Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's something that I see on here often, people analysing and re-evaluating history and postulating about what differences other actions might have had. I consider it to be a valid and sometimes stimulating way to look at history but others, apparently, feel differently.
Is it ok to question how events unfolded during World War Two? That's a hot topic of discussion on social media in Russia right now.
Quote:
Asking this simple question led to a social media storm against Dozhd TV. Thousands were outraged - arguing that even posing this question was an insult to the dead.
I'd be interested to know what people on here thought of this notion.
Do the people of the History Forum feel that there are some parts of history that should be treated differently? As an example should 'living' history be treated with a touch of delicacy, or can all history be considered as being fair game? If we were to consider the idea of a wholly or selectively sacrosanct history would it prevent us from learning from it's negative as well as positive attributes for instance?
Always an interesting topic for me, i.e. the study and analysis of 'history'. The study of the past is so intriguing because not only is it of facts but of interpretation of those facts. That is where 'story-telling' comes in. But it gets complicated because we can only understand what went before through the lens of our own time. Looking back and studying the events in Leningrad to understand Russian behavior in defense of the city is perfectly valid but we need to remember that we have more information, much more information than anybody during that time had about what was going on. Who knows if the 'what-ifs' we talk about in our armchairs can ever have taken off since it could not even be possible in some cases for individuals in those events to have the information we have now at their disposal during that time?
As for 'sancrosact history', I don't think exists. Of course there are facts and that never changes but the 'stories' that can be wrung from those facts well they can be really innumerable. Why? Because each one of the individuals writing that history is unique and that uniqueness provides a different position of the analytical, ie. personal lens on all that history. All in all when we say read Gibbon's 'Decline and Fall' we, of course, are getting a 'Gibbonian' version of Roman history. When we read him, we really are getting his ideologies, his values and positions when making that history. I think this happens each and every time we read historians. Frankly, it's hard to conceive of 'unbased' history. Surely impossible to get away from!
In general I think analysis is ultimately the only way to really study history. Absent analysis you are just left with a series of facts that lack context and understanding. Ultimately the issue comes down to the form that analysis takes. Some is better than others, IMO. In general and in this forum I see the following types of analysis:
1. Why? - That is probably one of the most common analyses performed and probably the most valid. The point is to answer why certain decisions were made or things were done the way they were.
2. What If? - Another common one and very popular among certain people. This can be an interesting way to look at history as long as the conversation is not allowed to run into the ridiculous. For instance, "what if Hitler hadn't diverted his panzer armies after Smolensk" is a common and interesting one. This can go sour real quick when we start with the "what if Hitler had sharks with laser beams on their heads" line of discussion.
3. Debunking - This is another form of analysis, but similar to the why, where you have to lay out the case for why a certain belief or understanding that may be rather commonly held is wrong. This effort needs to be firmly rooted in evidence and facts. An example of this may be the old "the Soviet Union would have collapsed in WW2 if not for American Lend Lease". That's a very commonly held belief that can be disproven with even a basic examination of the evidence. I would consider this to generally be something "misunderstood" by people who are outside the core subject matter, but for which there tends to be consensus among the main people involved in the area of study.
4. Alternative - Overall "what if" is technically under this umbrella, but I separated it because "what if" generally purports to be hypothetical, while alternative attempts to "re-write" history or change the consensus interpretation/understanding. Under this umbrella you have everything from "conspiracy theory" style re-imaginings to more straight forward differences that can illicit debate such as the "efficacy of FDR's New Deal policies in fixing the economy". For alternative history to be valid, it needs to be firmly rooted in evidence and have a strong case behind the new interpretation.
