Hitler would've won the war if. . .

[joea]

Originally Posted by The Avon Lady

An overly repeated quote which is gibberish.

Yes agree again. Real history is written by academics who go into archives and do hard research anyway, not by subsimmer geeks on the net. (Including yours truly, even if I got a MA in history).

[joea]

Originally Posted by U-552Erich-Topp

bla bla bla "justify my hero" bla bla

[Abraham]

Originally Posted by joea

???

[joea]

Just a comment on what IMO are stupid comparisons between murderous dictators. Every time someone (around here it seems to be Stalin vs. Hitler) tries to point the finger at one it often is to make the other look better, or at least not as bad. Bit cheeky to alter the quote but hey I know a lot of the posters here well enough with previous statements to know who is who.

[Abraham]

Originally Posted by joea

Bit cheeky to alter the quote...

"You took the words right out of my mouth." (Paradise by the Dashboard Lights)

[STEED]

Originally Posted by U-552Erich-Topp

Stalin was more mad and evil than Hitler. In Hitlers words "If you want to know who is the most evil dictator, look to the North (Russia - Stalin). With 27 million of Stalins' own people murdered during his reign, he sure tops Hilter on that one.

Thats a dumb comment due to Stalin was longer in power than Hitler.

Stalin 1924 - 1953
Hitler 1934 - 1945

[Type XXIII]

Originally Posted by joea

Yes agree again. Real history is written by academics who go into archives and do hard research anyway, not by subsimmer geeks on the net. (Including yours truly, even if I got a MA in history).

First of all, that exact quote can't be overly repeated, since I made it up. :P Of course, others have said the same thing with different words before me.

Secondly, it is not gibberish. Even if those academics are doing the hard research, it is their perceptions of history that is accepted as history. And those perceptions is influenced by their idea of 'good' and 'bad', and by those archives that you mention, which is the documents that have survived, and, in many cases, are written by the victorious.

I'm not saying that historians are making up or concealing events, but that their interpretations of those events are necessarily based on the historioans' personal experiences. History is a soft science, and nothing can be proven beyond all doubt.

[August]

Originally Posted by Type941

You still can't repute the fact that it took about 2 to 3 allied soldiers to kill a German one. Now that's embarassing.

But it says nothing about the fighting skill of either side. 3 to 1 is the historical standard casualty ratio for attackers vs defenders when they're closely matched in military competence and skill.

Offensive operations are always more costly for the attacker, who must advance into prepared killing fields against defenders who fight from the relative safety of fortified positions and can move up reinforcements to plug holes wherever they're needed.

[joea]

Originally Posted by Type XXIII

First of all, that exact quote can't be overly repeated, since I made it up. :P Of course, others have said the same thing with different words before me.

Secondly, it is not gibberish. Even if those academics are doing the hard research, it is their perceptions of history that is accepted as history. And those perceptions is influenced by their idea of 'good' and 'bad', and by those archives that you mention, which is the documents that have survived, and, in many cases, are written by the victorious.

I'm not saying that historians are making up or concealing events, but that their interpretations of those events are necessarily based on the historioans' personal experiences. History is a soft science, and nothing can be proven beyond all doubt.

Simply put, I agree but it does not follow that the "losers" were "right" (whatever that means) as some people who repeat that are trying to make "their" side look better. Another example, Cold War revisionism started in the USA, and based on new interpretations to show (according to this school) the Cold War was provoked and drivine by the US with the USSR in a reactive role. Agree or not, this came out of one of the main protagonists, who ended up winning, albeit at a moment (late 60s and early 70s) when the US had lost in Vietnam. Today the field is in flux, can't really say what trends will emerge, 10, 20 or 50 years from now.

[Konovalov]

Originally Posted by joea

Simply put, I agree but it does not follow that the "losers" were "right" (whatever that means) as some people who repeat that are trying to make "their" side look better. Another example, Cold War revisionism started in the USA, and based on new interpretations to show (according to this school) the Cold War was provoked and drivine by the US with the USSR in a reactive role. Agree or not, this came out of one of the main protagonists, who ended up winning, albeit at a moment (late 60s and early 70s) when the US had lost in Vietnam. Today the field is in flux, can't really say what trends will emerge, 10, 20 or 50 years from now.

Excellent comments. This thread has made for some interesting reading.

[Abraham]

Exactly, the statement that the Victorious write the history is a half-truth.
There are many historians who try to serve science by civing a critical look at both the actions and plans of victor and vanguished. Furthermore after personal interests and human emotions have moved to the background there are historians from the vanquished side who add to the body of historical views, not to mention reformists who usually pop up after 20 or 30 years...

[scandium]

Originally Posted by Abraham

Exactly, the statement that the Victorious write the history is a half-truth.
There are many historians who try to serve science by civing a critical look at both the actions and plans of victor and vanguished. Furthermore after personal interests and human emotions have moved to the background there are historians from the vanquished side who add to the body of historical views, not to mention reformists who usually pop up after 20 or 30 years...

Its a half-truth that necessarily contains a grain of truth The problem with interpreting history, which one must do to write about it, is that it is largely a subjective matter.

For instance, take the situation in Iraq. There are many factions involved on the Iraqi side (some of which seem to be fighting each other as much or more than the coalition) yet they collectively tend to get lumped together as "insurgents" or "terrorists", or more colourfully, as "Islamo-Fascists", "Beheaders", or "Homicide Bombers" (depending on whichever euphamism is currently in vogue). Each term has different connotations. If you're simply an Iraqi patriot whose had family killed or some other wrong you feel the need to right by picking up a gun to fight the invader with, then you're probably simply an "insurgent". Depending on the outcome of the war you'll likely be remembered in two very different ways.

If the "insurgents" and "terrorists" win our Iraqi patriot may be fortunate enough to go down in history as a patriot who fought off, at enormous odds technologically, militarily, etc, an invasion by the world's Super Power and its allies. You're then a hero.

If, on the other hand, the coalition triumphs and the insurgency is stamped out, then you will not be remember as a hero. The history texts future Iraqis are schooled in will paint you as a terrorist who defied the new Iraqi government by bringing arms to bear against it. You will be a remembered as a terrorist and a traitor.

[Oberon]

I knew this would come round to Iraq eventually

[scandium]

Originally Posted by Oberon

I knew this would come round to Iraq eventually

Its an historical event we are seeing unfold day by day

[Oberon]

Indeed...can't help but wonder what my children will be reading about it though...who would have thought fifty-sixty years ago that Russia would be a partner with the US, and that most of us would be watching television on Japanese sets.