I think, formulations of at least some questions are strongly biased. Some examples:
What is embarrassing for a country, if its chess player is defeated by a better foreign player? I remember this time and, although the propaganda made efforts to sell the match as a fight of the systems, everybody acknowledged Bobby as a brilliant player. Hence, it could be embarrassed for the Communist state, but it was not embarrassing for people.
If USSR was cynical in entering a treaty with Nazi, are you ready to go so far, to assess the appeasement politics of UK and France cynical as well? Were US and European companies cynical while supplying Nazi with strategic goods and their governments while permitting these exports?
Taking into account that the final outcome of Napoleon invasion was his ultimate defeat – is it honest to point out to the interim result of the war implicating, the war was disastrous embarrassment for Russians? All the more, if considering that Napoleon had to lea
This quiz was obviously put together by an American; "Unlike the United States, the Russians are unable to send a person [to the moon]" is such a salty thing to write
Are you kidding? The Space Race was a well-publicized touchstone of the Cold War. The US and USSR were both frantically trying to be the first to the moon, as a symbol of each country's superiority. The Soviets got the first satellite into space; they sent the first man into the space; and then they fell apart when they were trying to reach the big prize, and the US passed them and got to plant its flag on the moon. That is not biased American jingoism. That is what happened. And the Soviets were very embarrassed by it. Not because they didn't get to the moon, but because the Americans beat them there.
I think the idea that going to the moon is a "bigger prize" than reaching space or putting a man in orbit is the problem here. They are all amazing achievements, and gigantic milestones - valuing one above the others is such a ridiculous Cold-War-y thing.
Bingo. Furthermore, the russians beat the US in just about every other milestone, and kept going to space, even building stations, way after the moon landing.
Isn't the point of the quiz to be "salty"? I imagine that the U.S. version would have a similar question about the USSR beating it in getting the first man and the first woman in space
Whether getting to the moon is a bigger accomplishment than getting the first man in space is irrelevant. The issue is whether the Soviets were embarrassed by the Americans beating them to the moon. They were. They made it a huge priority, and they lost to the Americans. Yes, what the Soviet space program accomplished is objectively impressive, but they made it a point in the throes of the Cold War to beat the Americans to the moon. They poured a ton of resources into it, and they never got there.
I have no issue with the question, which is fine. It's just your characterisation of the Moon landing as "The Big Prize" that seems weird. It was *a* big prize - one that the Soviets certainly wanted and didn't get. Whether they are embarrassed by that is up to them.
This quiz is embarrassing chapters in Russian history. It's not going to be flattering. There are versions of this quiz for the UK, France, China, and of course the United States as well.
I don't think Russia had much of a "Pacific fleet" in 1904-5. As far as I'm aware most of the ships came from Europe. In fact part of the problem was that they had too little support infrastructure to operate efficiently in East Asia.
They sent it from Europe indeed. The drunken captains ordered to shoot British fishing boats on the way because they thought they were already there, for one.
No, although I get the intent of the question. That same intent doesn't work, however, on the Chernobyl question, given that Chernobyl is (today) in Ukraine and near the Belarus border (i.e. nowhere near Russia).
camus - the Soviet Union was universally recognized by Russia, international powers, and Ukraine itself as the successor of the Russian Empire, which included Ukraine. The seats of power of the USSR were in Russia and dominated by Russians (ethnically or culturally). It is ridiculous to suggest that Chernobyl was anyone else's fault, the only reason it wouldn't be is if the Ukrainian ASSR government independently developed Chernobyl all by themselves, which they didn't.
Russia dominating the Soviet Union doesn't make all of its parts Russian. I don't know about the ethnicities of the people responsible for Chernobyl but that's beside the point.
Burning Moscow was done deliberately to deny resources to the invaders. It was followed by the disastrous retreat from Russia and the abdication of a certain Corsican gentleman. It led directly to Russian victory so can hardly be called an embarrasement.
When you give up your biggest city to the enemy, this is because you lost all hope to successfully defend it, not because you wanted to in the first place.
Chernobyl had nothing of bad design. It was the state of the art of the 80's and better than many others. and a french design I think. However the safety procedures were embarrasingly set aside that's for sure, and more embarrasing cover-up attempts and late reaction to the blunder were the worst part of it.
There certainly was bad design involved, a similar event simply cannot happen in many other types of reactors that just stop when temperature is too high.
I would agree that the Soviet response to the disaster was far more embarrassing than the disaster itself. At least from my understanding from having visited the place. If I don't know what I'm talking about I blame my Ukrainian tour guide.
I wouldn't have wanted to be one of those guards looking out for Yeltsin that day. Also, how is the defection of Baryshnikov an embarassing chapter of history?