In general I would tolerate and consider valid any discussion in any of those lines. The only time I perosnally draw a line is when we delve into conspiracy theory as that lacks the "evidence test" and instead relies upon selective usage of facts or outright falsehoods to attempt to prove a case. Lumped into conspiracy theory would be probably my most hated form of alternative history which is "denial". This is the attempt to outright deny that certain events which have been beyond proven to have happened, actually happened. Take for instance, the school of Holocaust denial. I don't think there is even a little bit of wiggle room for tolerating that particular line of alternative history. One can perhaps debate the details assuming they can present compelling evidence, but outright denial is simply lunacy.
Through it all, one needs to be careful to avoid certain pitfalls:
1. Hindsight is 20/20. It's hard to really argue other scenarios or declare a decision a mistake, when you know the outcome. For this reason, it's important to understand when an anlysis is including "hindsight" to see how the events fit into a bigger picture. At the same time, one needs to be careful not to criticize or declare something a mistake unless they are able to place the actions within context, including accounting for information that was actually known to the decision makers.
2. Applying modern morality to people of the past is another major trap people fall into. You need to place everything within the context of the times, including the morality. Even modern morality is largely a grey area, so one is very foolish to paint historical figures with a modern morality brush. For instance, Abraham Lincoln would be seen as a "racist" through a modern lense given many of the statements he made. Within the context of his time however, he was pretty progressive.
3. The final major pitfall is looking at or using history through a modern partisan political lense. This is done very often and is solely driven by ideology. If my ideology is rooted in historical precedent and/or my opponents can be associated with historical failure, then I win. In most cases the history being invoked is being taken completely out of context.
I suppose that one could simply sum all of these up as "always place history within its proper context".
1. Hindsight is 20/20. It's hard to really argue other scenarios or declare a decision a mistake, when you know the outcome. For this reason, it's important to understand when an anlysis is including "hindsight" to see how the events fit into a bigger picture. At the same time, one needs to be careful not to criticize or declare something a mistake unless they are able to place the actions within context, including accounting for information that was actually known to the decision makers.
2. Applying modern morality to people of the past is another major trap people fall into. You need to place everything within the context of the times, including the morality. Even modern morality is largely a grey area, so one is very foolish to paint historical figures with a modern morality brush. For instance, Abraham Lincoln would be seen as a "racist" through a modern lense given many of the statements he made. Within the context of his time however, he was pretty progressive.
3. The final major pitfall is looking at or using history through a modern partisan political lense. This is done very often and is solely driven by ideology. If my ideology is rooted in historical precedent and/or my opponents can be associated with historical failure, then I win. In most cases the history being invoked is being taken completely out of context.
I suppose that one could simply sum all of these up as "always place history within its proper context".
This is an area regarding history that always bugged me when in school. You cannot use modern, personal perspective and experience to evaluate the past IMO. Yet it's done all the time, particularly by left learning instructors. They will go so far as to examine only the points that support their beliefs, while ignoring other relevant historical points that contradict their way of thinking. A very simply example would be FDR, and his impact during the great depression. Liberal teachers will often state that he brought the country out of the depression, while ignoring the mammoth GDP growth supplied by WW2 and the demand for labor, wartime production, etc.
It's something that I see on here often, people analysing and re-evaluating history and postulating about what differences other actions might have had. I consider it to be a valid and sometimes stimulating way to look at history but others, apparently, feel differently.
Do the people of the History Forum feel that there are some parts of history that should be treated differently? As an example should 'living' history be treated with a touch of delicacy, or can all history be considered as being fair game? If we were to consider the idea of a wholly or selectively sacrosanct history would it prevent us from learning from it's negative as well as positive attributes for instance?
Just a bit of food for thought.
OP, I can give you a very straight answer, but it may be offensive and misunderstood.
So Ill tone it down a little bit.
Don't worry about things you should not be worried about.
BBC is bullhorn for those who, for the most part, caused WWII and has NO right to go anywhere into any of those discussions.
Entire West is so brainwashed on anything that is relevant to WWII that folks should be ashamed, stick their heads into the sand, and keep beaks shut.
