Left Wing Historical Revisionism

tater · 02-02-12, 09:45 AM

I haven't seen much of it in serious military history, frankly. Some popular military histories written by journalists I've read have had a clear political axe to grind (most left, but some right, as well), though.

It is, however, prevalent in academic studies of the former Soviet Union and Cold War, however (In Denial is a great history/historiography by Haynes and Klehr responding to ideological attacks against their work on Soviet espionage and influence in the US (and the culpability of the CPUSA). They included studies of articles in academic history journals, and positivity vs negativity WRT the CCCP in papers and found after the late 60s, negativity virtually disappeared in academic papers, or was always heavily tempered ("sure, there were some excesses, but the trains ran on time" sorts of things). I only read it because I had read their other excellent books (the Venona one, secret world of american communism, the soviet world of american communism, etc (most from Yale University Press I believe)). They went to Russia right after it opened up, and went through files before the Russians closed them again, so their work is an invaluable resource, direct from Soviet espionage files.

I remember seeing classes at the U that were along those lines as well, but they were not in the real history dept, but the silly "american studies" department (yes, I know calling "american/women's/gender/etc-studies" is redundant, since any real work along those lines would simply be "history").

Like everything else human, there is going to be bias. You have to just live with it.

Hottentot · 02-02-12, 10:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tater

It is, however, prevalent in academic studies of the former Soviet Union and Cold War, however

As someone interested in and researching that field, I can say that reading an account after account that could be summarized by saying "this sucked" gets tedious. It's an easy way to get lots of accepting nods, but it has been done for so many times that it's difficult to bring much new to it. Researcher after researcher has argued and proven that the first five year plan failed, the collectivization was a tragedy and the purges whimsical tyranny. In how many different ways it is necessary to say that?

The research these days may seem to be looking at the Soviet Union in a more positive light, because the focus is on subjects that do not necessarily need a "failed / succeeded" stamp on them. I, for example, studied the Soviet film culture in the 1930s for my seminar thesis and am continuing it on my master's thesis. I mentioned the current paradigms on the 1930s when necessary and compared my sources (the films) to the researched reality of the 1930s, but I had no reason to start repeating in detail what researchers far more experienced than me had already said. I could simply refer to any of them.

I haven't personally yet seen excesses in the papers I have read on the subject. They might exist, but at least in my material there haven't yet been any. Mostly the writers disagree on if, for example, the first five year plan failed completely or just partially. They do, however, say that the plan started the industrialization of the Soviet Union at heavy cost. All in all they seem neutral to me, but then again, I'm not researching that particular topic and haven't read the original sources myself.

MH · 02-02-12, 10:48 AM

Academic bias is as old as academy.
While there is this mainstream established view there are always those deviation based on political hegemony of given country or personal views.
Some times the bias can be subtle but sufficient to shape views in given direction.
Any academic who thinks otherwise must be sort of lazy one or victim.

Hottentot · 02-02-12, 10:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MH

Academic bias is as old as academy.

Academics (historians in this case) are human beings who have the same right to be biased as any human beings, as long as they make their arguments coherently based on sources and logic that can be either agreed or argued with. It's more lazy and intellectually dishonest to shout "bias" at anything one possibly disagrees with.

MH · 02-02-12, 10:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hottentot

Academics (historians in this case) are human beings who have the same right to be biased as any human beings, as long as they make their arguments coherently based on sources and logic that can be either agreed or argued with. It's more lazy and intellectually dishonest to shout "bias" at anything one possibly disagrees with.

OK good point i agree with that and that's a good start to look at it when talking about honest ones.
Not some ideologically infected academics.

Hottentot · 02-02-12, 11:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MH

Not some ideologically infected academics.

These are mythical beings. Many people talk about them, but the worst I have met on my academic career have been a few hard liner feminists. Universities at least in here used to be politically charged, but these days not so much. I couldn't honestly tell you what "ideologies" (and I use the term very loosely) even the professors and doctors I know the best here support or whom they vote in the elections.

For all I know, they could be fanatical closet communists or catholics wanting a new inquisition starting from tomorrow or maybe just plain old moon nutsys. What I know about them is that they write interesting papers, have good lectures and are nice to chat with on topics not necessarily related to studying.

MH · 02-02-12, 11:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hottentot

These are mythical beings. Many people talk about them, but the worst I have met on my academic career have been a few hard liner feminists. .

You live in very quiet and hegemonic corner of the world.

mookiemookie · 02-02-12, 11:09 AM

OP sounds like a slightly more literate Bubblehead. Grandstanding, ranting and raving about "far left liberals" being the bane of society.

One could easily find many inaccurate and flat out biased accounts of history from military sources. To assign that as strictly the MO of the opposite of whatever political side you agree with is foolish and shows an inherent bias in and of itself.

It's also ignorant of the way the world actually works to look at things in absolutes and in terms of black and white. Dear Leader Dubya said once, (with pride, I might add) "I don't do nuance." To say that the U.S. is the good guy always and forever is just as bad as saying that the U.S. is always evil or the aggressor. Were war crimes committed by the U.S. in the Pacific War? Yes. Desecration of the dead, murdering POWs, killing shipwreck survivors, rape...all of these are documented. Is it enough to label the U.S. as "the aggressor?" No. But being a rational adult means that you have to confront and accept that the ideas you have about something could be wrong, and that the white hat cowboy may not be 100% good.

In short, partisan hacks are dummies.

joegrundman · 02-02-12, 11:28 AM

my opinion actually is that a calm discussion of the circumstances leading up to the pacific war would be interesting.