It says that the country was such a terrible place to live that people were trying to flee. Baryshnikov was far from the only one who made the attempt, but he's one of the more famous one and therefore emblematic of this phenomenon. You never saw large numbers of Americans trying to flee to Cuba or the Soviet Union; just like nobody in West Germany was attempting to flee to East Germany, and nobody in South Korea has ever tried to escape to North Korea. Pretty fair inclusion, IMO.
While it's of course far less common, there absolutely have been instances of people trying to and succeeding in leaving West Germany for East Germany, South Korea for North Korea, and I'm sure the same is true for the US to Cuba, although I'm less familiar with that part of the world so no examples come to mind.
Approximately 25,000 North Koreans defected to the South. 13 defectors went in the opposite direction. It's so lopsided and close enough to 0 that saying that it never happens is a valid observation. Like saying the sky is blue. Then some pedant pipes in with "well actually sometimes it's pink!" or "it only appears blue because of the wavelengths of light that pass through the atmosphere at certain angles when arriving at your retina"...... you know what I mean.
What are you talking about? If you live on Earth, the sky is black about half the time, and some combination of blue, grey and white the rest of the time. Also reddish-yellow at sunrise and sunset.
You actually said "nobody", both for Germany and for Korea, but I guess that's as close as you'll ever come to admitting a mistake, so I'll accept it. Oh, and happy birthday to you!
After hypocritically stating I'm incapable of admitting a mistake and incorrectly implying again that I was wrong, and then later acting like you don't even know what I could be referring to in an obvious effort to paint me as the jerk and not yourself, and this is your best attempt at being "nice." Well, kudos for effort.
Baryshnikov is not just a ballet dancer. He also became an actor, a talented one at that. He and Gregory Hines did a fantastic movie together in 1985 called White Nights (also stars Helen Mirren). If you never saw that, I highly recommend it. I haven't seen it since 1985 and it still stands out in my mind as a great movie with some phenomenal dancing by both Hines and Baryschnikov.
I see you accepted my critique of the previous clue suggesting the Soviets had lost the Space Race; I'm still not sure I agree with the wording of the present clue about failing to get to the moon- it was more like they just decided it wasn't worth it once the Americans already got there- but, much better than the previous clue/answer. Sputnik, Yuri Gagarin, Laika, and I all appreciate the change. ;-)
Kept trying Nureyev for the ballet dancer at first. Good quiz, would be fun to see a United States version of this too... Vanguard satellite launch, anyone? ;)
Forgot about this. A team of professionals who regularly played together for a country that had won the previous 4 Olympic gold medals (and 5 of the last 6) losing to a bunch of college players whom they had soundly trounced, 10-3, just days before. The head coach was so stunned, he forgot to pull the goalie, down by a goal, as the final minute wound down.
Considering the Cold War climate at the time, this one could easily have been one of the first ones on this quiz.
Selling Alaska was not embarrassing, it was a right decision. Russia would have lost this territory anyway, because it was far away and we weren't enough recourses to defend or explore it.
2 countries entered the cold war. One still exists. The other collapsed and disbanded after decades of famine, corruption, and the worst sorts of authoritarianism. There is a clear winner and loser of the cold war, no matter how much you'd love to spin it another way
doubtful. Both because the Russians are every bit as bad if not very probably worse than the Americans, but also because Russia (if you include the Soviet Union, Russian Empire, and various precursor states) has been around longer.
However, if criticism of America is what turns you on or preoccupies you, as it seems to be for so many, I authored a series of six or seven quizzes on embarrassing moments in US history. The original series I made about the US is what inspired this series by Quizmaster.
The point is that every country has embarrassing chapters, which we should be aware of. Most countries also have shining achievements, but, weirdly, those tend to be better-known, at least within said countries.
Also: every country is accountable for its own embarrassing chapters. The fact that others have failed too doesn't excuse anything a particular country has done wrong.
The childish lies that authoritarians (and wannabes) tell about themselves suggest serious emotional developmental issues. But saving a camera crew from a tiger is so stupid it's kind of awesome.
It's still a bit early to tell how it's going to work out exactly, but I would not be surprised if we're witnessing another embarrassing chapter for Russia currently.
Although this quiz does not intend to include every atrocity in the Russian history, please consider to add the Circassian genocide and the Katyn massacre in the answers.
For those who did not heard about these two events, the former happened between 1763 and 1864 when around one and a half million souls living north of the Caucasus were murdered, raped and expelled from their homeland by the Russian Empire. According to many sources, the Tsarist Army even killed and raped children and the skulls of victims were collected by Russians like General Grigory Zass for "scientific purposes."
