Anybody can insult, few have the knowledge and brains to argue.
Thanks and good bye

Originally Posted by Der Alte

"Those who do not remember history are doomed to repeat it." Is there really any sense to this? Is it any more the case than "Those who do not remember history, are doomed to make new mistakes?" If you do not know what happened in the past, which does not make any more or less likely to accidentally duplicate it. At the same, time, is remembering the past anyguarantee of avoiding future mistakes? I would offer the French behavior between World Wars as an example of people who came to grief because they remembered the past. The French spent the two decades preparing to fight WW I all over again. That had been aconflict where the defense was supreme and attackers were bled to death in unprecedented numbers. Not wishing to have that happen again, the French constructed the Maginot Line, just what was needed in case WW I had to be fought all over again. Of course advance in armoured warfare and greatly enhanced mobility, plus advancements in air war....all changed the old scenario and now the offense was to be supreme in WW II. France was easily overrun because they remembered the past all too well.

The information is out there and it is out there in a wide variety ofsources with competing interpretations. But what we should remember is that history is a complex social science. It's not just a chunk of facts for grade-schoolers toremember.

I would suggest that the French problem was not that they got remembered the past but they also got stuck there and forgot to plan for the future.

I also think a lot of people forget about context when discussing history, we all get dates and facts drummed into us at school but very few actually understand why something happened, in my opinion decisions are made based on accumulated knowledge so to gain a proper understanding you need to not only look what was done but why they did it ie what influences in the past brought about that decision.

Originally Posted by samneanderthal

Anybody can insult, few have the knowledge and brains to argue.
Thanks and good bye

You had neither the knowledge or the brains. Rather then argue, its far better to discuss in a sensible and respectful manner.

Thanks and goodbye? Does this mean you are leaving us for good?

Originally Posted by samneanderthal

Anybody can insult, few have the knowledge and brains to argue.
Thanks and good bye

You do not argue, you contradict.
Adiós y gracias.

Originally Posted by MontyB

I also think a lot of people forget about context when discussing history, we all get dates and facts drummed into us at school but very few actually understand why something happened, in my opinion decisions are made based on accumulated knowledge so to gain a proper understanding you need to not only look what was done but why they did it ie what influences in the past brought about that decision.

You are right. In order to be able to adequately deal with any conflict or dispute, it is necessary to understand its historical context but understanding the historical context does not mean that one is limited by it. On the contrary, to the extent that one understands that problems are linked to things that happened in the past, it becomes possible to move beyond those limitations to a new definition of the current situation. If one is unaware of past associations, however, they become much more limiting and problematic.

Good Morning Der Alte,
You sound very much like my professors=), who are very intelligent people! You have also explained my trade in terms that would be hard to match. Bravo.
there is a whole spectrum of opinions about what you are discussing at my university with regard to constructing narratives.

From the old school favouring the likes of (now out of favour)Kieth Windshuttle who clings to the outdated ideas of Von Ranke and other influential positivist historians to extreme postmodernists who believe the secondary source is a deceptive and misguiding tool.

With regard to the rewriting of history over time i believe it is very useful to reexamine events as each generation comes through.
It also results in a more comprehensive idea as the boundaries of the study extend from key players and the politics to all sorts of initially seemingly obscure details.

In fact I think these studies are more difficult if anything as you have far less 'puzzle pieces' to put together.

There are many cases in my studies where it has been highlighted that through time as bias fades and a more objective view is achieved some seemingly minor details come to the fore as momentous events. (see train timetables and ww1 for perhaps the most famous example)

However I am stuck on your point about the actual usefulness of historical writing in the 'doomed to repeat' sense of the topic.
While I began my education heavily believing in the 'facts' and an objective truth my views have become moderated.
In a somewhat postmodern sense I lean towards that while our narratives on these topics are useful in simplifying incredibly complex events for people to understand they can never be more then a very rough guide for the future- as the exact situation will never occur again.

While a sociologist and not strictly talking about historical study I liked Max Webers term 'verstehen' or 'explanatory understanding' as it was translated in class in that facts are not so important as interpretation of the people and the societal moods and movements.

Your points should help explain to sam that while his information may seem very complex and contain many 'facts' in all reality many participants would hardly recognise the histories we have written as thier own. For that reason 'getting inside their heads' this far away is not an exact science.

