names of the first persons of the state.
                    1. Beringovsky 10 September 2019 20: 55 New
                      • 9
                      • 1
                      +8
                      Pact - this is the contract.
                      Why then not speak the Hitler-Chamberlain Pact? Or the Hitler-Pilsudski Pact?
                      But we are not in Germany.
                      1. Plantagenet 10 September 2019 21: 27 New
                        • 1
                        • 2
                        -1
                        "At least about the fact that Stalin was an ally of Hitler 1939-41 years ...."

                        There was a question about this pact.
                2. Avis-bis 10 September 2019 21: 08 New
                  • 8
                  • 1
                  +7
                  Quote: Plantagenet
                  if not allies, then certainly not enemies, that's for sure.

                  Fuck ...
                  The Franco-German Declaration is a declaration signed on December 6, 1938 in Paris by the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of France and Germany, J. Bonnet and I. Ribbentrop.
                  According to the declaration, both governments pledged to make every effort to develop peaceful and good-neighborly relations between their countries.
                  it was decided to "maintain contact with each other on all issues relating to their countries, and to consult among themselves."


                  The Anglo-German Declaration is a joint declaration of Chamberlain and Hitler, signed on September 30, 1938, agreed upon by them on the initiative of Chamberlain.
                  The declaration stated that the Munich agreement they signed on the eve, as well as the Anglo-German maritime agreement "symbolize the will of both peoples to never fight each other again", and will also "discuss and consult on issues of vital importance to Britain and Germany. "
                  As a next step towards a political rapprochement with Hitler Germany, the Düsseldorf Agreement was signed on March 15, 1939.


                  The joint statement of the Imperial Industrial Group and the Federation of British Industry (Düsseldorf Agreement) is an agreement signed in Düsseldorf on March 15, 1939, which stipulated the economic division of Europe between the monopolies of Germany and England.


                  So who is it "not enemies, that's for sure"? Only without wagging and juvenile.
                  And who are the real allies without "if not ..."? This is me about the "Dusseldorf agreement", if someone does not understand.
                  1. nickname7 3 October 2019 14: 33 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    And who are the real allies without "if not ..."?

                    At that time, diplomats all over Europe only managed to dangle around the countries, and conclude pacts with each other, all with everyone, to be safe and tossing themselves the best piece. And after the war, they shamefully hid their bad pacts, “I am not me and my horse is not mine” but the Russian pact, they shake and put on display.
                3. The comment was deleted.
          3. ROBIN-SON 11 September 2019 07: 19 New
            • 0
            • 1
            -1
            Mlechin speaks beautifully. But believe him, do not respect yourself. Type Fandorin - Akunin.
        2. Pavel57 10 September 2019 20: 56 New
          • 0
          • 3
          -3
          There is a version that Gorbachev in his youth was recruited by the Germans during the occupation. Then this information came to the Americans. True, this is not the only version.
          1. Plantagenet 10 September 2019 21: 36 New
            • 4
            • 0
            +4
            "There is a version that Gorbachev in his youth was recruited by the Germans during the occupation."

            Sorry, but you don’t know the history of the USSR. During the occupation, Gorbachev M.S. was 11 years old. Hardly he was of great value to German intelligence.
            1. Pavel57 10 September 2019 22: 19 New
              • 0
              • 2
              -2
              It was these teenagers that the Germans recruited, perhaps useful.
              There are other versions.
              For this topic, the essence is one. The history of even close events is not known to us.
          2. nickname7 3 October 2019 15: 11 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Gorbachev in his youth was recruited

            It’s not necessary to recruit, you can choose a person according to inclinations and psychological portrait and promote him. About important people, thorough info is collected, from your favorite books, to which side the tea is stirred.
            The real fact of Gorbachev’s inclinations. As if in London, he ordered several suits in an atelier that sewed for the royal family, and Raisa bought diamonds and expensive rags in boutiques, paid with a credit card. Thatcher then spoke out - "this is our man."
        3. Mavrikiy 10 September 2019 20: 56 New
          • 5
          • 0
          +5
          Can you imagine if Semichastny V.E. changed his mind? Our entire recent history could have gone a different way. :)
          Rave. Gorbach was not alone. There, the Yakovlev-Shevardnadze team was sitting. It developed differently, and it would have come there too.
          1. Plantagenet 10 September 2019 21: 29 New
            • 2
            • 6
            -4
            Yes, I also think that the USSR was doomed. The whole question was only to breed republics by civilizational methods, without blood. Like Czech Republic and Slovakia.
        4. lukewarm 11 September 2019 17: 28 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          I don’t know that I changed my mind seven-parted. But there is a certain “cohort of liberalists” untouchable in the sense of inveterate chmyras. And, as the founders of Marxism-Leninism drew (in a series of Marx-Engels-Lenin), so here: Gozman, Mlechin, Svanidze. Well, the most vile and disgusting. And what do I see?
          Quote: Plantagenet
          Leonid Mlechin "Iron Shurik"