Regarding the Katyn Massacre, around 22.000 Polish military officers and intellectuals were executed in the Katyn Forest by the orders of Stalin, after the Partition of Poland between the Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union.
Additionally, the ongoing war between Ukraine and Russia can be included in the answers as well.
1. The "Holodomor", as Ukrainians call it, was not a deliberate genocide of Ukrainians, since the famine at that time was also in Russia and in Kazakhstan, and in Kazakhstan the famine caused more damage.
2. Of course, I do not know who and how much money was stolen for the Sochi Olympics, but it was definitely not terrible (I definitely remember it very good).
3. I cannot judge Katyn and, in principle, Stalin, but it is very problematic here because the victims of all the events under Stalin, as for me, are shamelessly overestimated (20-60 million people were killed by him? Seriously? there were only 190 million inhabitants in the USSR at that time, even with all the rigidity of Stalin, he did not cut out such a large part of the population), and I find it hard to believe in 500,000 captured Poles and 20,000 killed in Katyn
The famine was deliberately made worse in Ukraine by Stalin. And currently your government is deliberately knocking out power plants in Ukraine to try and freeze the people there to death since their military has been so roundly defeated. Please turn off Russia Today and watch some real news.
As for the larger estimates of the victims of monsters like Stalin and Mao... these often include not just those people that they directly ordered murdered by the thousands in political purges, etc, but also people who died as a result of their policies which led to famines, wars, ethnic cleansing and population displacements et cetera. 60 million does indeed seem far-fetched. 10-20 probably isn't.
Indeed. Likely the most shameful and embarrassing thing a country has done in my lifetime (since 1979). Completely and totally unnecessary... and all for zero gain, which should have been clear from the outset.
What is embarrassing for a country, if its chess player is defeated by a better foreign player? I remember this time and, although the propaganda made efforts to sell the match as a fight of the systems, everybody acknowledged Bobby as a brilliant player. Hence, it could be embarrassed for the Communist state, but it was not embarrassing for people.
If USSR was cynical in entering a treaty with Nazi, are you ready to go so far, to assess the appeasement politics of UK and France cynical as well? Were US and European companies cynical while supplying Nazi with strategic goods and their governments while permitting these exports?
Taking into account that the final outcome of Napoleon invasion was his ultimate defeat – is it honest to point out to the interim result of the war implicating, the war was disastrous embarrassment for Russians? All the more, if considering that Napoleon had to lea
Ethiopia 1935/36, invading Greece in 1940, Libya in 1940, losing battleships in Tarent in November 1940?
Shall I continue?
Every country has embarrassing chapters in their history, but many of the Italian ones are especially hilarious!
Therefore, it is an embarrassing chapter in RUSSIAN history.
Reading the article it sounds like the design had major problems. In my opinion, a nuclear reactor should be idiot proof.
Considering the Cold War climate at the time, this one could easily have been one of the first ones on this quiz.
However, if criticism of America is what turns you on or preoccupies you, as it seems to be for so many, I authored a series of six or seven quizzes on embarrassing moments in US history. The original series I made about the US is what inspired this series by Quizmaster.
The point is that every country has embarrassing chapters, which we should be aware of. Most countries also have shining achievements, but, weirdly, those tend to be better-known, at least within said countries.
For those who did not heard about these two events, the former happened between 1763 and 1864 when around one and a half million souls living north of the Caucasus were murdered, raped and expelled from their homeland by the Russian Empire. According to many sources, the Tsarist Army even killed and raped children and the skulls of victims were collected by Russians like General Grigory Zass for "scientific purposes."
Regarding the Katyn Massacre, around 22.000 Polish military officers and intellectuals were executed in the Katyn Forest by the orders of Stalin, after the Partition of Poland between the Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union.
Additionally, the ongoing war between Ukraine and Russia can be included in the answers as well.
2. Of course, I do not know who and how much money was stolen for the Sochi Olympics, but it was definitely not terrible (I definitely remember it very good).
3. I cannot judge Katyn and, in principle, Stalin, but it is very problematic here because the victims of all the events under Stalin, as for me, are shamelessly overestimated (20-60 million people were killed by him? Seriously? there were only 190 million inhabitants in the USSR at that time, even with all the rigidity of Stalin, he did not cut out such a large part of the population), and I find it hard to believe in 500,000 captured Poles and 20,000 killed in Katyn
As for the larger estimates of the victims of monsters like Stalin and Mao... these often include not just those people that they directly ordered murdered by the thousands in political purges, etc, but also people who died as a result of their policies which led to famines, wars, ethnic cleansing and population displacements et cetera. 60 million does indeed seem far-fetched. 10-20 probably isn't.