Thinks, this thread is so interesting maybe FP should print it in full! just to get people thinking…….

I’ve got the British Military Serials one (although mine is pre 1979) highly recomend it, also I’ve got another PSL on squadron codes thats invaluable…

Steve

XN923 – the other thread that I find makes a gripping ‘Soap opera’ is the TSR2 one – two immovable rhinos slugging it out, the problem is they both have some great points to make…….

If we compare the XN923 and Doc Sterlings Posts, we come up with another problem – what exactly do we mean by revisionism? I’m quite sure that the people with accademic historical training would veer towards XN923’s view but can’t help thinking that the general public would be more in tune with Doc Sterling (appologies Doc if you are an accademic).

Of course both deffinitions/views are valid and there in lies the rub, if at one point in time a word can be understood in two such divergent ways, then how does our understanding of words used by writers of primary source diverge from the authors?

I think this means that over time the way a primary source is viewed may well change, perhaps in the subtlest of ways, purely because the conotations of the words use evolve. A historical revision may therefore well end up being invalid, due the the historian not fully understanding what a sources writer really meant. This is scarey, as it could call into question all historical research – a good example of this would be a historian in 100 years time reading an article in which Michael Jackson is discribed as ‘Bad’ or ‘Wicked’ words that today can already mean the exact opposite of what they meant 50 years ago.

Hmm….emotive one this.

History, or rather the interpretation of history is a subjective art and if the writer includes any analysis of the facts then they are bound to at best step on a few toes.

The problem is basically this, we all have an identity and how we define our identity is very complex, but in short we define it in terms of our total life experience. Part of this is the story of how we came to be what we are, both as individuals and as society, and this is the most important historical strand to us personally. We therefore become uncomfortable (or in some cases highly distressed) when this story is undermined in some way – such as be a piece of revisionist historical analysis, which disagrees with our worldview.

The historians job should of course be to gather and record facts (evidence) and then interpret and present it to their audience, this might be done for a wide range of reason from entertainment through to justifying political decisions. The historians conclusions should be firmly based upon the evidence they have collected even if it seriously challenges/undermines their view of the world. Churchill is reported to have commented up crossing the House of Commons ‘I’d rather change my mind than be wrong all my life.’

However so strong is most peoples’ sense of identity that the historians seldom if ever manage to write totally unbiased by their sense of identity. Interestingly many people when confronted by incontrovertible evidence against what they believe, will dismiss the evidence and believe even more strongly, a phenomena that psychologists call disconfirmation, this is most common with regards to religious and political beliefs.

Revisionism regarding World War 2, is naturally going to be highly controversial for two reasons firstly many of us either know someone or are some one who experienced it and therefore has a very strong bearing upon our identity. A revisionist history of World War 1 would have a far lower impact upon us for the simple reason it is that further back in time, and for the same reason an historical revision of Waterloo would have even less impact.

So is it right to revise history? I think the answer has to be yes with a few reservations. The reason for this is that if we wish to avoid such suffering again we must fully understand the underlying reasons and causes, which may or may not be at odds with those given in propaganda at the time, and which have since entered the popular psyche.

However we must be very careful, for two reason; One, any revision which is too radical, regardless of validity, is likely to be dismissed out of hand if it seriously attacks peoples sense of identity. Two, we do not wish to distress anyone with traumatic memories of the conflict.

That said as the war recedes into history then it can be revisited more freely, lets hope that future historians learn the lessons in term to prevent any repeat and don’t end up subjectively distorting it to justify their view of the world….as the Nazis would have done.

Here here