Just when you think you'd heard the worst of it ...

[jamespowers]

This might be the single most important thing to keep in mind. Before you even start a book you can often get a pretty clear idea of what to expect simply by reading the author's bio blurb. Is he or she afflilated with a "think tank" or a foundation that funded their research? Take a look at the ideological alignment of that organization and you'll have a pretty good idea what to expect when you read the book, and you'll be more aware of factors influencing the author's thesis and conclusions. It'd be nice if all authors at all times wrote only in pursuit of pure and unvarnished truth, but getting the grant check is often the more important thing.

I don't even have to check. After reading a few pages it is more than apparent what they think about the topic at hand. :doh: I know right away. Authors these days are like ripped sacks---they can't keep anything in.

 

[Stanley Doble]

Excellent tip. If you aren't careful you might end up reading something that upsets your world view or shows things to you from a different angle and that would never do. ( warning this post may contain sarcasm)

I try to read accounts of the same thing from various sources. It helps to understand different viewpoints and sometimes you pick up interesting facts you don't get from mainstream media. It doesn't mean you have to give them all equal weight, in fact it helps develop the critical faculties.

 

[Big J]

This might be the single most important thing to keep in mind. Before you even start a book you can often get a pretty clear idea of what to expect simply by reading the author's bio blurb. Is he or she afflilated with a "think tank" or a foundation that funded their research? Take a look at the ideological alignment of that organization and you'll have a pretty good idea what to expect when you read the book, and you'll be more aware of factors influencing the author's thesis and conclusions. It'd be nice if all authors at all times wrote only in pursuit of pure and unvarnished truth, but getting the grant check is often the more important thing.

That's good advice.
I know from experience that people fund research because they think the result will benefit them.
In academia, this means that research grants and scholarships are awarded to academics by organizations only if they think the result will meet some agenda they are holding. The weight of this bias is immense, and not always apparent to casual readers getting into the topic in depth for the first time.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Hence the value of knowing how to access -- and how to use -- primary sources as opposed to secondary interpretations of those sources. Context is everything in using these materials -- if you come across a quote, ask yourself to whom the quote was directed and under what circumstances, and for what purpose is it being used by the author you're reading. Check the footnotes -- where did the author *get* that quote? If it's from a latter-day interview of the subject, does the comment square with known, documentable facts -- or is it the reminiscence of someone who might be reaching back thru the mists of old age? Or someone looking to settle an old score against some historic personality now dead and unable to respond? If it's from a newspaper quote, who published that newspaper? What was that newspaper's political alignment? What was its reputation for accuracy? If it's from a book, who wrote the book? Can you find the complete quote in some source *other* than that book? If it's from the personal papers of the subject, to whom was the subject writing, and for what purpose? Context, context, context.

Older histories should be read the same way -- the use of history as a vehicle for the delivery of propaganda is older than the written word, and there's never been a time when "pure, honest history" was ever the rule. When you're reading a history published in, say, 1950, ask yourself what was going on at the time the author wrote the book, and how those events may have colored the author's interpretation of facts. No history is ever independent of its social context.

 

[pawineguy]

Hence the value of knowing how to access -- and how to use -- primary sources as opposed to secondary interpretations of those sources. Context is everything in using these materials -- if you come across a quote, ask yourself to whom the quote was directed and under what circumstances, and for what purpose is it being used by the author you're reading. Check the footnotes -- where did the author *get* that quote? If it's from a latter-day interview of the subject, does the comment square with known, documentable facts -- or is it the reminiscence of someone who might be reaching back thru the mists of old age? Or someone looking to settle an old score against some historic personality now dead and unable to respond? If it's from a newspaper quote, who published that newspaper? What was that newspaper's political alignment? What was its reputation for accuracy? If it's from a book, who wrote the book? Can you find the complete quote in some source *other* than that book? If it's from the personal papers of the subject, to whom was the subject writing, and for what purpose? Context, context, context.