Leave those heroic people alone. NONE of you here has ANY idea. Find better chew gum for your minds and chew on that.
Do the people of the History Forum feel that there are some parts of history that should be treated differently? As an example should 'living' history be treated with a touch of delicacy, or can all history be considered as being fair game? If we were to consider the idea of a wholly or selectively sacrosanct history would it prevent us from learning from it's negative as well as positive attributes for instance?
The temptation is to answer yes in the absolute, that the sensitivities of particular groups are subordinate to the goal of doing history, which is to produce the most accurate possible history.
However, if you run this out there as an absolute, then you have thrown the door open to all potential revisionists, those who seek truth, but also those with agendas. As an absolute it is handing a great justification weapon to self aggrandizing hustlers like Erich Von Daniken, or general scapegraces like the neo Nazi Holocaust deniers.
Still, better to have some telling the truth while others distort, then a general agreement that we will all just accept a prevailing distortion. Otherwise we would have situations where everything that we knew about the Texas revolution was written by the Daughters of the Alamo.
Alternative history speculation in my opinion is a waste of analysis because one does not know with certainty what the succeeding decisions would be. One would have to construct a monsterous outcome tree, accounting for logical and illogical decision making and it would be of relatively little use(except perhaps for marginal points) compared to a proper deconstruction of known events in the order which they occurred.
Validity of living history depends a great deal on how one rates the accuracy of the person recollecting events. Perfect example is what color the battleship Arizona wore on December 7th 1941. Research that nugget and you will know what I mean. Time degrades memory considerably and it is noted in memoirs which are created years afterwards. Time also allows for reflection and weighing of experience so the recollection of the meaning or importance of an event by someone age 20 wil be different than when they are 100years of age. Read the Last Tommy or similar books with testimony by centennials and you will see what I refer to.
Have read in numerous titles how incomplete knowledge of an event creates contrasting analyses. Little Big Horn battle is a perfect example.
Then there is just plain poorly researched or written history which can fool readers who have not done more reading.The Internet has created much confusion compared to pre-Internet historical writing. I see common myths and errors repeated as fact WITH disbelief by their proponents when corrected because the information was presented on the Internet. And they are too lazy or superficial to read further.
The more one reads on a subject which is described in detail by the work the more one obtains a sense of what actually occurred. You will not find that on the Internet unless someone uploads and entire book. One needs to read widely and diversely on a given subject to understand the attitudes of the decision makers. Good history is actually very complex and unfortunately has been reduced to fairly simple inputs for the reading public.
Shelby Foote said a person needs to be 40years of age to be a good historian because they will have lived a life by that age and understand more and wisdom comes with experience.
NB: I was thinking also there is how myth becomes history. Example would be of the reality of Italian contribution and performance in WW2 and how they are depicted in most post-war historical writing.
This is an area regarding history that always bugged me when in school. You cannot use modern, personal perspective and experience to evaluate the past IMO. Yet it's done all the time, particularly by left learning instructors. They will go so far as to examine only the points that support their beliefs, while ignoring other relevant historical points that contradict their way of thinking. A very simply example would be FDR, and his impact during the great depression. Liberal teachers will often state that he brought the country out of the depression, while ignoring the mammoth GDP growth supplied by WW2 and the demand for labor, wartime production, etc.
lol, I know what you mean regarding professors and teachers. These are also the same ones who will give you a low grade on an "opinion paper" because they don't agree with your "opinion" despite the fact you properly sourced and provided evidence to support your argument...not that I have any experience with this mind you...
lol, I know what you mean regarding professors and teachers. These are also the same ones who will give you a low grade on an "opinion paper" because they don't agree with your "opinion" despite the fact you properly sourced and provided evidence to support your argument...not that I have any experience with this mind you...
Yup, I can vouch for this... Being a moderate right of center conservative coasting through radical left wing teaching halls, grade school and thereafter. Some of these folks could be mistaken for dictators instead of teachers.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
