[Alex Portman]

Today, some individual countries and blocs of countries, denigrating the historical past and the legacy of other states, pursue a deliberate policy of distorting historical facts, thus supporting the tendency to revise various events in world history.

In recent years, attempts by Western countries led by the United States regarding the role of the Soviet Union in the victorious end of the World War II have become part of a powerful information war. This is especially noticeable with the approach of May 9, when Victory Day is celebrated.

As part of this propaganda, attempts are being made to represent the USSR as one of the culprits of the outbreak of the World War II, imposing the idea that fascist Germany and the USSR «bear equal responsibility». And the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, as Western falsifiers call the «Non-aggression pact between Germany and the Soviet Union» of August 23, 1939, is an «element of guilt».

This was announced in the year of the 70th anniversary of the outbreak of the World War II, when on July 3, 2009 the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly adopted a resolution «On the reunification of divided Europe». In their resolution, Euro-parliamentarians explicitly proclaimed the equal responsibility of the USSR and the Third Reich for starting the war.

All these charges are brought in complete isolation from the general historical context and chronology of drawing Europe into the World War II. The Goebbels version was launched and is being preached that Stalin was preparing an attack against Hitler, and the latter simply dealt a preemptive strike. No new documents or evidence are provided.

Another high-profile falsification of recent times was the release of one of the American souvenir companies on the occasion of the 75th anniversary of victory in the World War II. A collection of coins went on sale, one of which was dedicated to key allies in the anti-Hitler coalition, from which the USSR was excluded.

Military historians, commenting on the coin scandal, recalled that the distortion of history is characteristic of the American elite. And in order to elevate the role of the United States in the World War II, all means are used, including direct falsifications of historical events.

Here it is necessary to recall the Hollywood films and video games in which the American military take Berlin. The impact is not only on a European audience, but on the whole world.

We can consider another episode of American propaganda with a distortion of the history of the Second World War, already in Japan. If you look at Japanese textbooks concerning the period of 1945, there is no evidence that the United States dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It will only be written that atomic bombs have been dropped. As a result, according to the latest opinion polls, some Japanese youth believe that the atomic bombing was the work of the USSR, and this was done in order to capture the Japanese northern territories.

Thus, the United States and its allies are changing not only the past, but also the future, and in this sense, what is happening should be seen as an element of a hybrid war. The main goal is to belittle the role of Russia in the modern world, to show the world that Russia is an ally of fascist Germany and an aggressor rights as fascist Germany.

However, the deliberate distortion of history is, first of all, an insult to all peoples who bore the burden of the struggle against the anti-human fascist regime. Attempts to distort history undermine the foundations of the modern world order that arose after the end of World War II, the principles of which were laid down in the Charter of the United Nations; these attempts create fertile ground for the spread of various forms of neo-Nazism, xenophobia, and especially Islamophobia.

[Atlantis]

Interpreting the past in order to control the future is what political leaders have done since time immemorial. There is nothing new or surprising about that. The UK, in particular, cultivates the memory of WWI as an example of a "just war" to justify all its subsequent wars and to instill the patriotism in its people for fighting the future wars that are necessary to satisfy its geopolitical ambitions.

[Nonsense]

Interpreting the past in order to control the future is what political leaders have done since time immemorial. There is nothing new or surprising about that. The UK, in particular, cultivates the memory of WWI as an example of a "just war" to justify all its subsequent wars and to instill the patriotism in its people for fighting the future wars that are necessary to satisfy its geopolitical ambitions.

It's true what you say, of course 'peace' is but an interlude to war, just as the opposite s true, but state's airbrush the shadows away from their history, whether in peace or war & what better vehicle in which to do that,than in media such as the BBC.
The BBC are engaged in constant propaganda, in order to support a political system,according to whichever 'master' holds sway in parliament & rewriting history is at centre stage.

For instance, whenever the Tories are in power, the BBC constantly repeat WW2 'documentaries'(read - propaganda)or in current affairs, whatever suits their prejudices, they choreograph the line that holds sway, often by cherry-picking by 'balance' , to tilt the outcome of debates etc, that can be either 'guest' lick-spittle or dumb, clap-happy audiences.

Just never expect to see any engagement in serious, honest, or intellectual debate on issues, because BBC staff are positively the most ignorant, politically correct, bum-wipe sapiens around on the planet.

[SolarCross]

Interpreting the past in order to control the future is what political leaders have done since time immemorial. There is nothing new or surprising about that. The UK, in particular, cultivates the memory of WWI as an example of a "just war" to justify all its subsequent wars and to instill the patriotism in its people for fighting the future wars that are necessary to satisfy its geopolitical ambitions.

That's not true. WWI is remembered because we lost a generation of our best to it. We don't remember it as a "just war" but as a bloody catastrophe.

WW2 is remembered as a just war. Also our casualties were quite light in that one so there isn't quite the same levels of grief. A lot of brits who lived through WW2 remember it rather fondly as a big adventure.

[Atlantis]

That's not true. WWI is remembered because we lost a generation of our best to it. We don't remember it as a "just war" but as a bloody catastrophe.

WW2 is remembered as a just war. Also our casualties were quite light in that one so there isn't quite the same levels of grief. A lot of brits who lived through WW2 remember it rather fondly as a big adventure.

Different from all other countries, the UK decided to spend 100 million pounds on commemorating the 100th anniversary of WWI. As secretary for education, the arch-Brexitter Michael Gove promoted a revision of British history to teach young people patriotism. Whenever, there is a discussion about who's responsible for WWI, we get Brits talking about having to punish the Germans for violating Belgium neutrality, even though the allies would have violated Belgium or any other neutrality, such as Iranian neutrality during WWII, if needed.