Older histories should be read the same way -- the use of history as a vehicle for the delivery of propaganda is older than the written word, and there's never been a time when "pure, honest history" was ever the rule. When you're reading a history published in, say, 1950, ask yourself what was going on at the time the author wrote the book, and how those events may have colored the author's interpretation of facts. No history is ever independent of its social context.

Absolutely correct. When I read the quote you dug up of Churchill complimenting Stalin, I remembered the famous comment Churchill made to his secretary, which is probably applicable to many world leaders throughout history: "If Hitler invaded Hell, I would make at least a favourable reference to the devil in the House of Commons."

 

[LizzieMaine]

That was exactly my purpose in posting that quote. You can't understand history at all if you base it solely on what someone says, either for public or private consumption. Those who think they can are no better than millenarians pulling out prooftexts to demonstrate that the world will end in 2012.

That said, it's fun to imagine just how high the jinks were the night Winnie and Joe got drunk together.
To say nothing of that rollicking funster Wendell Willkie.

 

[pawineguy]

That was exactly my purpose in posting that quote. You can't understand history at all if you base it solely on what someone says, either for public or private consumption. Those who think they can are no better than millenarians pulling out prooftexts to demonstrate that the world will end in 2012.

That said, it's fun to imagine just how high the jinks were the night Winnie and Joe got drunk together.
To say nothing of that rollicking funster Wendell Willkie.

In reading of Churchill's stay at the White House in late 1941, early 1942, it looks like there is an interesting unwritten book: "Alcohol and it's Effects on the WWII Allied Leadership"

 

[Stand By]

I dunno guys. There is kind of a slippery slope risk of letting the Germans off the hook for their war responsibility here. ….

It seems the German public feels entitled to let themselves off their own hook - if this article is to be believed (a story originally in The Times) from today's press.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...flict-defeat-instead-think-victims-Nazis.html

According to this, just 9% feel that they were defeated - and many that they were the victims of Hitler (!) - and they're considering "allied" atrocities ?!?! Talk about alternate reality.

And that would seem to extend to the comments section for people who seem to support this view and they red arrow anyone who seems to have a voice of reason (like around here) - and there are a great many of them! So much for knowing history and a sense of context around there. Shameful.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Just 9% feel that they were defeated - and many that they were the victims of Hitler (!) - and they're considering "allied" atrocities ?!?! Talk about alternate reality.

Somewhere Henry Regnery is smiling.

 

[AmateisGal]

It seems the German public feels entitled to let themselves off their own hook - if this article is to be believed (a story originally in The Times) from today's press.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...flict-defeat-instead-think-victims-Nazis.html

According to this, just 9% feel that they were defeated - and many that they were the victims of Hitler (!) - and they're considering "allied" atrocities ?!?! Talk about alternate reality.

And that would seem to extend to the comments section for people who seem to support this view and they red arrow anyone who seems to have a voice of reason (like around here) - and there are a great many of them! So much for knowing history and a sense of context around there. Shameful.

To be fair, I think there are some instances where the Allies - specifically the Soviets - did commit atrocities, the brutal raping of thousands of women in Berlin being one of them. Though I suppose the definition of "atrocity" has many. With the Soviets, they were ordered *not* to behave in such a manner, but of course, no one cared.

 

[AmateisGal]

I wish I could read the original article in the Times (because I don't trust the Daily Mail) on this, but unfortunately, I don't have a subscription.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/world/europe/article4426313.ece

 

[Stand By]

To be fair, I think there are some instances where the Allies - specifically the Soviets - did commit atrocities, the brutal raping of thousands of women in Berlin being one of them. Though I suppose the definition of "atrocity" has many. With the Soviets, they were ordered *not* to behave in such a manner, but of course, no one cared.

