Revisionist tendencies and Ambrose Sindrome

[alecsandros]

Hello Byron,
I wasn't refering to tank specifics, but to more general aspects - propulsion systems, industrial facilities layout, etc. The stalinist regime, after WW2, tried to taylor a new history, that imposed the soviet scientists and engineers as the "true" creators of the great invensions in the XXth century, military or not.

Cheers

[mkenny]

Hello Byron,
I wasn't refering to tank specifics, but to more general aspects - propulsion systems, industrial facilities layout, etc. The stalinist regime, after WW2, tried to taylor a new history, that imposed the soviet scientists and engineers as the "true" creators of the great invensions in the XXth century, military or not.

As opposed to the wunder-waffen worshipers who constantly proclaim the superiority of everything German.
If only the war had lasted a few more months.............
fantasy 100 knot U-Boats..............
unbuildable 4000 mile 'New York' Bombers.........
useless 1,000 ton super tanks........
fueless Jets made from plywood.........
mid boggling inter-continental Nuclear missiles.......
bogus IR tanks..........
ect,ect, ect.
Frankly hearing a Soviet version would be a welcome change!

[RF]

@RF
Nevertheless, it might be a good occasion to discuss about the attitude towards World War 2 in general, and towards the Reich's achievements in particular.

H. Revisionism has gone far enough - up to denying the Holocaust alltogether- and my opinion is that, without sufficient academic overview, in 20-30 years everybody (e.g. the general public) will see History as an illusion, and consequently dismiss/forget all of Her lessons..

History is an illusion if you treat it as fantasy. Discussion should be on the basis of reality, otherwise you have nonsense arguments. And reality has to be based on the real world, based on knowledge, fact and testable evidence. Revisionism - what is the real evidence for it? ''Denying the Holocaust'' - isn't the evidence of British soldiers who entered Belsen good enough? Weren't Hitler's speeches about eradicating the Jews clear enough? Are the gas chambers at Auschwitz a ''virtual'' means of mass murder?

[Byron Angel]

Hello Byron,
I wasn't refering to tank specifics, but to more general aspects - propulsion systems, industrial facilities layout, etc. The stalinist regime, after WW2, tried to taylor a new history, that imposed the soviet scientists and engineers as the "true" creators of the great invensions in the XXth century, military or not.

Cheers

..... I can't help but think of Napoleon's definition of history as a fabric of lies mutually agreed upon.

I do recall the post-war Soviet campaign to take credit for every technological development since the dawn of mankind. We used to joke about it. The shame of it is that such ridiculous propaganda campaigns obscured legitimate and praiseworthy achievements. Russia, for example, has produced a number of great mathematicians and physicists.

BTW, my tank comment was not directed at your post, but at mkenny's response to you.


Byron

[alecsandros]

History is an illusion if you treat it as fantasy. Discussion should be on the basis of reality, otherwise you have nonsense arguments. And reality has to be based on the real world, based on knowledge, fact and testable evidence. Revisionism - what is the real evidence for it?

Well, I kept myself away from the books that propagate this kind of nonsense, so I can't present their "evidences against the Holocaust". I've seen it however, discussed on TV, on the net or in some printed media.
What I meant to say was that this (radical Revisionism, not necesarily denying the Holocaust) is a tendency that's slowly creeping up into the brain of "the comon knowledge".

[Dave Saxton]

The propositions posed in Karl's initial post are far too simplistic. And it has led again to the usual ding dong oversimplified rhetoric over my tank is better than your tank and even the ridiculous suggestion that the Americans landed in Normandy so that the Russians could win the war and conquer half of Europe.

Hardly a proposition for intelligent debate.....

One of the best posts of recent times RF. I agree with you except for the term debate. The term should be discussion not debate. But debate on political grounds is what we are seeing here. What you have touched upon in one the most troubling trends I have seen recently in these forums. This trend is the politcalization of the forums. This was one reason I left another popular naval forum years ago. Although it is not possible to remove politics completely from discussion of WWII, politics have never been the primary context on these particular forums before. It used to be about intelligent discussion of the Bismarck's (and related topics) role in naval history. Of course since the Bismarck was a German battleship, the question of the Nazi's and their politics is never far away. Nonetheless, this really complicates objective discussion on true historical and technical matters when these things come to the surface.

Understandably the Bismarck, or the Tiger tank, or the Me262, (or really anything associated with Germany during that dark period) can become symbols or shrines to modern Nazi's and other anti-semites. We must never allow that to happen. Nor must we allow German technical acheivements to become overblown. However, they should not become political footballs in the context of anti-neonazi or pro anything (this is what I think Karl was trying to communicate, although rather awkwardly). Politicalization of military history is a disservice to history. As stated above, it becomes very difficult to objectively discuss historical and particularly technical matters. For example, if one makes new findngs that reflect positively upon German technical achievements it can easly be branded as revisionist in the context of an underlying neo-nazi and anti-neonazi agendas (for the record I am very anti-Nazi politically), and it is therefore removed from the realm the objective. History is not set in stone and will always be dynamic as new evidence and different way of looking at the evidence become available. However, once it becomes agenda driven it ceases to be history and becomes mearly propaganda.