          A hand reaches for the Mauser ...
    2. Catfish 10 September 2019 21: 06 New
      • 3
      • 1
      +2
      In the eighties, they also introduced a "law restricting the sale of alcoholic beverages," and at the same time cut down vineyards in the Crimea. What happened in the early nineties everyone knows. I'm not serious, but the anthology begs me to be involuntarily. request
      1. CTEPX 12 September 2019 14: 13 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        introduced a "law restricting the sale of alcoholic beverages"

        Agents of influence and must ensure the discontent of the population. Right now, for example, a four-day work week and a speed limit for cars with children from the same repertoire.
        1. Catfish 12 September 2019 14: 16 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          A colleague with a pension reform and no agents are needed, the people themselves do not see everything. smile
  2. Amateur 10 September 2019 17: 26 New
    • 5
    • 3
    +2
    There were the Romanovs - yes, and all sailed. What else to discuss them. request
    1. lucul 10 September 2019 17: 34 New
      • 5
      • 4
      +1
      There were the Romanovs - yes, and all sailed. What else to discuss them.

      No, the question is - how, after a pure alpha male (Ivan the Terrible), did a typical gamma male (Romanov) sit on the throne? How so?
      1. Amateur 10 September 2019 17: 40 New
        • 2
        • 2
        0
        the question is - how, after a pure alpha male (Ivan the Terrible), did a typical gamma male sit on the throne?

        An old joke: in the zoo at the cage with an orangutan is a mother with her son. "Mom, is a man or woman an orangutan?"
        A Georgian standing next to him: "He is a male! A man should have money!"
        1. lucul 10 September 2019 17: 42 New
          • 2
          • 4
          -2
          Old anecdote:

          In short - this concept is not familiar to you .....
          1. Amateur 10 September 2019 17: 50 New
            • 3
            • 5
            -2
            you are not familiar with this concept ..

            Respected! What is the concept: male, male, orangutan or lucul?
            1. lucul 10 September 2019 17: 50 New
              • 4
              • 2
              +2
              Respected

              Forget it ...
      2. Astronaut 10 September 2019 17: 44 New
        • 3
        • 1
        +2
        First, the son of Grozny, Fedor, reigned, then the widow of the son, then her brother Boris Godunov, then his son and then, after the turmoil, the Romanovs reigned laughing
        1. boriz 10 September 2019 23: 52 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          They forgot about Tsar Vaska. In the sense of Shuisky.
      3. nickname7 3 October 2019 15: 21 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        how after a pure alpha male (Ivan the Terrible) did a typical gamma male (Romanov) sit on the throne? How so?

        The specificity of the monarchy, it matters, only thoroughbred. The eldest son of the king, may be born smart or a fool, but by birth, he will be king.
    2. Pavel57 10 September 2019 20: 57 New
      • 7
      • 1
      +6
      Yes, again, they want us to put the Romanovs on the throne. In the 90s, who only from the Romanovs did not come to the bride.
    3. nickname7 3 October 2019 16: 09 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      The impostor or not was determined then. If the nobles believed that the king is real, then so it was.
  3. E.S. 10 September 2019 17: 26 New
    • 3
    • 3
    0
    Where did the author find floridity?
    The process is absolutely transparent and even democratic, when viewed with a clear, sober look.
    1. Gardamir 10 September 2019 17: 46 New
      • 3
      • 3
      0
      if you look with a clear, sober look.

      through the muddy glass.
  4. Ravil_Asnafovich 10 September 2019 17: 27 New
    • 8
    • 0
    +8
    And there is something to it; it is not for nothing that they hated Ivan the Terrible with fierce fury.
    1. Barmaleyka 10 September 2019 19: 29 New
      • 5
      • 1
      +4
      Quote: Ravil_Asnafovich
      And there is something to it; it is not for nothing that they hated Ivan the Terrible with fierce fury.

