one example of this is the study book for my current course. we were given this assignment from the book. i've translated it, of course
"take a stance on the following statement: stalin's USSR was a totalitarian state." here are the example answers given by the book:
"stances in favor of the statement:
- the country had a single-party system and a communist party dictatorship
- Stalin had consolidated power by the end of the 1920s
- Stalin's cult of personality
- the great purge of the 1930s: stalin's political enemies were liquidated or taken to prison camps
- independent peasants, a.k.a. kulaks, were forcibly migrated
- sources of information were controlled and art was subjugated to emphasize the power of the country's ideology"
next up is the best part and the reason I'm making this post. some more of the book's example answers:
"stances against the statement:
- can anything even be said against the statement?
- the communists thought the country's workers had the power, but that was just propaganda talk."
i love how even when they attempt to criticize red scare rhetoric, they just give up before they even try.
Yeah, been wondering about the education about it. There has been some taking to task of Mannerheim in recent years, wondered if anything has changed from what I've heard from back in the 90's where it was pretty pro-white.
in the book, the winter war is basically handled by this false neutrality, talking objectively about how important it is to finnish identity and how it's a source of pride etc. but never even attempting to push back against it. on the other hand, the continuation war is condemned because finland openly collaborated with the nazis and gave up thousands POWs to nazi germany. it's like the winter war is this sacred thing here that you're never allowed to criticize in any way.