Hi Andy, You are correct, I did jump the gun a bit, regarding forum members. However it would appear that there is always a contingent of our new liberated writers only too willing and too happy to try and tell us where we went wrong and cast doubt and deride what happened during WW2. With the luxury of hindsight, that they appear to smugly enjoy, I have no doubt there is a great deal we could or would try to correct. But life is not that kind. Sorry for blowing up. Keith
I know exactly where you're coming from, Keith. It's something we've ranted about on occasion - revisionists. They certainly generate discussion but, unfortunately, they also generate an audience - however it's not just revisionary history, there's often different takes on 'accepted' beliefs which challenges the status quo. On the flip side, though, there's always a good number of people who have the background knowledge to refute the 'new' claims. You have to remember that some of these 'historians' have to sell books so writing about something controversial is bound to garner attention. Only problem is there's usually a journalist or three who reckon it makes a good story and doesn't do their own research. In this case though, I think we're looking at interpretations of the accepted rule. Makes for healthy discussion. Ah well, that's the free world we live in ... and we all know who we have to thank for that!
The IWM caption reads: C 2617 9 June 1942 Oblique aerial photograph taken from a Lockheed Hudson of No. 279 Squadron RAF showing High Speed Launch HSL 130 from Yarmouth, rescuing the crew of a Handley Page Halifax from their dinghy in the English Channel. They had been forced to ditch after their aircraft incurred damage from anti-aircraft fire while raiding Essen, Germany. The aircraft in question, I believe, was: Halifax W1049 of 35 Squadron Tookoff at 23.29, on the 8th, Linton-on-Ouse. Hit by flak over the target and very severely damaged. The Halifax was subsequently obliged to ditch off Great yarmouth, Norfolk, where the crew were brought ashore at 13.45. No injuries. F/Sgt N W McKenzie P/O Field Sgt Sandford Sgt Smith Sgt Richmond F/Sgt Ledger Sgt Davis
Though I agree that many historians' work raises the blood-pressure sometimes I do believe that they have both the right, and in some cases, the obligation, to critically analyse a given period. If their work doesn't conform to the viewpoint of the reader then they, in turn, have to agree, disagree, or at the very least, highlight those pasrts that they find contentious. If we focus on the histories of WW2, it is very rare when a book appears that disparages the work of the fighting men and women. However, they do carry out critical analyses of the decisions made, the battles fought, and the personalities of those who lead. In all of this, I have no problem. During, and for the two decades that followed the war, the public was fed the official line on the history of the war. For a variety of reasons, the truth, the half-truth, the disinformation and the outright lies, were intermingled and the public believed them - well they no reason not to. BUT, in recent years many academics have revisited the events, battles, campaigns, decisions, etc and have shown that things may not have been as they were portrayed. And I think this is important. Why? Because their work is as important in remembering the fallen as the monuments and graves that have done so since the war. Lets take one example. Dieppe. If we were to accept the official line that was spouted for many years after the war, then we would not understand just how disasterous the event was, we wouldn't know how poor the planning was, we wouldn't know that despite all this, the troops fought gallently and fulfilled their duty. And just as importantly, these histories help the veterans understand how and why they fought at a particular place, at a particular time, and in a particular way. Is this revisionism? Yes it is. Revisionism has become a dirty word for many but that is only because it has become hijacked by a lunatic fringe. Most historians are revisionists, By the very act of writing a history book, and introducing new information and/or new interpretations, makes them revisionist. One could say that a historian who isn't a revisionist isn't a historian at all - he/she is a documentist
Keith I don't know if it was anything that I said that upset you, but you can be certain that I have nothing but respect and admiration for our fighting men and for those on the Home Front who supported them. To say that there were some things we could have done better, especially in terms of industrial management and strategic planning, and to acknowledge that some of our Generals and politicians and some of our equipment were better than others, is not unpatriotic and does not detract from this, I would have thought. I certainly don't think that Hitler and his Generals were brilliant. Some aspects of the Third Reich were efficient, some a lot less so; some Generals were not bad, some of their equipment was very good, some of their men fought bravely. But in the end, as you say, we were right and they were wrong, and we won. As I say in another thread, I respect original thinkers who don't toe one particular line: but original thinking should be used to search out truth, not to alter truth to fit in with any particular dogma. I would be sorry to lose you and your input. More than once, you have pulled me up when I have spouted an opinion without thinking it through. Adrian
