Why are 2nd World War,German subjects the most popular? (1 Viewer)

[Combat]

Interesting ,but
Off course.Please post reasons why you like the Krauts in miniature.That is all.

FUB

Because they are neat-oh! "Krauts"?

 

[Louis Badolato]

There is a commonly held notion that historical accounts - particularly of controversial subjects - should not be written until at least 50 years after the event.

I, for one, completely disagree with this notion. I think the only way you are going to grasp the facts surrounding an event is to read first hand accounts written at or near the time (this is the concept underlying the legal principal that "present sense impressions" or "excited utterances" are more reliable, and therefore admissible in court as exceptions to the "hearsay" rule). Once 50 years have passed, a "historian" who was often not even born at the time the events he purports to have expertise about occurred, is undoubtedly going to put his own spin on events, to make them fit his preconceived notions of "history". There is an adage that "history is written by the winners". This is almost always true. I would propose that the only way to avoid this type of slant is by going back to when the events was occurring, when there was not yet a clear winner, rather than 50 years forward, to when there is no possibility of objectivity. I'll always prefer a first hand account in a contemporaneously written diary over a later historian's inevitable interpretation of events from his own frame of reference.

 

[jazzeum]

As a former history student who did post graduate studies, the converse is actually true. It's desirable to have that gap because you don't have that preconceived notion or aren't influenced by fresh events. It is that detachment from events that leads to more objective writing. And it is also true that as more archives are opened, commonly accepted notions should be re-examined. I'm not saying I agree with Combat on his interpretations, but his historical principles are sound. Excited utterances, etc. may be of probative value in a particular case but in an event such as World War II, where the contemporary writer is expressing what he knew but not necessarily having access to all the facts or information a leader may be making, it's not necessarily the authoritative word.

 

[OzDigger]

Imo it's very dangerous to write Hitler off as some kind of madman or military baffoon. Mainly because it makes it harder to spot the next charming, self possessed dictator (or President) that places his personal ambitions ahead of his country. When you drop the madman yardstick you see potential Hitlers everywhere, and imo it's better to stop them before they start exterminating people that don't fit in with their viewpoint.

To be a really good at military tactics, operations and strategy you have to be clever, calculating and unemotional, and most people agree that Hitler was very emotional. Most of his poorer military decisions were based on his personal reactions and politics rather than sound military judgement, it's that simple.