      not even put on a monument
  5. lucul 10 September 2019 17: 32 New
    • 11
    • 3
    +8
    You look at the ancient portraits of our nobles - and a typical Jew looks at you from them, or is it the way Jews painted all artists? )))
    1. aries2200 10 September 2019 21: 36 New
      • 4
      • 1
      +3
      and now nobles all Jews
    2. nickname7 3 October 2019 15: 48 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      You look at the ancient portraits of our nobles - and a typical Jew looks at you from them

      To maintain the purity of blood, the nobles often have closely related marriages, the brothers married sisters, what hope does this lead to?
      From there and erysipelas curves and hemophilia in the Romanovs by the way. And in Europe, for these reasons, there are many degenerates.
  6. Pavel57 10 September 2019 17: 40 New
    • 6
    • 3
    +3
    The Romanovs were involved in flirting with the Poles, but they got away with it.
  7. yehat 10 September 2019 17: 41 New
    • 5
    • 1
    +4
    Quote: lucul
    a typical gamma male sat on the throne? How so?

    everything is simple. the sum of two personalities is always approximately equal.
    if one is big, the second is small.
    Romanov’s examples are -
    the formidable Misha and Lyokha Mikhailovich, Ivan5 and Peter the 1st, Catherine and Pavel the 1st, Alexander3 and Nikolai the 2nd
    everywhere the strong leaves only the weak next to him.
    In Prussia, for example, a couple of Frederick the Great and his father.
    GDP and Medved are also a typical pair.
    1. lucul 10 September 2019 17: 49 New
      • 4
      • 2
      +2
      everywhere the strong leaves only the weak next to him.

      Not always .
      Philip of Macedon managed to conquer all of Greece, and before that, no one had succeeded (that is, he was a strong leader in any way) and his son Alexander the Great, who generally surpassed everyone then.
      1. yehat 10 September 2019 17: 54 New
        • 1
        • 2
        -1
        they did not exist together and did not interfere with each other's development.
    2. Barmaleyka 10 September 2019 19: 32 New
      • 9
      • 5
      +4
      Quote: yehat
      the sum of two personalities is always approximately equal


      Quote: yehat
      Peter the 1st
      a country on the verge of bankruptcy, it was he who introduced the servility of the West and laid the foundations for the distortion of our history

      Quote: yehat
      Catherine

      it was she who surrendered everything so that the nobility would turn from a service class into a parasite class

      Quote: yehat
      Aleksandr3

      with him the same is far from as simple as with a statesman, although of course you can’t compare it with your son
      1. Pavel57 10 September 2019 21: 01 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        The Romanovs had problems with succession to the throne. Catherine II and Alexander I came to power after the coups. This is what is obvious. And there is also at the level of assumptions.
        1. Barmaleyka 10 September 2019 21: 37 New
          • 0
          • 1
          -1
          and Catherine the first, and Elizabeth ?!
          didn’t they come to power differently?
    3. nickname7 3 October 2019 15: 40 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      the sum of two personalities is always approximately equal.

      What nonsense. In nobles like dogs, cleanliness and pedigree are important. Under the monarchy, the title is inherited by the eldest son. And the child is not an exact copy of the father, there will be variations.



      GDP and Medved are also a typical pair

      A stupid example, a discourse on the monarchy, the presidents do not fit this. Or is everything the same for you, even the king, even the president?
  8. Ravil_Asnafovich 10 September 2019 17: 42 New
    • 4
    • 3
    +1
    And what did they do good for Russia ???
  9. rocket757 10 September 2019 17: 48 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    They rewrite it at one time, and then a lot, a lot of time, the descendants dig out the truth !!!
    Ancestors do not want to leave us bored!
    1. lucul 10 September 2019 17: 54 New
      • 2
      • 2
      0
      They rewrite it at one time, and then a lot, a lot of time, the descendants dig out the truth !!!