Anyways, WWII is a follow-on from WWI. You can't separate the two. Thus, it matters little if you base the moral superiority of your military endeavors on WWI or WWII and the holocaust to justify British imperialism.

[SolarCross]

Different from all other countries, the UK decided to spend 100 million pounds on commemorating the 100th anniversary of WWI. As secretary for education, the arch-Brexitter Michael Gove promoted a revision of British history to teach young people patriotism. Whenever, there is a discussion about who's responsible for WWI, we get Brits talking about having to punish the Germans for violating Belgium neutrality, even though the allies would have violated Belgium or any other neutrality, such as Iranian neutrality during WWII, if needed.

Anyways, WWII is a follow-on from WWI. You can't separate the two. Thus, it matters little if you base the moral superiority of your military endeavors on WWI or WWII and the holocaust to justify British imperialism.

This thread is a joke. A bunch of willful distorters of history crying about the distortion of history in order to distort history.

[Atlantis]

It's the Michael Gove's of this world who revise history to teach patriotism who are the revisionists, not those who question the national narrative. It's not the job of politicians to tell historians how to teach history.

[SolarCross]

It's the Michael Gove's of this world who revise history to teach patriotism who are the revisionists, not those who question the national narrative. It's not the job of politicians to tell historians how to teach history.

There is no need to revise history for brits to have patriotism, there is plenty there of which to feel proud. On the contrary our history is being revised by people like you in order to reduce our patriotism.

It is exactly the responsibility of elected officials to tell teachers employed on the public pound what to teach. That was literally the point of the education acts in the first place. Private schools are where you go for a free from politics education. State schools have public oversight through elected representatives.

[Nonsense]

There is no need to revise history for brits to have patriotism, there is plenty there of which to feel proud. On the contrary our history is being revised by people like you in order to reduce our patriotism.

It is exactly the responsibility of elected officials to tell teachers employed on the public pound what to teach. That was literally the point of the education acts in the first place. Private schools are where you go for a free from politics education. State schools have public oversight through elected representatives.

If there is one good reason not to be 'patriotic', it's because of that 'history'.

I recall seeing British military photographs from pre-WW1, where British solders have mutilated non-combatants in overseas foreign territories, civilian bodies were laid on field tables, there were decapitated bodies, with the heads laid on their chest & others were disembowelled, with their penises severed & placed inside their mouths.

All of which was the work of British soldiers in the field, included in those same photo's,such behaviour was typical by British military combatants, it was used to 'teach' the 'natives', who is the 'boss' & to instill fear of retribution if they stepped out of line.

So, when I am accused of not being 'patriotic', my memories recall such things, but more than that, as a person, I thoroughly dislike anything in a uniform, civilian or military & I equally have a distaste for 'flag-waving'.

I don't accept your point on education either, 'private' as well as public schools are funded by the state, whether it's fully funded or by way of tax-breaks in the 'private' sector.

As far as sex education goes, 'education' used to be restricted to biology & reproduction.

Why people think that it is necessary or appropiate to teach very young children about gender issues, even in the context of 'relationships' is beyond any logical comprehension.

There is only one simple explanation, the state has created a trap of the topic, to which it has fallen into & is called out on every single politically incorrect instance whereby the purveyours of this subversion of tradition are eager to prosecute their 'cause'.

If the 'education' system wishes to teach relationships, then we need to re-evaluate just what should be taught in our schools & 'gender' issues were never part of any political party's manifesto.

It is sickening hypocrisy to allow non-traditional issues to be mandatorially used as propaganda on behalf of deviant behaviour & then to call it 'education' that's directed at innocent under-age children.

Time was when 'innocence' was assumed to be a right for young children & for the state to protect them from what the state is now ramming into the children's heads.

So when you talk about being 'patriotic', being in country that has descended into the gutter, talk of being patriotic is just so nauseating to myself.

[Clare Dauson]

Different from all other countries, the UK decided to spend 100 million pounds on commemorating the 100th anniversary of WWI. As secretary for education, the arch-Brexitter Michael Gove promoted a revision of British history to teach young people patriotism. Whenever, there is a discussion about who's responsible for WWI, we get Brits talking about having to punish the Germans for violating Belgium neutrality, even though the allies would have violated Belgium or any other neutrality, such as Iranian neutrality during WWII, if needed.

Anyways, WWII is a follow-on from WWI. You can't separate the two. Thus, it matters little if you base the moral superiority of your military endeavors on WWI or WWII and the holocaust to justify British imperialism.

How much the government is ready to spend on celebrating a day does not give rise to pride yet. Those colossal amounts could be spent on charity or as assistance to children with cancer.

[Steve Dallas]

Distortion of history is an important issue in our modern world. If we, as children or grandchildren of survivors of the First or Second World Wars, could hear real facts about what was happening from our ancestors, then the current generation of the 2000s cannot even imagine a part of the whole picture of events. They only trust stupid TV series or films that naturally distorted the story 1000 times to give color, expression or purposeful propaganda of anything.

[ThirdTerm]

If you look at Japanese textbooks concerning the period of 1945, there is no evidence that the United States dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It will only be written that atomic bombs have been dropped. As a result, according to the latest opinion polls, some Japanese youth believe that the atomic bombing was the work of the USSR, and this was done in order to capture the Japanese northern territories.

This is a kind of distortion of history as well. In Japanese history textbooks, it is typically written that atomic bombs were dropped by B-29s, American heavy bombers that rained destruction on major Japanese cities. We all know that the United States was the only nuclear power at the time as it took another decade for the Soviet Union to detonate its first atomic bomb based on the theft of American nuclear secrets from Los Alamos.