Good thoughts - yes, it could be directed at the Soviets. "The Fall of Berlin, 1945" by Anthony Beevor was a captivating read - but it's just page-after-page of appalling atrocities. I Had no idea of the industrial scale of rape and murder that was meted out to the civilian population. Apparently, it wasn't the first line of troops that conducted themselves thus; they were more like professional soldiers who were concerned with the business at hand of street fighting and accessing each individual building (often using using Panzerfausts to go through walls instead of doors and windows!) and clearing them - discovering the women and children as they went and moving on to the next room of resistance … it was the masses of soldiers that consolidated the positions that came up from behind that were the terrifying mob, many comprised of the most hideous form of rapists, pedophiles and murderers from prison camps and pressed into military service - and then politicized by NKVD officers in to a frenzy (as if any was needed!). Wholesale rape - and repeated rape - and murder ensued. It reads like a medieval siege - but it's very modern and was in the heart of supposedly civilized Europe!

One also wonders if the Germans are referring to the bombing of certain cities like Dresden/Hamburg/etc by the RAF? After their visit to Coventry, I'd say that's sour grapes. And my old home town is Sheffield - it took a particular spanking by the Luftwaffe over two nights, December 27/28, 1941 and the pictures of such familiar landmarks (to me) in utter bombed-out ruins, the loss of life and the fires, is a stark reminder that this wasn't so very long ago and was on my own former doorstep. All's fair in love and war, as they say. Well, within the bounds of the Geneva Convention.

 

[Stand By]

I wish I could read the original article in the Times (because I don't trust the Daily Mail) on this, but unfortunately, I don't have a subscription.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/world/europe/article4426313.ece

I checked that too - and me neither!

 

[AmateisGal]

Good thoughts - yes, it could be directed at the Soviets. "The Fall of Berlin, 1945" by Anthony Beevor was a captivating read - but it's just page-after-page of appalling atrocities. I Had no idea of the industrial scale of rape and murder that was meted out to the civilian population. Apparently, it wasn't the first line of troops that conducted themselves thus; they were more like professional soldiers who were concerned with the business at hand of street fighting and accessing each individual building (often using using Panzerfausts to go through walls instead of doors and windows!) and clearing them - discovering the women and children as they went and moving on to the next room of resistance … it was the masses of soldiers that consolidated the positions that came up from behind that were the terrifying mob, many comprised of the most hideous form of rapists, pedophiles and murderers from prison camps and pressed into military service - and then politicized by NKVD officers in to a frenzy (as if any was needed!). Wholesale rape - and repeated rape - and murder ensued. It reads like a medieval siege - but it's very modern and was in the heart of supposedly civilized Europe!

One also wonders if the Germans are referring to the bombing of certain cities like Dresden/Hamburg/etc by the RAF? After their visit to Coventry, I'd say that's sour grapes. And my old home town is Sheffield - it took a particular spanking by the Luftwaffe over two nights, December 27/28, 1941 and the pictures of such familiar landmarks (to me) in utter bombed-out ruins, the loss of life and the fires, is a stark reminder that this wasn't so very long ago and was on my own former doorstep. All's fair in love and war, as they say. Well, within the bounds of the Geneva Convention.

I asked two of my friends on Twitter (both leading WW2 historians in Britain) and one said that this is a "natural corrective to the last few decades, as long as it is within reasonable bounds."

Regarding the raping in Berlin...the book, "A Woman in Berlin" by Anonymous is a gripping read.

I would also say they would be counting Dresden among the atrocities, but yes, you have a very valid point with Coventry. It comes down to what we consider "atrocities", I suppose, and how we define it. War is hell, as William T. Sherman so famously said, and horrible, horrible things happen in hell.

