02Pilot wrote:
As mentioned above, the Germans have written quite a few books about the war, beginning in the 1960s. Interestingly, the general bent of these has been to assume the vast majority of the blame, something American scholars in the 1950s had been reluctant to do, given the need for West German inclusion in the U.S. defensive plan for Europe.
The 60s were roughly when scholars in Germany started looking at WWII with a more critical eye, as part of a change in society that made talking about the war and the whole Third Reich less of a taboo. It probably took another 10-20 years before said critical eye became acceptable, though. But a lot of attitudes changed, especially in the late 60s and early 70s.
BoxheadTim wrote:
The 60s were roughly when scholars in Germany started looking at WWII with a more critical eye, as part of a change in society that made talking about the war and the whole Third Reich less of a taboo. It probably took another 10-20 years before said critical eye became acceptable, though. But a lot of attitudes changed, especially in the late 60s and early 70s.
A fair number of those 1960s scholars (in Germany, the U.S., and elsewhere in the West) did themselves no favors as far as getting their work accepted on a widespread basis. Many were associated with some of the more radical intellectual and social trends of the time, and often overextended their arguments beyond what the evidence supported in what seems to have been a fairly overt effort to discredit the more pro-Western and anti-Communist scholarship of the 1940s and 1950s.
"Don't mention the war. I mentioned it once, but I think I got away with it all right."
Basil Fawlty: Is something wrong?
German Guest: Will you please stop talking about the war?
Basil Fawlty: Me? You started it.
German Guest: We did not!
Basil Fawlty: Yes, you did, you invaded Poland.
Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote:
02Pilot wrote:
Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote:
True words. Losers don't write history books.
Well, actually they do. The U.S. commissioned a whole series (the "Green Books") of postwar analysis by German officers right after the war
the u s didn't lose
But the German officers who wrote the Green Books did, and took it as an opportunity to do a bit of early revisionism. Much of the Western misperception of the Wehrmacht as a hyper-efficient and -effective military organization (in reality it was far from this in many ways) came from these studies.
Y
02Pilot wrote:
Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote:
02Pilot wrote:
Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote:
True words. Losers don't write history books.
Well, actually they do. The U.S. commissioned a whole series (the "Green Books") of postwar analysis by German officers right after the war
the u s didn't lose
But the German officers who wrote the Green Books did, and took it as an opportunity to do a bit of early revisionism. Much of the Western misperception of the Wehrmacht as a hyper-efficient and -effective military organization (in reality it was far from this in many ways) came from these studies.
There are plenty of books written by Native Americans after fighting the US and losing.
carguy123 wrote:
Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote:
moparman76_69 wrote:
Knurled wrote:
Which is the wrong side?
That is for the victor to decide.
True words. Losers don't write history books.
Take the Civil War for instance, what they're teaching now couldn't be further from the truth or the reasons.
And in this case I was wondering what the victor's history books might have obfuscated about Communism and Hitler.
QFT. Glad there are others that disagree with the current "white southerners seceded over slavery" view.
02Pilot wrote:
A fair number of those 1960s scholars (in Germany, the U.S., and elsewhere in the West) did themselves no favors as far as getting their work accepted on a widespread basis. Many were associated with some of the more radical intellectual and social trends of the time, and often overextended their arguments beyond what the evidence supported in what seems to have been a fairly overt effort to discredit the more pro-Western and anti-Communist scholarship of the 1940s and 1950s.
That is (at least for Germany) due to a couple of unfortunate issues - remember I mentioned above that a lot of the people who'd be considered part of the establishment, which would include universities transitioned directly from their pre-war jobs into the same post-war job? As you might have guessed there wasn't much appetite for taking a closer look by established historians, given that they usually had "history" with, err, history. This left a lot of room for the young historians that were willing to take on the established thoughts on history, and those usually came from somewhere on the left.
oldsaw
SuperDork
12/19/11 10:54 a.m.
Datsun1500 wrote:
My Father did 3 tours of Vietnam. His stance is that the war was fought to stop the spread of communism, and it was successful on that end. Interesting way to see it.
Can't say I've paid any attention to revisionist versions of Vietnam.
What's the current stuff and who's offering it?
93EXCivic wrote:
Basil Fawlty: Is something wrong?
German Guest: Will you please stop talking about the war?
