Do you like history? Do you like podcasts?

[soopaman2]

I am rusty here, hope this is in the right place.

I do not watch a lot of TV, I enjoy podcasts.

I found Dan Carlins Hardcore History, originally on the ongoing WW1 series he is doing (5 episodes at 4 hours a piece)

He quotes a lot of historical sources, and when he is injecting his opinion he says so, he looks at events from an outside view, when a source he is quoting may be biased because they wrote the book to save their own skin (like Churchill, and various German/French WW1 generals).

He presents things very neutrally. He has a great way of tying one event into another far distant event.


His series on the mongols is great as well, as the other things in the library.

I know people here love history, and maybe you can give a listen and enjoy it too.

[Stealhead]

It would be far easier to do this if you provided a link. Though a series in which each episode is four hours long? Without having heard any I'd say that is a bit ecsessive it should not take that long to get your point across.

Found a link for you https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qBHXMq2C0R0
Just doing some researching I'd say that he is not exactly neutral he has his own personal views in there. So not what I'd call a neutral analysis. Seems more like his own personal analysis which he appearlty dose say from time to time according to those who have sat through a 4 hour podcast.

Personally my favored history discussion method is talking with a friend or family member about a given topic. I've had discussions go on for days with breaks of course. My way is to read multiple books on a topic then forumlate my own opnion. I can sit and tell you a lot about the battle at Kursk in 1943 but unless you'd read the same material as I had or more you can't know what of what I say is fact and what is opinion.

I'd rather have a discussion with a person who I know has a well read knowledge of a topic and go from there its more interesting to me that type of discussion over a fire side chat where one person is doing all the talking even if they are not trying to come across as the authority.

[soopaman2]

Not all are as long, but how can you explain the politics of WW1 in steps in short doses. It was a very complicated war that any side could have won, nearly to the end.

I am sorry if you do not have the patience or wish to kill him without listening, that is fine. But yes, sometimes a longform lecture is better to get the point across, from multiple angles. So you can understand the complexity of the war, and the reason why the various nations drove themselves to the brink of death to win.

This is not your typical history/discovery channel condensed one hour crap.

Whatever, listen or don't. I enjoyed his blueprint for Armegeddon, and Wrath of the Khans series'.

I thought maybe others who are into military history would like it too.
http://www.dancarlin.com/hardcore-history-series/


Edit: find me one family member you have, that you talked to with a clear mind, not as a 3 year old, who was in WW1? We have the memoirs of the generals though, which Dan Carlin reads off, from both sides.

'In case anyone cares.

[Sailor Steve]

I listened to the first couple of minutes of the first lecture (episode?) and I did enjoy his comments on terrorism and how history is influenced. I was tickled by the line "I think you could make the case that the single most important person of the last century is Gavrilo Princep."

It's hard for me to sit still for three hours, but I can remember where I left off and listen to it in bite-sized chunks. Whether I end up agreeing with what he says or not is irrelevant. I will be listening to them.

[mapuc]

Now the coin feel down-

Toke a look at this Dan Carlin's hardcore History on his youtube channel-Episode 54..where is episode 1... lowest episode is 40..aha got it, its not a chapter but the year.

Have put it on my favorit list

Markus

[soopaman2]

. I was tickled by the line "I think you could make the case that the single most important person of the last century is Gavrilo Princep."



You cannot argue with that point. Two horrid wars were sparked when he after a failed bombing attempt on the archduke, walked out a deli, and found the archdukes car sitting there.

2 wars later hundreds of millions dead, Rise and fall of communism, rise of American intervention, as compared to the leave us alone type neutrals we were.

That one, insignificant man (Princip) shattered nations, and shaped the modern world.

Dan made a conjecture, that if you could show Princip what his actions would do in the future, he would have never done what he did.

He also makes the point that one mans terrorist is anothers freedom fighter, and just recently they erected a statue of Princip.

The damage he caused, the ripple he sent throughout the world, he is still a hero, throwing off the imperial yolk singlehandedly.

Sadly millions died, and millions more maimed.

It is amazing the damage one man with good intentions could cause, and how it influenced nations long term via domino effect.

[Torplexed]

It's hard for me to sit still for three hours, but I can remember where I left off and listen to it in bite-sized chunks. Whether I end up agreeing with what he says or not is irrelevant. I will be listening to them.

I've gotten into the habit of tossing podcasts into the radio folder of Silent Hunter 4. If you're cruising about on low time compression you at least learn something new while sailing the Pacific in circles.

[Stealhead]

Not all are as long, but how can you explain the politics of WW1 in steps in short doses. It was a very complicated war that any side could have won, nearly to the end.

I am sorry if you do not have the patience or wish to kill him without listening, that is fine. But yes, sometimes a longform lecture is better to get the point across, from multiple angles. So you can understand the complexity of the war, and the reason why the various nations drove themselves to the brink of death to win.

This is not your typical history/discovery channel condensed one hour crap.

Whatever, listen or don't. I enjoyed his blueprint for Armegeddon, and Wrath of the Khans series'.

I thought maybe others who are into military history would like it too.
http://www.dancarlin.com/hardcore-history-series/


Edit: find me one family member you have, that you talked to with a clear mind, not as a 3 year old, who was in WW1? We have the memoirs of the generals though, which Dan Carlin reads off, from both sides.

'In case anyone cares.


Think you missed my point I'm fairly certain that Dan was also not in WWI that statement you made makes no sense. Because a person was involved in a historical event espically one as vast as WWI or WWII in no way makes them an expert on all things related. My great uncle was a medic in Europe so that just makes him an expert on what the Japanese government was thinking...sure. I was simply stating that he even himself states that he is no expert. Also having read what even some fairly loyal fans have to say about him on Refit.

