Your Military Historian Sucks

[Paul M. Weir]

I wonder why no scenarios have been published from the "Phoney War" period.

There was the brief Saar Offensive in the 2nd week of September 1939.

Saar Offensive - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Craig Benn]

SX1 La Drole de Guerre is an October 1939 scenario.

 

[Pitman]

As I like to say, all history is revisionist Don't read this as me impugning the bravery of these men. None of us was there. I doubt many of us have spoken to someone who actually was. We have all seen the studies on reliability of first-hand witnesses. The revision starts at the moment history is made. I will still study and read it though. It is fascinating to say the least. For me, it's Kursk. I have 50+ books on that battle. -- jim

Revisionism is when one writes a new account of a subject that goes against the previously accepted consensus.

 

[Paul M. Weir]

As you all know my speciality is the toys and their organisations. I am no better here than most here with regard to the conduct and flow of battles. Within my limited field I have learned to distrust armour books written before the '90s with regard to the finer details. Too many inaccuracies repeated. Don't get me wrong, the general technological trends and steps were usually correct in earlier books, the details or designations often suspect.

The Purist recalled the incorrect tale about Prokhorovka that was dominant for some 50 years in the West. That was a result of Paul Carrel (Obersturmbannführer Paul Karl Schmidt) who swallowed the post war Soviet red-wash fantasy tale wholesale and retold it in Scorched Earth. The Soviets were somewhat embarrassed by their partial failure on the southern Kursk flank. That arose because before Zitadelle they thought that the northern flank was the stronger armoured force. A good part of the debacle was due to the panicky reaction at higher level (including STAVKA) to the German breakthrough which meant piecemeal arrival of Soviet reserves and premature commitments. The post war Soviet accounts downplayed that partial failure by magnifying the German forces and casualties. A Soviet lie retold by a professional Nazi liar and swallowed by the Cold War West.

Paul Carell - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

My rule of thumb with regard to history is later is usually better.

 

[Sparafucil3]

Revisionism is when one writes a new account of a subject that goes against the previously accepted consensus.

Much of Valeriy Zamulin's work on Kursk is revisionism by that definition yet the scholarship of his work is well respected in most circles. -- jim

 

[holdit]

Revisionism is when one writes a new account of a subject that goes against the previously accepted consensus.

As I see it there's revisionism and revisionism. There's one that responds to new material and reviews the accepted narrative in light of that material and if necessary argues for an alteration to the narrative. This is history at work, and all history should be revisionist in this sense. If you maintain the old stories even as new information debunks them, you're no longer in the history business; you're in the mythology business.

The other type of revisionism is the insidious version, where someone doesn't like the currently-accepted narrative but sets about trying to change it, misusing, fabricating or ignoring evidence as required in order to reach the desired version of events because there isn't any real evidence available to do it with.

One of these approaches is vital, the other is contemptible.

 

[Sparafucil3]

As I see it there's revisionism and revisionism. There's one that responds to new material and reviews the accepted narrative in light of that material and if necessary argues for an alteration to the narrative. This is history at work, and all history should be revisionist in this sense. If you maintain the old stories even as new information debunks them, you're no longer in the history business; you're in the mythology business.

The other type of revisionism is the insidious version, where someone doesn't like the currently-accepted narrative but sets about trying to change it, misusing, fabricating or ignoring evidence as required in order to reach the desired version of events because there isn't any real evidence available to do it with.

One of these approaches is vital, the other is contemptible.

Agreed. I would add one other limitation: plenty of studies have show that eye witnesses are unreliable. While we must accept them because it is hard to find a better source, we have to also accept the story they tell has limitations and is likely to run afoul of your "other type" revisionism on some level. -- jim

 

[JoeArthur]

If you are interested in history there are some very good programs being shown on the BBC at the moment:

BBC Four - American History’s Biggest Fibs with Lucy Worsley, Series 1, The American Revolution

Lucy Worsley shows how the history of the American Revolution has been mythologised.

www.bbc.co.uk

also:

British History's Biggest Fibs with Lucy Worsley

The theme of the shows is that the human brain understands the world through stories and we look for stories in history - which sometimes are wrong. "Spin" is nothing new.

For me it is the oral histories that bring things to life.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

plenty of studies have show that eye witnesses are unreliable.

A good historian already knows this and weighs eyewitness accounts against other evidence. Nothing is more compelling than an eye-witness account, as JoeArthur points out.

A good historian also knows what kinds of questions to ask in order to collect the most reliable evidence. Asking a 50 or 75 year old vet what colour the sky was on a particular day 20 or 60 years ago is a bit pointless, but asking him how his mother felt about him signing up can open a floodgate of interesting and relevant details related to his military service. Such conversations are both a starting point for further research into other documentary evidence, and confirmation of later findings.