Basil Fawlty: Me? You started it.
German Guest: We did not!
Basil Fawlty: Yes, you did, you invaded Poland.
German Tour Guide: You vill find more on Germany's contributions to ze arts in ze pamphlets ve have provided.
Brian Griffin: Yeah, about your pamphlet... uh, I'm not seeing anything about German history between 1939 and 1945. There's just a big gap.
Tour guide: Everyone vas on vacation. On your left is Munich's first city hall, erected in 15...
Brian Griffin: Wait, what are you talking about? Germany invaded Poland in 1939 and...
Tour Guide: We were invited. Punch vas served. Check vit Poland.
Brian Griffin: You can't just ignore those years. Thomas Mann fled to America because of Nazism's stranglehold on Germany.
Tour guide: Nope, nope. He left to manage a Dairy Queen.
Brian Griffin: A Dairy Queen? That's preposterous.
Tour guide: I vill hear no more insinuations about the German people. Nothing bad happened. Sie werden sich hinsetzen. Sie werden ruhig sein. Sie werden nicht beleidigen Deutschland. You will sit down. You will shut up. You will not insult Germany. [Throws his hand up in a Hitler salute.]
Brian Griffin: Uh, is that a beer hall?
Tour guide: [Snapping out of it] Oh yes, Munich is renowned for its historic beer halls.
oldsaw wrote:
Can't say I've paid any attention to revisionist versions of Vietnam.
What's the current stuff and who's offering it?
Most scholars agree that the U.S. lost the war. The revisionist movement has taken some interesting positions on how it became involved, how policy was developed, and whether or not victory was even a possibility. There has been some good recent work on early U.S. involvement in Vietnam in the Cold War context of the 1950s.
Pick up one of your kid's history books and see what they are saying happened and why. You'll E36 M3 a brick.
oldsaw
SuperDork
12/19/11 3:46 p.m.
02Pilot wrote:
oldsaw wrote:
Can't say I've paid any attention to revisionist versions of Vietnam.
What's the current stuff and who's offering it?
Most scholars agree that the U.S. lost the war. The revisionist movement has taken some interesting positions on how it became involved, how policy was developed, and whether or not victory was even a possibility. There has been some good recent work on early U.S. involvement in Vietnam in the Cold War context of the 1950s.
Put me in the "lost" camp; thought that way when it happened and have ever since.
Early policy was aimed at combating the spread of Communism but it took a bad turn with the support of regime change. Things went from bad to worse when LBJ fabricated the Gulf of Tonkin "incident"; the costs of the escalated war and his Great Society programs led to a bad economy and Nixon.
That's when the slope got real slippery.
oldsaw wrote:
02Pilot wrote:
oldsaw wrote:
Can't say I've paid any attention to revisionist versions of Vietnam.
What's the current stuff and who's offering it?
Most scholars agree that the U.S. lost the war. The revisionist movement has taken some interesting positions on how it became involved, how policy was developed, and whether or not victory was even a possibility. There has been some good recent work on early U.S. involvement in Vietnam in the Cold War context of the 1950s.
Put me in the "lost" camp; thought that way when it happened and have ever since.
Early policy was aimed at combating the spread of Communism but it took a bad turn with the support of regime change. Things went from bad to worse when LBJ fabricated the Gulf of Tonkin "incident"; the costs of the escalated war and his Great Society programs led to a bad economy and Nixon.
That's when the slope got real slippery.
Fabricated might be too strong a term. The first attack happened; this is not in dispute. The second one was the one that seems to have been a figment of jumpy radar operators' imaginations, and it was the second that caused LBJ to seek congressional support for action. What of course went unmentioned were the Desoto patrols and especially the Oplan 34A activities that had been actively targeting North Vietnamese coastal installations before the U.S. openly intervened.
oldsaw
SuperDork
12/19/11 4:02 p.m.
In reply to 02Pilot:
Fabricated may be too strong a term, but provoked seems a bit too soft.
T.J.
SuperDork
12/19/11 9:16 p.m.
That will history buff right out.
Is this a record for a thread with Hitler in the title to make it this many pages and to not have devolved completely into name calling?
In reply to T.J.:
Yes dork, I believe it is. :)
Not that this has anything to do with this.
But a buddy of mine believes that all conversations converge on a Hitler/Hitleresk analogy every 7 minutes