      They always rewrite when a weak ruler ascends (sets) the throne. So that against the background of such strong ancestors, it does not seem like a complete insignificance.
      Like for example Gorbachev / Khrushchev hated Stalin.
      1. rocket757 10 September 2019 18: 00 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        Quote: lucul
        They always rewrite when a weak ruler ascends (sets) the throne

        The Bolsheviks, their leaders were not so weak, and history was ruled for ideological reasons.
        And the weak ones distort history specifically, it obviously becomes later.
      2. Barmaleyka 10 September 2019 19: 35 New
        • 3
        • 1
        +2
        Quote: lucul
        They always rewrite when a weak ruler ascends (sets) the throne

        usually rewrite when the course changes and it does not depend on the strength of the ruler
    2. nickname7 3 October 2019 16: 01 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      The rewriting usually begins with an increase in the antiquity and significance of a certain country or rulers. Books are being published on the excavation of the sea, or there the Turkmens made the greatest contribution to world civilization and the like. Everyone wants to be the ancients and the cradles of civilization and keep a pedigree from Caesar.
      1. rocket757 3 October 2019 17: 01 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        By grandeur and antiquity, Caesar is one of ... not the most ancient.
        History is a great and very entertaining science, but there can be great benefits from it. If they teach her, and not try to distort.
        All of these distorted themselves outwit themselves.
  10. E.S. 10 September 2019 17: 55 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Quote: Pavel57
    The Romanovs were involved in flirting with the Poles, but they got away with it.

    Alexey Mikhalych rehabilitated the surname, practically redeemed :-)
  11. Gardamir 10 September 2019 17: 55 New
    • 0
    • 2
    -2
    fables!




    here are fables
    1. lucul 10 September 2019 18: 02 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      here are fables

      What is the iconic crocodile in the first video you have. I even know who painted)))
      Exactly the same were in the cartoon Caliph Stork and exactly the same in the Ukrainian film Wii (2014). One thread, one worldview, one nightmare ...
      )))
  12. Terenin 10 September 2019 19: 30 New
    • 3
    • 1
    +2
    N. M. Karamzin expressed his opinion about history:

    History, in a sense, is the sacred book of peoples: the main, necessary; the mirror of their being and activity; tablet of revelations and rules; ancestral covenant for posterity; addition, explanation of the present and an example of the future.

    In other words, the falsifiers of history wave Russian history as the sacred tablet of the Russian people, in order to break it and deprive the Russian people of a great past. And if there is no great past, then there is no great future. It is in the past that we draw strength and see examples for the present. It is in the past that we seek answers to the present. Counterfeiters, like the real enemies of Russia, want to leave us without roots and unity with the departed ancestors. They want to turn us into Ivanov-not-remembering-relatives, who hate and despise their history and spit on the graves of their ancestors.

    Why is it dangerous precisely for Russia? Because, Russians have a keen sense of justice, including in relation to their history. If Europeans have a different attitude to history: they either turn a blind eye to the bloody pages of their history or justify themselves, then the Russians remember and grieve about all the historical injustices in their history. As a result, the European always smugly and self-confidently considers himself right, no matter what crime his country commits. Moreover, the European is ready to commit a crime again and again to justify this with lofty goals. Russian people do not justify the negative moments of their history. That is why the names of Ivan the Terrible, Peter I, Lenin, Stalin and others are surrounded by heated debate. For the Russian people, the innocent blood of great historical deeds does not justify. But Europeans are not tormented by moral torment - they simply call the great tyrants and bloodsuckers great and erect monuments that they are very proud of (hundreds of books have been written about Henry VIII and no fewer films have been shot).
    It was this feature of Russian historical consciousness that was felt by the enemy propagandists. To denigrate Russian history and arouse guilty feelings means weakening the resistance to enemy propaganda and lowering the protection and approval of the authorities by the population. This was aptly noted by the philosopher V. Rozanov:

    “There are untimely words. These include Novikov and Radishchev. They spoke the truth, and high human truth. However, if this“ truth ”had spread in tens and hundreds of thousands of leaflets, brochures, books, magazines in the face of Russian land, they would have crawled to Penza, to Tambov, Tula, would have embraced Moscow and Petersburg, then Penza and Tula, Smolensk and Pskov would not have the spirit to repel Napoleon. "
    https://paulus-raul.livejournal.com/57579.html
    1. Barmaleyka 10 September 2019 19: 44 New
      • 7
      • 1
      +6
      Quote: Terenin
      N. M. Karamzin expressed his opinion about history:
      but at the same time, Karamzin himself falsifies Russian history by directly calling Ivan the Terrible a son-killer
      1. Terenin 10 September 2019 19: 49 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Quote: Barmaleyka
        Quote: Terenin
        N. M. Karamzin expressed his opinion about history:
        but at the same time, Karamzin himself falsifies Russian history by directly calling Ivan the Terrible a son-killer

        Yes, and this is the place to be, in the introduction to the "History" Karamzin writes: "And they like fiction. But for complete pleasure, I must deceive myself and think that they are true." - a phrase that explains everything.
    2. Alexander Ra 10 September 2019 20: 21 New
      • 5
      • 2
      +3
      So far, no one has allowed us to have an institute of Russian national history. Like national education. National medicine. National economy.
      1. Terenin 10 September 2019 20: 39 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Quote: Alexander Ra
        So far, no one has allowed us to have an institute of Russian national history. Like national education. National medicine. National economy.

