You could also argue, though, that Blair somewhat discredits himself by really pressing an agenda onto the data - his research is excellent, but the way in which he writes it up is very aggressive and seeks to undermine and break down any and all achievements by the U-boat force, to the point where he really comes off as seriously anti-German. All the more so because of his writing on the US Submarine campaign (which is far better as writing goes, IMO), which further hints at that bias. That's really a shame from my perspective, because his writing makes his excellent data seem more suspect (due to his apparent bias) than it should be. I really wish his writing were more neutral and balanced- it'd only strengthen his main point, not undermine it. The data already speaks for itself, he really didn't have to push it as hard as he did.

Yes IT does...you are absolutely totally correct;)

You know what... forget what i wrote above... you are fun guy...hard to ignore.
Why don't you open some "Israel this.. or that..." thread, and we will exchange our thoughts.:haha:
This is actually very nice thread and i enjoy reading some posts it would too bad to drag it down.

:salute:

(the party line...good catch:har:...you read a lot:rotfl2:)

I would agree with this but suspect that like many WW2 Veterans, he harboured an anti-German bias that he might not even have been fully cognisant of having. Particularly as he spent most of his career as a journalist and analyst where objectivity should have been his stock and trade.

On the other hand it could be an intentional counter-point to the existing U-Boat mythology and the standard German Ubermensch narratives that denigrate many Allied successes.

Yeah, I mean, considering how much of that we have (a look at a lot of the discussions on SH3 forums is enough), I could see how that's the voice that was missing in the debate. In that case I'm probably just not the target audience for the book I guess - telling me to be skeptical of the German super-weapon (and anyone's super-weapon) mythology is preaching to the choir.

Well see the link in my previous post. Experiments like Heyerdahl's however repeatable just aren't the same thing as a substances reaction to heat or how fast a particular ray travels in a vacuum. History is about intentions and beliefs and motivations. Rather nebulous things compared to a chemical composition and therefore a lot more open to interpretation.

OK, I got some shut eye and see that this thread has evolved into a very interesting discussion. I again find I have little to add what CCIP has said, and in the end it also seems that when I call history a science, I do it partly because of the language difference that I explained earlier. For me in everyday use it's always "history science" not "history social science". Something I hadn't thought when I started writing in English.

However, I still insist on the term "history science" as opposed to mere "history". History needs a (social) scientific approach, methods and ethics. It needs people who are trained in these exactly because the past is easy to interpret and because it's open for anyone to interpret. Early in this thread Skybird provided an example of how politicians too can write history (however true the example is). The journalists were also mentioned. I also have a few books in my shelf written by people who haven't spent a single day in any college or university.

All of these people can claim they write history and in a way they are right. History in its simple form is, as I summarized on the first page of the thread, the past --> researcher --> history. However, as someone studying the field (and therefore in that way biased), I reserve the right for the opinion that there is "good" history and "bad" history. Just because anyone can study the primary sources doesn't make them historians. Sources by themself are useless if you don't possibly even think how to approach them, ask something from them and have a method for a meaningful answer.

I'm not saying that only the academic historians can do this. Some people can be naturally more oriented for honest and methodological research than the others. But I'm saying that there is a reason for why the PhDs study for years before they become researchers. And I'm saying that having an academic, scientifically oriented training doesn't make anyone a worse historian. And I would use the word "historian" therefore very carefully. Likewise while I can unclog my own toilet, I'm not a plumber.

Bunkervision prevents you from thinkining, thats the point , that is why you are often the same as the OP.
It is a nice topic, lets see if you can click some grey cells back to life.
It should be easy enough as we can keep it so you don't have a pie on the table so you don't get blinded by your pie.
What is the "ACCEPTED" :03: view of history regarding the Japanese involvement in WW2?
Or for another one.....What is the "ACCEPTED" date when WW2 in the far east started?
Now here is one that might actually be possible to answer properly....In your opinion how many decades would someone have to go back and cover to get a reasonable historical background on the causes for that conflict?

:salute:

As you can see new more accurate tools allow for some theories to change.
Still this theory seems to be with a lot of degree of uncertainty as well.
I support your claim that there is lots of guesswork and imagination work to fill the gabs regathering ancient history.
That's what makes this fun too.


:up:

MH it is you that is going ..:wah:all the time, which is why you are just like the OP.
What's even better is that due to your location you will soon demonstrate again just how closed minded you are and how much of a revisionist you have to be to try and argue your point.:up: at which point you will cry about "liberal conspiracies", "the media", "anti semitism" and "intellectuals" because you simply cannot think beyond your sheep like mantra, isn't it funny that your national rants can be adapted to all the tags this fruit loop OP had.

Told you...just open some thread to discus Israeli national issues.
Biases in academy and in international or local media...let it be left or right or whatever is everyday open subject here.
In media as well as in academy.
You can look it as sort of self regulations when people talk about their biases or supposedly lack of them.
I'm sorry to hear that is such a big deal for you i'm even more sorry that those things are not on the table where you come from.

Tribesman i use you only as a pet not a partner for discussion...and you been lot of fun in dull hours.:haha:

They will crop up on their own, it goes with the territory, you will of course then go into bunkervision because "no one understands:wah:."

An open subject you don't do very well in, like kneejerk...":wah::wah:its anti Israeli bias" when the source is the Israeli government or the Israeli defence forces, or... ":wah::wah: its leftist intellectual anti-semitic propoganda" when the source is an extremist settler newspaper.:yeah:

:har::har::har::har::har::har::har:
Clueless
Those things have been on the table since long before the creation of the state:doh:

MH discussion is not possible with someone of a closed mind like yours, it won't stop me from pushing at your closed mind all the time though as it is funny to see you run in circles, take an occasional real step then run in circles again when the shutters come down.

Here it is you drag all this issue down again.:haha:
You should stop reading this crap unless you look for confirmations of your jerk off views in those papers.
Its a common pattern...

It is in the vein of the opening post.

:har::har::har::har::har::har:
If you don't know what the idiots on both extremes are saying you have no idea where the middle ground may lie.
It is why you screw up on sources as you shoot blindly in ignorance according to simple bigotry.
It would be like someone over here in the "hegemonic world" following the republican line of history and current events and claiming that anything that doesn't fit that pattern is unionist bias and imperialist propoganda..or viceversa .
When the truth is that either approach is simply dumb closed minded idiocy which is normally dressed up as "patriotism" or "nationalism", which are of course "jerk off views" pretty much like you follow

@Hottentot, it is on topic.

Out of interest can you answer....

What is the "ACCEPTED" :03: view of history regarding the Japanese involvement in WW2?
Or for another one.....What is the "ACCEPTED" date when WW2 in the far east started?
Now here is one that might actually be possible to answer properly....In your opinion how many decades would someone have to go back and cover to get a reasonable historical background on the causes for that conflict?