 

[V.C. Brunswick]

Good thoughts - yes, it could be directed at the Soviets. "The Fall of Berlin, 1945" by Anthony Beevor was a captivating read - but it's just page-after-page of appalling atrocities. I Had no idea of the industrial scale of rape and murder that was meted out to the civilian population. Apparently, it wasn't the first line of troops that conducted themselves thus; they were more like professional soldiers who were concerned with the business at hand of street fighting and accessing each individual building (often using using Panzerfausts to go through walls instead of doors and windows!) and clearing them - discovering the women and children as they went and moving on to the next room of resistance … it was the masses of soldiers that consolidated the positions that came up from behind that were the terrifying mob, many comprised of the most hideous form of rapists, pedophiles and murderers from prison camps and pressed into military service - and then politicized by NKVD officers in to a frenzy (as if any was needed!). Wholesale rape - and repeated rape - and murder ensued. It reads like a medieval siege - but it's very modern and was in the heart of supposedly civilized Europe!

Not surprising as the main theme of wartime Soviet propaganda was Avenge the Motherland. This was constantly drummed into the heads of Soviet soldiers in training and in battle that it wasn't enough to expel the invader from their land and win the war but to exact with interest the same to the invader who had raped and violated the Motherland. To the Soviets/Russians the concept of "Rodina" (Motherland) has an almost religious context that goes far beyond mere patriotic sentiment.

 

[AmateisGal]

To further clarify the "natural corrective" comment: German historiography has long been focused (rightly) on the guilt of Germany. Now they are at the point where historians are starting to look at other aspects of the war where the Germans were victims. I do know that the rape of women by Soviets in Berlin was not talked about after the war; the woman who wrote "Women in Berlin" did not use her name because of the backlash she would receive.

So in this aspect, I think it is a good thing, to focus on other aspects of the war where the Germans indeed were the victims, but not to the point where they begin to revise the historical record.

 

[AmateisGal]

Not surprising as the main theme of wartime Soviet propaganda was Avenge the Motherland. This was constantly drummed into the heads of Soviet soldiers in training and in battle that it wasn't enough to expel the invader from their land and win the war but to exact with interest the same to the invader who had raped and violated the Motherland. To the Soviets/Russians the concept of "Rodina" (Motherland) has an almost religious context that goes far beyond mere patriotic sentiment.

Yes. And boy, did they ever. Of course, I think a lot of it was in revenge for what the German Army did in Russia.

Together, the Soviets and the Germans reaped such destruction upon each other...just a level of horror and hatred that I can't even comprehend.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Not surprising as the main theme of wartime Soviet propaganda was Avenge the Motherland. This was constantly drummed into the heads of Soviet soldiers in training and in battle that it wasn't enough to expel the invader from their land and win the war but to exact with interest the same to the invader who had raped and violated the Motherland. To the Soviets/Russians the concept of "Rodina" (Motherland) has an almost religious context that goes far beyond mere patriotic sentiment.

Exactly so. It was more a tribal attitude of avenging dishonor than a mere matter of political or national retribution.

There are no definitive statistics on the number of Russian women raped by invading Germans -- imagine that, the Teutonic mania for record-keeping broke down there -- but it likely ran into the millions.

 

[AmateisGal]

Exactly so. It was more a tribal attitude of avenging dishonor than a mere matter of political or national retribution.

There are no definitive statistics on the number of Russian women raped by invading Germans -- imagine that, the Teutonic mania for record-keeping broke down there -- but it likely ran into the millions.

Yes. It's just staggering.

Also, some Soviet women soldiers in Berlin didn't even bother stopping their comrades from raping German women.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Along these lines I was listening this afternoon to a CBS radio news broadcast from London from the summer of 1940, in which the correspondent described a squad of British recruits undergoing bayonet training. They were charging sacks filled with animal blood, so that when they pierced the sack they ended up doused in gore. "HATE! HATE! HATE!" screams the instructor. "HATE YOUR ENEMY! SPILL HIS BLOOD! HATE! HATE! HATE! HATE YOUR ENEMY! YOU WANT TO SEE HIM BLEED! YOU WANT TO SEE HIM DIE! HATE! HATE! HATE!"

You can't have war without hate.