Left Wing Historical Revisionism

[Bilge_Rat]

Originally Posted by CCIP

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.

CCIP, I would disagree with your assessment. I have read both works and have seen no evidence of a anti-german or pro-U.S. bias. Both works are written in a dry, Time-corporate "just the facts, ma'am!" style, but that is not surprising since he worked as a Time journalist for a long time.

In his blurbs on individual patrols, he is respectful of individual skippers and crews, whether German or American. He is critical of the German high command for several reasons, but he is equally critical of the U.S. high command for their mistakes in the Pacific.

Most of the criticism of Blair comes from the fact that he never saw the U-boats as a serious threat, but the facts are there and uncontested, 99% of all ships that sailed in convoys made it safely to port. In any event, that discussion is a very small part of the 2 books, 99% of which is a narrative of the U-boat war.

I have read many books where the author has a clear bias. I don't put Blair in that category at all, his research is solid and he keeps his opinions to a minimum.

[Hottentot]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Out of interest can you answer....

What is the "ACCEPTED" 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

War history and the Pacific front are hardly my fortes. I can reply to the best of my understanding, though.

The "accepted" date of the involvement in WW 2 has been taught to me as beginning from Pearl Harbor. On the other hand I get your point on the second question. Such dates can be questioned since Japan was involved in Asia and in war far before Pearl Harbor. I have heard a similar one being made about the whole beginning of WW 2: when did it become a World War and to what point it was just an European conflict?

As far as how far back you should go, I can admit that I'm not familiar enough with Japan and Asia to answer that question in a way I could be proud of. Usually you still go pretty far, so that's what I would also begin with if I was researching the subject. Since I don't know much about Japan and Asia, I would go at least to the beginning of the 20th century, but I'm not claiming that the reasons for conflict lie there. I would simply want to know.

For example, I have heard the roots of German mentalities before WW 2 being taken not only to the peace of WW 1, but to the actual unification of the country in 19th century: a relatively young country, from the beginning feeling itself surrounded, then humiliated in WW 1 and along comes Mr. Mustache promising great future.

The point being Hottentot is that in those first two cases there isn't really an accepted answer, much less an "ACCEPTED" answer .....unless lots of parameters are set out beforehand.
On the third part really the only possible answer is another question as its a cause and effect string and each step back you take to get an answer opens up another whole new bundle of old strings.

I have heard a similar one being made about the whole beginning of WW 2: when did it become a World War and to what point it was just an European conflict?

Yeah I was helping one of my kids with some homework on WWI, her teacher had said it started on August 4th 1914.(see thats the old imperial hegemony at work) . I wonder if the OP thinks it started on April 6th 1917?

[MH]

Originally Posted by Hottentot

War history and the Pacific front are hardly my fortes. I can reply to the best of my understanding, though.

The "accepted" date of the involvement in WW 2 has been taught to me as beginning from Pearl Harbor. On the other hand I get your point on the second question. Such dates can be questioned since Japan was involved in Asia and in war far before Pearl Harbor. I have heard a similar one being made about the whole beginning of WW 2: when did it become a World War and to what point it was just an European conflict?

As far as how far back you should go, I can admit that I'm not familiar enough with Japan and Asia to answer that question in a way I could be proud of. Usually you still go pretty far, so that's what I would also begin with if I was researching the subject. Since I don't know much about Japan and Asia, I would go at least to the beginning of the 20th century, but I'm not claiming that the reasons for conflict lie there. I would simply want to know.

For example, I have heard the roots of German mentalities before WW 2 being taken not only to the peace of WW 1, but to the actual unification of the country in 19th century: a relatively young country, from the beginning feeling itself surrounded, then humiliated in WW 1 and along comes Mr. Mustache promising great future.

Japan has signed mutual defence treaty with Germany and Italy in 1940 so technically was on opposite said of equation l before attack on Pearl Harbor.
USA pressure on Japan and toward its war in Asia aided with sanctions led to attack on Pear Harbor further escalating the conflict.
When the ww2 in far east/asia started may be matter of definition but it turned global in practice with attack on Pearl Harbor.

[MH]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

The point being Hottentot is that in those first two cases there isn't really an accepted answer, much less an "ACCEPTED" answer .....unless lots of parameters are set out beforehand.


. I wonder if the OP thinks it started on April 6th 1917?

just wow....pinnacle of academic thinking.

[Hottentot]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

The point being Hottentot is that in those first two cases there isn't really an accepted answer, much less an "ACCEPTED" answer .....unless lots of parameters are set out beforehand.

[snip]

Yeah I was helping one of my kids with some homework on WWI, her teacher had said it started on August 4th 1914.(see thats the old imperial hegemony at work) . I wonder if the OP thinks it started on April 6th 1917?

These two paragraphs show a common problem encountered when discussing history. On one hand you are right and I agree: as soon as you say that something is "accepted", someone will give you a truckful of sources and arguments for why you are wrong, dumb and smell bad.

On the other hand, it is common to discuss history on "yes or no" basis. That's partly because people want it: they need "accepted" dates and theories so that they could be right and point out the others are wrong. The other part is that the school system at least in Finland reinforces this. When you are asked in an exam "when did war X start", you don't get points for saying "well it depends..." You give the date that was in the book. You get a good grade. You remember for the rest of your life that it was that date and woe to anyone who is wrong.

Now who makes these theories that get accepted and written in books? The historians do, and they discuss them among themselves. The stuff that gets written, analyzed and discussed in the academic world doesn't necessarily ever get published. Only once it gets published and becomes common to everyone, it becomes history in sense of the society. The society isn't interested in "well it depends", it wants yes or no answers. This is evident almost whenever a reporter is interviewing a professor.