        So here it is, the result of falsification.
    3. lucul 10 September 2019 20: 48 New
      • 3
      • 2
      +1
      N. M. Karamzin expressed his opinion about history:

      Frankly, nobody harmed the history of Russia more than Karamzin.
  13. Edward Vashchenko 10 September 2019 20: 08 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    This is even proved by history textbooks, the interpretations of which vary depending on the situation and preferences of those who write these textbooks and those who order them.

    This is some kind of panopticon.
    Naturally, history is not written in a vacuum + many historical sources are such that it is impossible to understand anything at some period, only speculation.
    Even ordinary people twist their history: now everything in us is descended from nobles, without exception.
    But Romanov was not up to falsifications in the seventeenth century: there was a lot of cases.
    The clan was Zacharyanykh, and the Romanovs - also a nod towards Rome - Roman! then royal!
    1. Barmaleyka 10 September 2019 20: 38 New
      • 0
      • 2
      -2
      Quote: Edward Vashchenko
      But Romanov was not up to fraud in the seventeenth century.

      falsification at the time is just the main thing - LEGITIMIZATION
      1. Edward Vashchenko 10 September 2019 20: 44 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        ?
        Excuse me, what problems did the elite in the kingdom have with legitimization?
        During the Civil War (Troubles), questions with the aristocracy were removed, the nobles became the main force in the country, so there are no reasons for falsification?
        History, how science comes down to documents.
        What documents for this needed to be changed, can I list?
        1. Barmaleyka 10 September 2019 21: 35 New
          • 1
          • 1
          0
          Quote: Edward Vashchenko
          Excuse me, what problems did the elite in the kingdom have with legitimization?

          exactly the same as the Goduns - they are not Rurikovich
          1. The comment was deleted.
          2. Edward Vashchenko 10 September 2019 22: 16 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Vladimir,
            But was this issue on the agenda after the Time of Troubles? Were there movements, "parties" for the Rurikovich?
            Or inscribed in the history of the Romanovs, from Rurik?
            Ivan the Terrible elevated himself to Augustus, but was this falsification or tendency of this period: to derive the genus or origin from abroad?
            1. Barmaleyka 10 September 2019 22: 46 New
              • 0
              • 1
              -1
              Quote: Edward Vashchenko
              but was it after the Time of Troubles on the agenda

              yes, the king is not real
              1. Edward Vashchenko 11 September 2019 07: 54 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                Eh Vladimir, you’re trying to write a short article directly, something like, the history of the institution of the Russian monarchy: from the formation to the crisis of governance, laughing something like this...
                Best regards
  14. Avis-bis 10 September 2019 20: 33 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    Since when has the "change of interpretation" become synonymous with "rewriting history"?
    1. Edward Vashchenko 10 September 2019 20: 45 New
      • 2
      • 1
      +1
      I agree! Tooting
      1. Catfish 10 September 2019 21: 29 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        Good evening, edward hi

        At one time, in Moscow, I had a neighbor on the porch named Romanov. Limiter and locksmith 6th category. So he "legitimized" in the main throne in the most natural way, marrying a "damsel" of easy virtue older than his age, that is, 10-15.
        True, a few years later he was imprisoned for a drunken fight in the pub, and he never returned to the capital. Almost everything is like his august namesakes. laughing
        1. Edward Vashchenko 10 September 2019 22: 17 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          Good evening Konstantin!
          That also happens.
    2. Barmaleyka 10 September 2019 21: 41 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      Quote: Avis-bis
      Since when has the "change of interpretation" become synonymous with "rewriting history"?

      who, from the point of view of the historians of the Romanov era, became the founder of the empire?
      1. Avis-bis 11 September 2019 06: 10 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: Barmaleyka
        Quote: Avis-bis
        Since when has the "change of interpretation" become synonymous with "rewriting history"?

        who, from the point of view of the historians of the Romanov era, became the founder of the empire?

