Uh, you could hear it in his tone. And his expression-- as controlled as it was. He loathes Poland. A blind man could see it.Nanomachines son said:ttu_85 said:Yes but Putin's takes this to entire differently level. Its his religion- the way he recounted Russian history and Poland's invention in that 'holy' history. He blames 13th C Poland for the Ukrainian mess of today. That requires a passion most folk just dont have; dangerous levels of it. The sooner this dude exits this world the better off it will be.Nanomachines son said:
Watching this Putin interview I came away with the fact that I hate modern American politics. Putin knows his nation's history and we should expect that from our leaders. We used to have this and we used to have leaders who knew history dating back to Jamestown and back into England and Europe.
Regardless of Putin's motivations or lies, you cannot say he has not studied history and geopolitics extensively. We need to expect this and demand it from our own leaders.
We should demand this level of passion from our leaders. Why is this a bad thing? He's not blaming Poland at all, he used all of the historical context to show why those lands belonged to Russia, not that it was all Poland's fault. Our leaders should have an autistic level of of knowledge about US history going back to Jamestown. They should know the reasons and causes for every major conflict and land acquisition. They should know our grievances or claims to specific areas of land. They should know why people made the decisions they did within the historical context of the time period.
This is not dangerous at all. This is what good leaders do. This place constantly harps on how those who forget history are doomed to repeat it yet when confronted by a foreign adversary who has this level of knowledge, it is now condemned. I don't get it, either knowledge of history is a good thing or it is bad. Which is it?
Oh and your last sentence. You think that knowledge and passion for history is binary ?-- yes [A good Thing] or no [bad thing] only? Here you go-- a yes/no 'either knowledge of history is a good thing or it is bad. Which is it?
"Well, I think the South should succeed and then use its new found industry and tech to burn NY and Chicago to the ground as they did to Atlanta." Is this hyperbolic example a "good thing or is it bad. Which is it"
or
"Yeah the Civil War was awful but Sherman was right to take out Atlanta as an industrial center in order to shorten the war and save lives. We need to learn from history and move on."
Your statement: I don't get it, either knowledge of history is a good thing or it is bad. Which is it?
is so wrong because its not a binary question nor does it have binary answers. Its about degrees of knowledge and perspective which have a million variations ESPECIALLY when merged to human emotion.
I think your entire premise is wrong.