This paradigm becomes accepted because at the moment it's the best we have. Unless someone challenges it convincingly enough and the science moves forward likes sciences do.

Japan has signed mutual defence treaty with Germany and Italy in 1940 so technically was on opposite said of equation l before attack on Pearl Harbor.

Errrr...mr pinnacle of academic thinking
1. mutual defence treaty...terms and conditions apply, it ain't in play unless those terms and conditions are met and the parties agree that they are in play.
Its like saying Britain was at war with France when Russia and Japan were argueing over Manchuria and Korea in 1904
2. explain how how any of the countries at war with Germany or Italy before Pearl Harbour were at war with Japan?
Oh sorry you don't do thinking do you,

These two paragraphs show a common problem encountered when discussing history. On one hand you are right and I agree: as soon as you say that something is "accepted", someone will give you a truckful of sources and arguments for why you are wrong, dumb and smell bad.

This paradigm becomes accepted because at the moment it's the best we have. Unless someone challenges it convincingly enough and the science moves forward likes sciences do.

Thats the point, there isn't really an "accepted" version and it is never stable as it is always evolving and there is always new information coming to light.
Take for an example the AVG, I think it was during Clintons time that they finally got there full service period recognised and got all their dues that were owed.
Does that recognition that they were at all times serving US miitary personel working for the US government mean that the US was really at war with the Empire of Japan in China before Pearl?

[MH]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Thats the point, there isn't really an "accepted" version and it is never stable as it is always evolving and there is always new information coming to light.
Take for an example the AVG, I think it was during Clintons time that they finally got there full service period recognised and got all their dues that were owed.
?

Wow

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Does that recognition that they were at all times serving US military personel working for the US government mean that the US was really at war with the Empire of Japan in China before Pearl?

So what is your point at pointing out the obvious technical details here?
You really disappoint me here.
So was USA engaged in Battle of Britain or Russia in Spanish civil war vs Germany?
So History is complex and some relations and definition can be fluid and disputed.
Question is if the points you brought up are worth it anyway because they can be covered in discussing relations between given countries at that time.
This again bring us to the point that history is fluid in interpretation....try not to bring settler to the subject.

My point is that its very nice that you use your head but you also need to know how far you want to go with your mental exercises.
History wise it depends what point you try to prove.


.............

[flatsixes]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Take for an example the AVG, I think it was during Clintons time that they finally got there full service period recognised and got all their dues that were owed.
Does that recognition that they were at all times serving US miitary personel working for the US government mean that the US was really at war with the Empire of Japan in China before Pearl?

I would think not. As I recall, the AVG did not fly its first combat missions against the Japanese until the week following the attack on Pearl Harbor. The AVG was not disbanded and brought into the U.S. armed services until July 1942. The 1990's retroactive reinstatement of the Group's status of US servicemen was for the seven months between December 1941 and July 1942.

On the other hand, I would have to agree that Roosevelt's posture towards supporting the Chinese against the Japanese was indeed "warlike."

[August]

What is it with these double posts lately?

[August]

In an attempt to get beyond the Trollsman/MH circle jerk I found this article which seems to illuminate the topic fairly well:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...ist-state.html

What was it everybody used to say about the United States? Look at what’s happening over there and you will see our future. Whatever Americans are doing now, we will be catching up with them in another 10 years or so. In popular culture or political rhetoric, America led the fashion and we tagged along behind.

Well, so much for that. Barack Obama is now putting the United States squarely a decade behind Britain. Listening to the President’s State of the Union message last week was like a surreal visit to our own recent past: there were, almost word for word, all those interminable Gordon Brown Budgets that preached “fairness” while listing endless new ways in which central government would intervene in every form of economic activity.

Later, in a television interview, Mr Obama described his programme of using higher taxes on the wealthy to bankroll new government spending as “a recipe for a fair, sound approach to deficit reduction and rebuilding this country”. To which we who come from the future can only shout, “No***8209;o-o, go back! Don’t come down this road!”

As we try desperately to extricate ourselves from the consequences of that philosophy, which sounds so eminently reasonable (“giving everybody a fair share”, the President called it), we could tell America a thing or two – if it would only listen. Human beings are so much more complicated than this childlike conception of fairness assumes. When government takes away an ever larger proportion of the wealth which entrepreneurial activity creates and attempts to distribute it “fairly” (that is to say, evenly) throughout society in the form of welfare programmes and public spending projects, the effects are much, much more complex and perverse than a simple financial equation would suggest.

[CCIP]

While that's an interesting view, I think it's fair to say that the article has nothing to do with the topic.

Of course, Obama is the topic of every thread in GT, so maybe I'm wrong

[August]

Originally Posted by CCIP

While that's an interesting view, I think it's fair to say that the article has nothing to do with the topic.

Of course, Obama is the topic of every thread in GT, so maybe I'm wrong

It certainly wouldn't be the first time you were wrong.

[CCIP]

No, really, I don't see how

It's an opinion piece about the failure of socialist welfare policies in Europe and how Obama is wrong to look up to them. It has nothing to do with historical revisionism, America-bashing, or the causes of war with Japan.

The only thing it has in common with the OP is that the author sees red the moment the terms "left wing" and "socialism" appear on the horizon, although unlike the OP the article at least rationalizes its disdain for the left.

Other than that, I'm not seeing it.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by CCIP

No, really, I don't see how

It's an opinion piece about the failure of socialist welfare policies in Europe and how Obama is wrong to look up to them. It has nothing to do with historical revisionism, America-bashing, or the causes of war with Japan.

The only thing it has in common with the OP is that the author sees red the moment the terms "left wing" and "socialism" appear on the horizon, although unlike the OP the article at least rationalizes its disdain for the left.

Other than that, I'm not seeing it.

I'm with you. I'm not really seeing the connection here....