We were told as a mantra 'history is another country' in that as a professional you cannot judge it by your own values.

Hello headwards

Do you think I sound like a professor?
He he he! thanks for the compliment but I think they are essentially more intelligent than me.

Good post. You have cracked the code and Max Weber is very well observed. "Verstehen" is also a useful tool when looking at historical figures. "Verstehen" also refers to understanding the meaning of action from the actor's point of view. It is entering into the shoes of the other, and adopting this research stance requires treating the actor as a subject, rather than an object of your observations.

Originally Posted by headwards

-snip- I liked Max Webers term 'verstehen' or 'explanatory understanding' as it was translated in class...-snip-

I am not a native English Speaker (German, in fact), but this has me a bit flabbergasted: From how I interpret Webers "verstehen" I would rather translate it with "appreciate", a kind of "active" understanding.

Rattler

Well with sociology the most popular type of study is 'participant observation' which sounds a lot like 'active' understanding.
I think the significant thinker on this is Branislaw Malinowski- an anthropologist from memory.

Der Alte said to him verstehen is 'putting yourself in anothers shoes'. Participant observation is how sociologists and anthropologists do that. Historians embrace the theory even though they can't practise it.

I think anthropology, sociology and history are really closely linked because many of their ideas and significant thinkers work in the different fields, even more so in the past.

Its funny to consider words which have extremely difficult translations in my language- It takes like a paragraph to explain verstehen haha

Originally Posted by Der Alte

History is written by the victors to the extent that history is shaped by statistics released by the victors. However, each generation of historians "rewrites" a lot of history for two reasons. One is for individual historians to make a name for themselves. The second is because events are reexamined through the prism of the time. While somewhat useful, we run the danger of losing sight of the motivations and viewpoints of the players in a certain event. Sometimes it is not Who writes history, but HOW...Norman Cantor, a history writer and professor, wrote a book "Inventing History" where he explains that Writers tend to put their own 'spin' on events, depending on their politics, perspective and also the era in which they write. A historian is literally a writer of History. That's what separates historians from "history buffs" - they are working in the industry, and usually teaching at the same time. Historians don't "tend" to put their spin on events - it is their job to do so. But they would call it research, not "spin” but history many times tends to be an echo chamber. One historian sneezes and you will hear that sneeze for a hundred years in a hundred books.

ALL sides of historical events write the history. The history taught in the US about WWII is not the same as in Japan, and vice versa. The history taught in Sweden about the Thirty Year's War is not the same as in France...

ABRIDGED

...The information is out there and it is out there in a wide variety ofsources with competing interpretations. But what we should remember is that history is a complex social science. It's not just a chunk of facts for grade-schoolers to remember.

Thanks Die Alte, enjoy your posts.

What people outside Germany do not realise was that after Hitler refused to make further Reparations for the First World War in 1935, Poland began beating a drum and demanding the right to annexe more and more of eastern Germany, Silesia, Pomerainia etc. Hitler raised the level of vitriol in return making counter threats against Poland

Once Hitler had made the blunder to invade Poland his hand was continuously forced by the hands of his enemies.

In February 1940 both the UK and France began sending massive arms support to Finland in it's battle against the Soviets. These arms were shipped to Narvik in Norway and then shipped by rail across Sweden. Hitler correctly feared that an alliance between Finland and the Anglo french would cut off his Iron ore from the north of Finland. Thus Hitler was forced to invade Norway to cut off this support.

Both prior to and during WW2, the Nazi party was a big beneficiary of support from Rockerfeller and secret oil shipments from the Gulf in false flag operations. Hitler paid for Rockerfeller's oil with tankers built in German shipyards. These shipments even continued after the sea blockade of Germany commenced.

Rockerfeller had two pet hates. The Jewish Rothschilds who began a rival oil trade from the Gulf cutting out Rockerfeller from supplying Europe and his other pet hate was the Bolsheviks who confiscated his oil fields in the Caucus region.

Rockerfeller demanded the final solution to rid Europe of Jews and Rockerfeller also demanded the invasion of Russia. At one stage before Barbarossa, Stalin actually requested admission to the Tripartite Pact. Both Japan and Rockerfeller opposed this. Hitler was so beholding to Rockerfeller ad the other Wall Street support that he provided from Ford and General Electric that the Nazis became Rokerfeller's dancing puppet.