        You are what?
        1. Barmaleyka 11 September 2019 07: 26 New
          • 0
          • 1
          -1
          Are you from Odessa?
  15. zed042 10 September 2019 21: 25 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    How K. Simonov or V. Yan falsified history.
  16. sagitch 10 September 2019 21: 59 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    Why We Must Believe Everyone. Leave your opinion to yourself, do not impose it on others.
  17. Rostislav Bely 11 September 2019 00: 02 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    Initially, the falsification of the bloodlines of the Russian sovereigns began with Boris Godunov ... Then there was a “bullet” stating that the Godunovs did not originate their pedigree from Dmitry Zerno, the youngest branch (Saburov's oldest), but from Murza Chet (genghiside, as a counterweight to Simeon Bekbulatovich - he under Grozny, he played the role of the Sovereign for some time). The Romanovs (in particular Filaret) were aware of this - so to speak, the Pandora’s box was opened for them in legitimizing imposture and rewriting history?
    And now the question of the relationship of the descendants of Genghis Khan (at that time in the Nestorian Christian elite) with northeastern Russia (the myth of the Yoke) - Baty supported Yaroslav Vsevolodovich (father of Alexander Nevsky) in the feud among the Ruriks in his claim to seniority - he was poisoned in Karakorum, performing a mission to study the balance of power, since Batu did not appear for more than three years on the kurultai (electing a new khan) fearing for his life, Mikhail from Chermny (red) was immediately killed - the path for the offspring of Yaroslav was freed. Further, you can recall the marriage of the sister of Uzbek Khan with a provincial “Muscovite” - by that time the Golden Horde rulers were perceived as Caesars by the Byzantine and Byzantine emperors were not respected for a number of reasons - the Genoese continued to be uniate ... The main blow of the Horde was not on Russia, and in the Catholic West and its allies, in particular, the Hungarians were subjected to genocide from which only the language from the mothers remained.
    It is noteworthy that Ivan the Terrible designated Rurik as one of the Prussians, and the Swedes called the vassals of his ancestor Yaroslav the Wise - and the descendants of the Rurikovich really mostly have the Baltic haplogroup N1c (L550) with the exception of impostors and adultery, and the name of the Prophetic Oleg (in the annals) all the same, not from Helga, but from the Baltic Volga associated with the hydronym (Baltic. Ilga - a long / long way - the main trade route and the arrival of silver in Russia), the Baltic hydronym and Ladoga, in modern languages ​​in words as a tramp, road ... And the veche device itself is associated with trade in Russia along river beds, originally salt (lit. druska - salt) - salt mining in Staraya Russa - by-slash-and-burn farming yielding higher yields than on chernozem in Kiev, charcoal by-product . So much for the Russian custom of meeting with bread and salt)))
  18. itarnmag 11 September 2019 07: 04 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    And the king is not real
  19. begemot20091 11 September 2019 10: 26 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    Quote: Plantagenet
    But the USSR and Germany did conclude a non-aggression pact and divided the countries of Eastern Europe among themselves in the secret part of this pact. So if it’s not allies, then it’s certainly not enemies.

    Read the "secret protocol" - it has recently been published. You will be disappointed. But, if you insist, then why don’t you remember the "disobedient" Czechoslovakia? Yes, and all the other "pacts". And all the countries of Europe acted as a united front on the side of Hitler.
  20. kalibr 11 September 2019 15: 58 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Dear Edward! You better already said - panopticon! You do not explain or prove anything to such people.
  21. Kazbek 11 September 2019 17: 19 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Now everyone is his own historian. In this case, no one is engaged in the study of documents. He riveted a roller on his knees - and now a historian! And the crowds of grateful idiots will like and write enthusiastic posts. At YouTube trash, thousands of such “alternatives” sometimes drive such nonsense that it becomes scary for the younger generation.
    1. Tatiana 11 September 2019 20: 10 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      You shouldn’t be so. The participants in the video posted here are just studying the documents. If you take the name of any book by Professor Pyzhikov, you can imagine how many primary sources he needs to shovel even to write the chapter of the book. And the guest of the program Igor Yakovlev does not impose anything on anyone's forehead. He put forward an interesting hypothesis and invites everyone interested in the topic to enter into a dialogue. By the way, Yakovlev said that he was studying his own genealogy, and this is a small but still historical investigation with the study of documents. I know from personal experience.
  22. Molot1979 25 October 2019 20: 09 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Bullshit. Future generations can be deceived, but try to hang noodles on the ears of contemporaries who knew for sure who owed whom to whom? Do authors seriously consider their ancestors to be mentally retarded?