Let’s try this one… Tell your fellow forum members what you think about your own objectiveness.
Do you have an agenda? Are you objective in your evaluation of the history? Of others replies? Be honest.
Since I have opened the thread I start.
As much as I want to be honest, objective and independent in my views, I found out that it is very difficult.
I catch my self all the time in trying to fit the facts to my understanding of the world. It is so easy to
give up to this feeling. For me, it is difficult to come to conclusions that force me to rethink the established
picture in my head. That is roughly the situation.
Being a historian is no easy task as history constantly evolves. A good case in point is the continued release of archival material from WWII. Often I find ‘facts’ need updating.
Of course your point of view is different to others and that is no problem. Just remember you’ll never learn everything about history. Congrats Egorka on a thoughtful thread.
I’m sure we all try to be objective when presenting our views but we must all be effected by the way history is presented to us. The perspective your country of birth has of history must mould how you perceive it and therefore to some extent influence your view on issues.
Hitler and Stalin are good examples of where your countries teaching & perception somewhat clouds the truth. Both could lay claim to be the most evil man of the 20th century and although using different methods and victims they were in the end both responsible for millions of deaths. However, in western culture Hitler is seen as the anti Christ while Stalin, despite the cold war, is regarded with less contempt.
My point is that we were moulded to see Hitler as an evil man while our perception of Stalin was encouraged towards seeing him a differently. Even after history has revised its opinion of Stalin the view started in the west during WW11 still prevents us from comparing the two using the same criteria.
I’m not trying to start a thread about these two characters. I’m just trying rather badly to explain my point.
I dunno. Anyone that truly has studied the subject of history knows that Stalin was just as big a prick as Hitler was. I NEVER thought he was anywhere near being a good guy. He simply post-dated Hitler in much of his perversion.
Personally I have seen so many (=read ‘too many’) “Waffen-SS soldiers were absolutely poor soldiers” views/articles/etc that I’m starting to get annoyed, which, in the worst case, can lead me to have agenda about emphasizing their achievements on the battlefields by digging up their the best moments
Problem with Waffen-SS battleunits is that they are so different: from the first handful of battledivisions (very professional soldiers) to the propaganda etc units (like indian SS) never even seeing fighting.
I don’t think too many of those men who faced divisions like “2nd SS Division Das Reich” want to claim that they were poor.
I don’t normally have an agenda, but at the moment I do
That agenda is to make it clear to alephh that he cannot consider Irving to be a historian of any repute .:twisted:
. If you keep on finding new documents, getting to interview people who have witnessed history and refuse to talk to most historians, keeping your archives open to other researchers, etc.
At best that makes him a good researcher, but seeing he often presents fake documents as real, and accepts the statements of Nazis without question, I have my doubts about that
Several historians claim that U.S. troops didn’t have order to fire at children during Korean war dispite there are documents to prove it (like mentioned at http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwa…_usa_05.shtml). Why didn’t some historians include those documents? Because they have agenda. Does that make them bad historians? Im my opinion: no.
Of course it makes them bad historians,:roll:
American historians generally have strong agenda not to trash America, russian historians generally have strong agenda not to trash Russia, and so on.
I have no problem with that, its when they lie that they cross the line
Every historian has his/her agenda which makes them prone to bend, twist, select, distort, lie. Some are more prone to that than others. Some of these agendas are more objectionable than others - Irving’s agenda being the worst kind.
Any historian who lies. is a crap historian…no if, buts, or maybes.
I think, if I’m correct, that we have one difference:
I feel that if historian makes 2754 correct statements and 100 lies - He’s not a bad historian.
You feel that if historian makes 2754 correct statements and 100 lies - he’s no longer historian, and cannot be taken seriously (at all).
I just feel your attitude is a bit “there’s only black or white - nothing between them”.
I have just seen so many errors in so many history-books by so many historians that maybe I’m numb to lies and distortions by historians.
History is a damn difficult subject, because it’s difficult to say what version of events is the ultimate truth, if any.
For example: Hugh Trevor-Roper’s Last Days of Hitler is fundamental book on hitler’s last days, thousands of books build on it and rely on it. It’s based on allied interviews of those close to Hitler. But for example Nicolaus von Below tells in his book, that when he tried to tell the truth to allied investigators, they didn’t give him any food, when he tried to tell the truth to allied investigators they kept the lights on to stop him sleeping and ketting any rest, etc, etc. Finally von Below realised how the allied ‘truth seeking’ worked, and just make up stuff, adding fantasy details (he even mentions one or two in his book). I recall von Below writing (not 100% sure) that he laughed when he read the Trevor-Roper’s book.
So my question is: Is Trevor-Roper’s book a solid history book or is it product of “bad historians” and “bad investigators”? And how can you trust anything that is said in the thousands book quoting Trevor-Roper?
And if there are couple of distortions/lies in the Trevor-Roper’s book (sort of in order to promote total evilness of nazis and angelic innocence of allies), does is make it completely worthless? Does it make Trevor-Roper a bad historian?
And, following your ‘black or white’ approach, if I point out an error in every history book ever written because historians have with full knowledge and pre-set agenda have chosen not to include certain sources (and they have to do that if they ever want to finish anything at all) - does that mean that every historian in the world is “a bad historian”? Wow! That really changes history of the world.
I have to agree with alephh
If somebody simply dislike historians like Irving it’s not the point he is “bad historian”.
Although IMHO he is biased (but no more than V.Suvorov/Resun ).
BTW Igor thanks for the thread.
Cheers.
If the objectivness of the historians is relevant to this discussion, then our objectivness is relevant too!
I am amazed and puzzeled completely by this. No one so far has made an effort to analyse his grade of objectiveness. Do you, guys, think that only others are under influence of propaganda? So why not talk about it here.
I know am affected. That is what I described in the opening comment of this thread. We are all humans, so why not just open heartedly talk about it and not just pretend to be the super objective historians.
With lots of love and freindship wishes to all of you.
I guess it is my englsh that is a problem here. For me to have an agenda is to have a plan behind actions, a core idea that the rest is built around, a system of understanding the world around.
That is what I described in the oppening statement. I said I really whish be honest in this forum. So to say I try not to win argument but to understand and analyse the subject. But because my of background, I see myself often catching to the points that are, for example, not so relevant for a given discussion. In the most of the discussions I participated in this forum I learned a bit t oaccept others views. I peronally do not consider my self very objective, even though I try.
That is what I wanted to here about others. Do you feel the same?
Maybe I should have called the thread “Do you think YOU are objective?”
Understood mate. For a while there I was beginning to think you had a hidden agenda. I try to be objective as possible and let me tell you I for one admit all the Allied forces made mistakes during the war, but in reality many of those mistakes were forced on them by the desperation of the situation rather than deliberate actions.
Maybe your right in that I did not answer the question first time round so I’ll try again. I don’t have an agenda, only honestly held views. These views however may well be less objective than I would like simply because my view on history is influenced by where I was born and from what perspective I was schooled. I don’t know if this is true but I try to bear it in mind when forming views in the hope of coming up with a fare analysis.