 

[Sparafucil3]

A good historian already knows this and weighs eyewitness accounts against other evidence. Nothing is more compelling than an eye-witness account, as JoeArthur points out.

I already said the same thing. -- jim

 

[pixelgeek]

Much of Valeriy Zamulin's work on Kursk is revisionism by that definition yet the scholarship of his work is well respected in most circles. -- jim

This is why I asked you what you meant. Revisionism is a term in historical research that means a reinterpretation of an event based on new material or a new examination of the material.

It isn't pejorative in the sense that it gets used by political figures

 

[Michael Dorosh]

This is why I asked you what you meant. Revisionism is a term in historical research that means a reinterpretation of an event based on new material or a new examination of the material.

It isn't pejorative in the sense that it gets used by political figures

It's a pejorative in historical circles as well, though it may depend on the particular field. First World War historiography is the most vivid example, where we've seen waves of interpretations, coinciding with various social movements.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

My rule of thumb with regard to history is later is usually better.

Yes. Especially true of lower level accounts. While eyewitnesses may still be alive and available to researchers, you see in regimental histories a trend by authors to gloss over mistakes or stories of bad officers, etc., out of respect for surviving soldiers and their families. Not to mention unit histories tend to first be written by the survivors themselves, and are often hagiographies.

The senior Canadian of the First Special Service Force was accused of cowardice and booted out after their first combat action in Italy. A number of early histories noted only that he left for health reasons, including the main history by Burhans, former intelligence officer for the force. More recent histories were able to dive deeper (possibly into declassified documents?) including a book by Ken Joyce, who had no emotional ties to the unit or any sense he had to spare feelings.

I don't know that a lot of his contemporaries would have blamed Burhans for "softening" the actual circumstances in his history and likely it was done to avoid any number of ugly implications, including possible international discord between the US and Canadian governments who were still cooperating closely at the time the book was written, on such things as NORAD. It only goes to prove your point, Paul. And it doesn't have to just be for bad reasons. At the time it was probably seen as inconsequential to the story of the Force as to "why" a senior officer left, just that he was gone. Joyce's story picks up the thread, though, and goes into detail about how the incident affected the Canadian contingent's morale, hand in hand with other circumstances that left bitter tastes in their mouths.

 

[Actionjick]

hagiographies.

Damn! I just love it when you guys go all polysylabbic and make me whip out the dictionary!???

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Damn! I just love it when you guys go all polysylabbic and make me whip out the dictionary!???

It's such a good word though. Decent writers will usually avoid going polsylabb polisyb using big words just to impress, but sometimes, the word so perfectly sums up the meaning, you can't resist.

Just ask Rick Atkinson....

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Also, to answer the OP.

Rick Atkinson. Despite his vocabulary, not because of it. Cornelius Ryan got a lot of attention for writing readable accounts of large battles, Atkinson has done the same thing for entire campaigns.

 

[Pitman]

Much of Valeriy Zamulin's work on Kursk is revisionism by that definition yet the scholarship of his work is well respected in most circles. -- jim

Jim, among scholars "revisionist" is not a dirty word. Some of the most respected works of history in history were revisionist works.

 

[Pitman]

As I see it there's revisionism and revisionism. There's one that responds to new material and reviews the accepted narrative in light of that material and if necessary argues for an alteration to the narrative. This is history at work, and all history should be revisionist in this sense. If you maintain the old stories even as new information debunks them, you're no longer in the history business; you're in the mythology business.

The other type of revisionism is the insidious version, where someone doesn't like the currently-accepted narrative but sets about trying to change it, misusing, fabricating or ignoring evidence as required in order to reach the desired version of events because there isn't any real evidence available to do it with.

One of these approaches is vital, the other is contemptible.

Not all history is revisionist, which is how one gets schools of history. Also, there are always many areas of history, especially newly explored ones, for which there isn't necessarily an accepted narrative, or at least a consensus. But your first definition of revisionist is the one that historians use.

But there is good revisionism and bad revisionism and the difference between them lies in 1) the motives of the revisionist, if any, and 2) the quality of the work. Some works of revisionism are simply poorly done, while others are actually malign, such as Holocaust denial.

 

[Sparafucil3]

It isn't pejorative in the sense that it gets used by political figures

I don't mean it as pejorative. I get the play on words and the double meaning of the word "revisionist". As I said, most--if not all--first hand accounts run afoul of your second definition to some degree. It is human nature. Meaning any work that relies on them, in some sense, is already revisionist. -- jim

 

[Sparafucil3]

Jim, among scholars "revisionist" is not a dirty word. Some of the most respected works of history in history were revisionist works.

I understand Mark. I know the double meaning of the word "revisionist". -- jim