From what little i know of the subject, labels like who is "the aggressor" start becoming irrelevant the more you look into it, and how much further back you wish to go.

but clearly this is not the thread for that discussion

tater · 02-02-12, 11:29 AM

Never miss an opportunity to pitch good books

Really good overviews of the Pacific war are H.P. Willmott's books, IMO.
Empires in the Balance: Japanese and Allied Pacific Strategies to April 1942

This is Willmott's overview of rationales for fighting, and strategy. Another good one along those lines is Combined Fleet: Decoded by Prados.

These include the larger political picture.

Clearly Japan was in the wrong. While you can argue they felt "forced" into war, they were only forced in the sense that they would not ever stop their atrocities in China willingly. Some will say our colonialism in asia was no better, but they'd be forced to jack up our body count by a couple orders of magnitude to make that claim.

TLAM Strike · 02-02-12, 12:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tater

Never miss an opportunity to pitch good books

Really good overviews of the Pacific war are H.P. Willmott's books, IMO.
Empires in the Balance: Japanese and Allied Pacific Strategies to April 1942

This is Willmott's overview of rationales for fighting, and strategy. Another good one along those lines is Combined Fleet: Decoded by Prados.

Don't forget Eagle Against the Sun by Ronald Spector.

02-02-12, 09:45 AM	#1
tater Navy Seal Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: New Mexico, USA Posts: 9,023 Downloads: 8 Uploads: 2	I haven't seen much of it in serious military history, frankly. Some popular military histories written by journalists I've read have had a clear political axe to grind (most left, but some right, as well), though. It is, however, prevalent in academic studies of the former Soviet Union and Cold War, however (In Denial is a great history/historiography by Haynes and Klehr responding to ideological attacks against their work on Soviet espionage and influence in the US (and the culpability of the CPUSA). They included studies of articles in academic history journals, and positivity vs negativity WRT the CCCP in papers and found after the late 60s, negativity virtually disappeared in academic papers, or was always heavily tempered ("sure, there were some excesses, but the trains ran on time" sorts of things). I only read it because I had read their other excellent books (the Venona one, secret world of american communism, the soviet world of american communism, etc (most from Yale University Press I believe)). They went to Russia right after it opened up, and went through files before the Russians closed them again, so their work is an invaluable resource, direct from Soviet espionage files. I remember seeing classes at the U that were along those lines as well, but they were not in the real history dept, but the silly "american studies" department (yes, I know calling "american/women's/gender/etc-studies" is redundant, since any real work along those lines would simply be "history"). Like everything else human, there is going to be bias. You have to just live with it. __________________ "Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one." — Thomas Paine

02-02-12, 11:09 AM	#8
mookiemookie Navy Seal Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Houston, TX Posts: 9,404 Downloads: 105 Uploads: 1	OP sounds like a slightly more literate Bubblehead. Grandstanding, ranting and raving about "far left liberals" being the bane of society. One could easily find many inaccurate and flat out biased accounts of history from military sources. To assign that as strictly the MO of the opposite of whatever political side you agree with is foolish and shows an inherent bias in and of itself. It's also ignorant of the way the world actually works to look at things in absolutes and in terms of black and white. Dear Leader Dubya said once, (with pride, I might add) "I don't do nuance." To say that the U.S. is the good guy always and forever is just as bad as saying that the U.S. is always evil or the aggressor. Were war crimes committed by the U.S. in the Pacific War? Yes. Desecration of the dead, murdering POWs, killing shipwreck survivors, rape...all of these are documented. Is it enough to label the U.S. as "the aggressor?" No. But being a rational adult means that you have to confront and accept that the ideas you have about something could be wrong, and that the white hat cowboy may not be 100% good. In short, partisan hacks are dummies. __________________ They don’t think it be like it is, but it do. Want more U-boat Kaleun portraits for your SH3 Commander Profiles? Download the SH3 Commander Portrait Pack here.

02-02-12, 11:28 AM	#9
joegrundman Ocean Warrior Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 2,689 Downloads: 34 Uploads: 0	my opinion actually is that a calm discussion of the circumstances leading up to the pacific war would be interesting. From what little i know of the subject, labels like who is "the aggressor" start becoming irrelevant the more you look into it, and how much further back you wish to go. but clearly this is not the thread for that discussion __________________ "Enemy submarines are to be called U-Boats. The term submarine is to be reserved for Allied under water vessels. U-Boats are those dastardly villains who sink our ships, while submarines are those gallant and noble craft which sink theirs." Winston Churchill

02-02-12, 11:29 AM	#10
tater Navy Seal Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: New Mexico, USA Posts: 9,023 Downloads: 8 Uploads: 2	Never miss an opportunity to pitch good books Really good overviews of the Pacific war are H.P. Willmott's books, IMO. Empires in the Balance: Japanese and Allied Pacific Strategies to April 1942 This is Willmott's overview of rationales for fighting, and strategy. Another good one along those lines is Combined Fleet: Decoded by Prados. These include the larger political picture. Clearly Japan was in the wrong. While you can argue they felt "forced" into war, they were only forced in the sense that they would not ever stop their atrocities in China willingly. Some will say our colonialism in asia was no better, but they'd be forced to jack up our body count by a couple orders of magnitude to make that claim. __________________ "Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one." — Thomas Paine

02-02-12, 10:48 AM	#3
MH Ocean Warrior Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 3,184 Downloads: 248 Uploads: 0	Academic bias is as old as academy. While there is this mainstream established view there are always those deviation based on political hegemony of given country or personal views. Some times the bias can be subtle but sufficient to shape views in given direction. Any academic who thinks otherwise must be sort of lazy one or victim.