[Byron Angel]

The propositions posed in Karl's initial post are far too simplistic. And it has led again to the usual ding dong oversimplified rhetoric over my tank is better than your tank and even the ridiculous suggestion that the Americans landed in Normandy so that the Russians could win the war and conquer half of Europe.

Hardly a proposition for intelligent debate.....

One of the best posts of recent times RF. I agree with you except for the term debate. The term should be discussion not debate. But debate on political grounds is what we are seeing here. What you have touched upon in one the most troubling trends I have seen recently in these forums. This trend is the politcalization of the forums. This was one reason I left another popular naval forum years ago. Although it is not possible to remove politics completely from discussion of WWII, politics have never been the primary context on these particular forums before. It used to be about intelligent discussion of the Bismarck's (and related topics) role in naval history. Of course since the Bismarck was a German battleship, the question of the Nazi's and their politics is never far away. Nonetheless, this really complicates objective discussion on true historical and technical matters when these things come to the surface.

Understandably the Bismarck, or the Tiger tank, or the Me262, (or really anything associated with Germany during that dark period) can become symbols or shrines to modern Nazi's and other anti-semites. We must never allow that to happen. Nor must we allow German technical acheivements to become overblown. However, they should not become political footballs in the context of anti-neonazi or pro anything (this is what I think Karl was trying to communicate, although rather awkwardly). Politicalization of military history is a disservice to history. As stated above, it becomes very difficult to objectively discuss historical and particularly technical matters. For example, if one makes new findngs that reflect positively upon German technical achievements it can easly be branded as revisionist in the context of an underlying neo-nazi and anti-neonazi agendas (for the record I am very anti-Nazi politically), and it is therefore removed from the realm the objective. History is not set in stone and will always be dynamic as new evidence and different way of looking at the evidence become available. However, once it becomes agenda driven it ceases to be history and becomes mearly propaganda.

..... Well said.

[RF]

I don't think you can divorce the politics from discussion or debate on military history, and it would be a mistake to do so. It is the context that is important, to keep an open view as opposed to a dogmatic one; in an open society it should be a free discussion, accepting as valid all political ideologies without being welded to one above all others. Those ideologies that do take a totalitarian view are then exposed to destruction in open debate. That is why fascists and communists hate democracy and free speech.

[Dave Saxton]

^^ Agreed!! I hope I didn't come across as an advocate for some kind of political correctness or any other form of censorship. Pehaps agenda would have been a better term than politics. However, I agree that complete academic freedom for all is best.

[RF]

And political correctness of course is a form of censorship.

[Dave Saxton]

It certainly is. I have seen this in graduate school when a good friend of mine was working on his PHD in Paleo-Climatology (a branch of geology). After studing the data on climate change he determined the science to support the popular global warming movement just wasn't there. He walked me through the data a few times too, and I agree with his accessment. But he dare not challenge the popular (political) movement, such is the culture of political correctness that exists within acadamia in the USA. It would have meant the probable end of attaining his vocational and scientific goals.

[Karl Heidenreich]

My intention, here, as mentioned by Dave Saxton, is to try to bring a balance that has been lost lately. An "illusion" of History based just in personal preferences is being built and it´s going to lost many persons.

Of course it can and will be attacked by those that had their personal pre disposition of Historic understanding. This can be, easily detected in this answer:

...and the murdering nazi bastards deserved every one of those winters

Which does not refer to the statement at hand in an inteligent way but just shows an ideologic pre disposition which allows no discussion at all...

[yellowtail3]

My intention, here, as mentioned by Dave Saxton, is to try to bring a balance that has been lost lately. An "illusion" of History based just in personal preferences is being built and it´s going to lost many persons.

Of course it can and will be attacked by those that had their personal pre disposition of Historic understanding. This can be, easily detected in this answer:

...and the murdering nazi bastards deserved every one of those winters

Which does not refer to the statement at hand in an inteligent way but just shows an ideologic pre disposition which allows no discussion at all...

Heh heh... you're an interesting one to complain about personal pre dispostion of Historic understanding, Karl.

Perhaps you'll pardon my disrespectful reference to your cherished Waffen SS? Time for me to do a little more specialized reading, maybe...

[Karl Heidenreich]

Perhaps you'll pardon my disrespectful reference to your cherished Waffen SS? Time for me to do a little more specialized reading, maybe...

This is great, really. Now, because I don´t share your nationalistic stance then I´m nazi. I imagine that if say that the russians fought more than the US in WWII then I´m a comunist. Or if I say that the US lost the guerrilla war in Irak then I´m Taliban. Great but it speaks a lot of your intelectual attitude, to say the least.

[boredatwork]

Very disapointing post Karl

My intention, here, as mentioned by Dave Saxton, is to try to bring a balance that has been lost lately. An "illusion" of History based just in personal preferences is being built and it´s going to lost many persons.

Do you realize that this statement is not so much dripping with irony as Niagara Fallsing?

I'm Canadian and have no pro-American disposition but this thread strikes me as nothing more than an angry anti-american rant.

You imply in many posts that anything American was inferior, or 'stolen' from other countries, and the only way the Allies won was pure numbers and present as your evidence only the facts which support the narrow paramatered comparison upon which you're basing your argument. Then you rant against intelligently reasoned (and yes occasionally somewhat biased) arguments that the Americans weren't completely hopeless and may have actually had some sense at how to fight a war and accuse everyone else of being unbalanced?