What he is doing is podcasting what he knows about different events in history and he credits sources. Therefore he is rectiting to your points of history and he he is by his own admission also explaining his take.

I'm sorry if you don't have any intellectual friends or family members with which you can have a discussion with.

And I did listen to roughly 25 minutes of the podcast that I linked. In that span he only followed along much like he was telling a narative I didn't.

You seem to easily find offense if someone dose not fully agree with you.

[soopaman2]

No offense stealhead.

I liked the way he presented it, you did not. Whatever. Maybe others will.

No my friends are not morons sir, but thanks for suggesting that.

Maybe I read some of the books he quotes, maybe my interest is deep in this subject. I am sorry you read something on you tube and poo pood me, you tube comments are the worse crap on the internet.

We can keep insulting one another covertly, or just agree to disagree.

I prefer the latter myself, sir.:salute:

[Sailor Steve]

You cannot argue with that point.
Sure you can. I said I liked the statement. That doesn't mean I agree with it one hundred percent.

Austria was already looking for a war. They didn't have to take the harsh line they did. Princip was an excuse. If he had failed they would have found another one.

Dan made a conjecture, that if you could show Princip what his actions would do in the future, he would have never done what he did.
I doubt that. 'True Believers' are invariably convinced of their own rightness, and seeing the results of his actions might just as well made him see what came later as a good thing. We have no way of knowing what he would have thought.

He also makes the point that one mans terrorist is anothers freedom fighter, and just recently they erected a statue of Princip.
This is true. Ask any neo-Nazi.

It is amazing the damage one man with good intentions could cause, and how it influenced nations long term via domino effect.
There's a reason for that saying about the road to hell.

[soopaman2]

Austria was already looking for a war. They didn't have to take the harsh line they did. Princip was an excuse. If he had failed they would have found another one.


Funny enough Austria-Hungary cost them the war, as Germany had to constantly pull men off of lines to bail them out of crap that the German staff told them not to do, but they decided to do.

They got their asses handed to them by a half ready Russian force, with a government half ready to topple over. The fact that Slavs abandoned the Austrian side and joined the Russians, as well as other major ethnic tensions amongst the army, which reflected the ethnic tensions in the country.

[Stealhead]

No offense stealhead.

I liked the way he presented it, you did not. Whatever. Maybe others will.

No my friends are not morons sir, but thanks for suggesting that.

Maybe I read some of the books he quotes, maybe my interest is deep in this subject. I am sorry you read something on you tube and poo pood me, you tube comments are the worse crap on the internet.

We can keep insulting one another covertly, or just agree to disagree.

I prefer the latter myself, sir.:salute:

That is fine but your edit comment seemed rather insulting to be frankly honest implying either that I talk to others as though they are three year olds or that I must be a bit on the slow side and am not capable of having a discussion on a mature level.

Which is why I stated that you seem to take offense to a person not fully agreeing with you. I merely originally stated my opinion it was not meant to insult or belittle.

I should also add that Mr. Carlin was at one time a political commentator and I always consider a person who has this background to have questionable neutrality. True he dose state when he is entering speculation but at the end of the day he is still telling a narrative with his conjecture. With that in more mind one still would do best to research the subject matter themselves and then decide if they agree or disagree.

[soopaman2]

That is fine but your edit comment seemed rather insulting to be frankly honest implying either that I talk to others as though they are three year olds or that I must be a bit on the slow side and am not capable of having a discussion on a mature level.

Which is why I stated that you seem to take offense to a person not fully agreeing with you. I merely originally stated my opinion it was not meant to insult or belittle.

I should also add that Mr. Carlin was at one time a political commentator and I always consider a person who has this background to have questionable neutrality. True he dose state when he is entering speculation but at the end of the day he is still telling a narrative with his conjecture. With that in more mind one still would do best to research the subject matter themselves and then decide if they agree or disagree.

On his website he lists the books he uses.
http://www.dancarlin.com/hardcore-history-series/

Edit: He was quoting some Churchill material from a book he wrote, and even stated that this is biased, because he was trying to cover his own backside. It is not as bad as you think.

I am not saying he is gospel, even he himself says he is "giving the Dan Carlin version"

I just enjoy him very much, as he is a military history buff like me, and very well read, and articulate enough to provide theatre of the mind to make for an entertaining listen. I thought others here might like it.

It is not some guy talking out his backside, which maybe I thought you were implying.

[Onkel Neal]

I've gotten into the habit of tossing podcasts into the radio folder of Silent Hunter 4. If you're cruising about on low time compression you at least learn something new while sailing the Pacific in circles.

That is a great idea! :D

I discovered Dan (http://forum.dancarlin.com/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=43259)when I started searching for podcasts to listen to while driving. He's really interesting, and I am enjoying all his podcasts.

[Dowly]

I've posted this before, but its good enough to post again:
The History of Rome by Mike Duncan (https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/the-history-of-rome/id261654474?mt=2)

:up:

[Jimbuna]

That is a great idea! :D

I discovered Dan (http://forum.dancarlin.com/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=43259)when I started searching for podcasts to listen to while driving. He's really interesting, and I am enjoying all his podcasts.

Not sure I lke him but some of his stuff is quite interesting.

[soopaman2]

I've posted this before, but its good enough to post again:
The History of Rome by Mike Duncan (https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/the-history-of-rome/id261654474?mt=2)

:up:

Oooooh. That oughta keep me busy awhile. Thank you sir. :sunny: