Why Historians repeat themselves
A short talk with Chieftain about why historians repeat themselves, the proper balance between looking at the state of research vs going into the archives. Why footnotes are important and related topics.
»» GET BOOKS & VIDEOS ««
» Stukabook - Doctrine of the German Dive-Bomber - stukabook.com
» The Assault Platoon of the Grenadier-Company November 1944 (StG 44) - sturmzug.com
» Army Regulation Medium Panzer Company 1941 - www.hdv470-7.com
» Tank Assault - Combat Manual of the Soviet Tank Forces 1944 - stm44.com
» IS-2 Stalin's Warhammer - www.is-2tank.com
» StuG: Ausbildung, Einsatz und Führung der StuG Batterie - stug-hdv.de
» Achtung Panzer? Zur Panzerwaffe der Wehrmacht - panzerkonferenz.de
» Panzerkonferenz Video - pzkonf.de
»» SUPPORT MHV ««
» patreon, see videos early (adfree) - / mhv
» subscribe star - www.subscribestar.com/mhv
» paypal donation - paypal.me/mhvis
»» MERCHANDISE ««
» teespring - teespring.com/stores/military...
» SOURCES «
our brains
00:00 New Research vs. Repeating old Stuff & State of German WW2 Research
04:12 Balance Reading Literature vs Going into the Archives (Secondary vs Primary Sources)
07:33 Why Footnotes!
09:36 Final Note on State of Research
#history #research #sources
All books - militaryhistorygroup.com » Stukabook - Doctrine of the German Dive-Bomber - stukabook.com » The Assault Platoon of the Grenadier-Company November 1944 (StG 44) - sturmzug.com » Army Regulation Medium Panzer Company 1941 - www.hdv470-7.com » Tank Assault - Combat Manual of the Soviet Tank Forces 1944 - stm44.com » IS-2 Stalin's Warhammer - www.is-2tank.com » StuG: Ausbildung, Einsatz und Führung der StuG Batterie - stug-hdv.de » Achtung Panzer? Zur Panzerwaffe der Wehrmacht - panzerkonferenz.de » Panzerkonferenz Video - pzkonf.de
Good vid its hard during war when it comes to properganda as Ukraine is showing. Now I'm pro Ukrainain but two examples that come to mine from both sides its now common knowledge that the first Russian T90M destroyed was done buy a Carl Gustaf AT weapon. But infact there was extra footage when looked at in detail another Russian tank from behind fires into the back of the T90M to destroy it so as not to get captured. Red affect Ytuber did a good analysis of this and it could be true tho historians are going to say and I've seen it already that the T90M was destroyed buy a Carl Gustav. Also with the First Ukrainain Challenger 2 destroyed in last years counter offensive in Robotyne where a bit of footage is shown of the destroyed tank. It was first reported and correct that the tank hit a mine and was disabled and the crew got out alive. It was then reported that the Russians used artilary to destroy it and possibly used a Lancet drone and failed. Then for properganda reasons with ease no crewman inside destroyed the Challenger 2 tank in a weak point with a Kornet ATGM. Its now common knowledge that it was the mine that disabled it and then the killing blow was done with the Kornet in the same battle and erasing the artilary and or Lancet drone attempts. So the properganda of the Kornet ATGM destroying the Challenger 2 after the battle has now stuck as being apart of the original engagement. I hope historians one day can unravel this BS and make it right when righting about it. See links: kzhead.info/sun/oM6xj6uFg3hjYJE/bejne.html kzhead.info/sun/ZLerh857oJVphIU/bejne.html
While in college I had to write a history paper on the Battle of Hastings. You could see where my professor while he was grading my paper had marked me down a few points and then crossed thru the marking. When he handed out our papers he said in front of the class that he had learned something new about the battle that he did not know before and he cited my paper. He initially thought I was wrong but double checked my footnotes. He as a bit surprised he had never come across the fact I presented and made him look at the battle in a new light. The fact I had researched were that many of English who had fought at Hastings (14 Oct 1066) had also fought at the Battle of Stamford Bridge (25 Sep 1066) just 2 1/2 weeks prior and arrived to the battlefield exhausted from a forced march from the North of England.
This is really cool-- congrats on your research! Writing college research papers can be overwhelming, but it sure pays off when the professor praises your work
The copying is all about effort vs attainment. Professional historians can make just as much money/kudos from spending 3 months bolting together a few old books as they can from 3yrs of archival research. The great thing about today is technology allows us to break that model. Sometimes. 😊
He didn't know that? One thing about some of Harold's Best Troops - was that (as I understand it) while the Housecarls fought on foot - they had horses they used for travel and yeah - those guys had gone all the way up to Stanford and then all the way back down to Hastings. One of the criticisms of Harold's conduct of the war was that he didn't gather more of his forces farther up from Hastings. There is speculation (?) that William was intentionally razing land that belonged to Harold for the purpose of making him come down sooner.
These are all good points. Another thing I think is underrated when analyzing historians' work is to keep in mind what they are actually experts in and where they themselves are just repeating things they have only heard from others. There is an odd behavior trait where people designate a historian (or a news source) as "reliable", and then they simply believe everything they are told by that source. But (to give a theoretical example) a historian who has done good research into German tank development might repeat out-of-date tropes about the Battle of Kursk, because while their knowledge of tank development is state-of-the-art, they literally know as much about recent research on Kursk as the average Normie.
Know when your source is primary, secondary, tertiary or hearsay and what level of skepticism each requires. It works for historical readers just as well as historians.
The Neil deGrasse Tyson scenario. Being an expert in one area but speaking with unjustified levels of certainty about wildly different fields.
@@mattwilliams3456 Tyson is a great example. I was thinking of genuinely good historians I've written who are sound in their area but then seem way behind the curve when they talk about anything else, but there are people who become so enamored by the attention they are getting that they start spouting off ever crazier takes to get attention. For example, I am assured that Paul Krugman is/was an expert on the economics of trade. But I've never read that stuff, just the increasingly deranged stuff he's written for the New York Times, which makes me begin to wonder if he has any expertise at all. Since I never saw anything Tyson did in his field and only his wild-eyed takes on social media, he has the same effect on me.
As a history student, this is something that in mainstream media gets so glossed over while being the foundation of history itself. Bravo
Green Books were written from 1940s to 1990s. The series is wrapped up. About 70 volumes. Also, there are the Maroon books about the medical side of things. CMH now finishing up Vietnam series, doing Cold War series, and starting up Tan Books on Iraq/Afghanistan.
Whenever it comes to Military history I like to paraphrase Michael Clapp, who would get furious at officers for dismissing military historians, as he generally considers history an key element of a military armed forces self reflection. in particular those not understanding that, sure, things have changed, but the fundamentals are the same in the 40s as they were in the 80s and really as they are now.
Proper citation, whether as footnotes, endnotes, or other, are so important! Not just for academic convention and for giving credit (both important), but for the reasons given here. Sometimes someone misinterprets something or maybe later on we find out that a given source was wrong or incomplete.
Hi to Chieftan from a veteran of the 3rd FAR FCA 😀. Survived three tours in the Glen.
David Golantz and Ian Kershaw are just two lenses for which we view WW2 with. Everyone may know the broad strokes of the war, but the finer, industrial and institutional details too often get glossed over.
Thanks for the video! Would love to see more videos about your work process and working as a historian in general
Part of the issue for historians is that for various personal reasons they may not have had the opportunity to go into the archives but still want to write something, which can contribute to recycling. I've been going to the French military archives at Vincennes for a few times now specifically to find new information on still moderately underresearched subjects (currently 1930's weapon programs). It's rather neat to find documents which confirm previously known historian works but can also add some more context or even open entirely new areas of research. But I have been rather constrained by the fact I could only go there on Saturdays and that it wasn't open for that many hours at a time. I can only imagine how bad it would be in countries like the US where archives are spread accross the entire country, very far from potential researchers. Hoping that one day I will accumulate sufficient information to write some syntheses after cross-referencing with existing books and documents.
Weird concept I heard from a historian was the concept that no historian is an expert. They have areas of expertise, but just like doctors practice medicine, historians practice history. They had the perception that expert gives the idea you have mastered it, despite the fact it's a topic you cannot master. If someone presents new evidence, you have to abandon your previous position without prejudice and adapt. I found this really thought-provoking, especially after seeing this video.
I agree. Historians are not experts, kind of like judges in court arent. They just gather tons of information and confront it with logical thinking to see who lied the least.
I think it's good that such videos are published because often the general public doesn't know much about how the process of writing history is done. Sometimes questions such as "but how could you really know what happened" are asked or the tales of veterans are enshrined into objectivity without questioning if they are willfully omitting or exaggerating facts. I think schools should strive to get people the idea that history is written through the efforts of many and the questioning of sources, not the mere copying of sources assuming their veracity.
One period of time I have heard almost nothing about is the air and ground war between the period of Poland's capitulation and the attack on France.
Always a pleasure to hear a wise word or two from the Chieftain. About the 1970's: lots of information and copies included have been spread around in a partialy wrong way. Glad to have both of you (and many others) discussing and clearifying the sources and their legitimation nowadays. Keep the good work. To Bernhard: Ei Fink? (I think) A bisserl bessere (Englische) Aussprache würd dem Kanal ned schaden. Bist nervös wegen Geschichte und den Gast, verstehe ich total, aber du kannst es. Grüße aus Linz OÖ.
Chieftain must be getting serious dough to keep doing these car trips to Austria
Putting a lot of miles on that Iltis
His Lieutenant colonelcy with time served and experience, is probably about 10k a month.
@@tisFrancesfault he’s national guard not full time
My WWII books War Pigeon! and The Men of the Khaki Cloth were on new ground not written before. My next book, coming out in about a year is also new territory. There is much still out there. You just have to be curious and go new directions.
As History student unit I was told off in first year for not using unattributed quotation, so I then enjoyed footnoting every goddamn thing. I would feel half the page with references and notes. To this day, I always enjoy a history book with many footnotes - frequently the footnotes are where the juiciest details or where the historian might express his views that he wouldn't put in the main body of the text due to being either off-point or may not be a formal idea.
Yehey Chieftain!
My father was a mechanical engineer. He worked personally on his own aviation projects extensively. He also did much work on solving NASA engineering problems with the Space Shuttle. A interesting bit here. He was involved with RPI engineering students in Troy NY. Working on similar drones they are using in Ukraine ages ago before they were a big thing. Funny part is these brilliant students didn't realise that its very important to keep a aircrafts weight down if you have limited lifting ability and H/P to Flyer darn thing!
I dont normaly use footnotes in my videos, because I dont do primary research yet. But I do use footnotes in my scripts, so that I can find easily where I got a specific information from in the future.
Magazines recycling makes sense. they publish often, and can run out of topics, and they restart on topics because of new younger readers/subscribers who missed the topics last time around. But nor are magazines held to such high standards of academic rigor. They are like the print version of youtube videos.
There are a few authors, such as P.M Knight, that still digs into the archives.
Well worth releasing, just a good, friendly discussion between experts.
So I'm a chemist in a private R&D lab. Doing my Master's thesis, my PI told me that: "an hour in the library is worth a week in the lab" (meaning more likely than not, someone has already done your proposed project, and published the results). What is the humanity's equivalent of this addage when your research environment IS the library(/archive)? I know you touched on this point in the video - having the base academic knowledge of claims and their sources - but you can't read every single book or paper on a particular subject?
It is very hard to compare, since humanities are very "soft". Yet, before digitization of archives (and a lot is still not), archive work usually means traveling quite a bit, e.g., German Military Archives is like a 8-12 hours trip into one direction from my place. Also stuff in the archives gets lost etc. so going into the archives is a bit like lab work.
You know, I appreciate academic rigor as much as the next guy, probably more, but I am on this channel to hear about big metal things with guns on top. 😃
9:42 IThis is why a thesis has a review of related literature: to check what is current and what will the thesis improve upon.
Well, you know what they say: "history repeats itself."
They have heard that many times.
Do you remember that top down, or isometric, like war games. Even the Civilization style. You could create WW2 battle video's, that show individual military actions.
I suspect a large part of the reason stuff gets recycled is because theres a bulk of old stuff, there basicaly brought up on the old stuff, and it takes something actualy new by prople who are not historians like that Sub they found in the indian ocean by a resorce company, the photo of a Gattling gun batery in training as a light battery that was aparently taken around or just after the civil war that seems to show it deployed like a conventional light artilery including horses ready to move the guns as a unit that was in someones collection that belonged to a decendant of one of the officers of that battery, or The theory that The Hood was posibly hit just below her armor belt by a Civil Enginetr who realisef that the part of the armor belt exposed by hydrodynamics basicsly gave Bizmarks 15 inch shells a clean shot...and eventualy that new stuff just becomes part of the old stuff.
I went to academia here in Brazil looking into studying military history back in 2007. But here it is virtually non-existent. I went then to study other subjects, and after that, one of the things I realized with the academia was that people are really stuck with the professors in charge. The people who actually lead research and so forth. My experience here with the academic field is that it is a very verticalized space. I won't use the word "undemocratic" because I think it's too harsh, but it is something that really curbs initiative and innovation from the button, to some extent at least. So, basically, you have trends going on and most people following in those trends, and because of that people may often have two options, either go with the trend and have their research in favor of it or do the opposite and have their research against it. This dichotomy of agreeing and disagreeing. And you can notice that it reaches a point where the movement almost goes unconsciously, as things are already systemic today. Professors may not limit themselves intentionally, it is simply that they themselves were not able to find an alternative during their own formation and could not develop their research on different matters. Academic studies, in my understanding, at least in human sciences, they lost most of their horizontality, their ability to establish links between different fields. This polymath aspect of the past. That's one of the reasons for the lack of military history because it is one of the most polymath field in the studies of history. Anyway, I may be wrong, but that was the perspective I got from my time at university.
That's insightful-- have you been able to/sought to pursue research in military history in areas other than Brazil? Was your focus on Brazilian military history or were you focusing more generally?
@@Firefox9788 going abroad wasn't something I was looking into, and my English was quite terrible at the time lol. Not a possibility in any sense. I was just looking into getting started with the thing, put some idea into light. There are people working with the subject of ww2 in the country, but they are few, and they're not focused on military subject of the history in any matter, they're focused on the social and political aspects. When it comes to military, you really have to go to the army and do research from there. The only civil institution I can recall here working with a somewhat similar subject is the strategic studies course, tied to the field of International Relations. I tried to get there once, but since it is a sole thing, it is very disputed. And even there things are more political prone than military. The great majority of the projects I saw there dealt with political subjects, not military.
Interesting that three weeks after this Drachinifel did an interview with a historian that follows this video pretty nicely - the state of History programs at least in North America and the UK. One thing I found insightful is historians are expected to publish like engineers. But an engineer can publish cinstantly because a negative result in engineering is interesting. On the other hand a historian can spend 9 months in the archives and every theory they have not backed by evidence is useless for tenure. Whereas an engineer can write about every theory that was proven false. Which is why history departments have been cut in half and are all taught by adjuncts now. History *class* enrollment is steady. But tenured roles are dying. There's no career in spending years in archives coming up with new research. It's coming to the point where kickstarted research is starting to compete with some of what academics can do.
Nick, you actually know alot about aircraft and aircraft history. I just wish you would have a separate aviation channel so you could share it. 🤔
Hey i have a off topic question but i would Like to ask you about it anyways. Did MR H Like the 88 so much because it stands for HH. I mean he was a quite Self Centered Man and it would be kinda funny. But its a very stupid question. Love your Content.
A few things keep popping up in my life. First is something is so old it's new again. This comes with some issues when something becomes new again. Firstly, the cultural context can be completely missing as the reader had no connection with the culture that the original was written within. This can be compounded by philosophical meanings that have changed over time. These meanings can also be totally lost across changes in language. When it comes to historians, I was told historians are not analysts regardless of what their area of study is. There is to a certain extent that if everyone agrees, it must be right. So historians tend to regurgitate rather than question. This makes it difficult to remove propaganda, which is generally always present with one side applauding and the other side booing. Such as the MG42's bark is far worse than its bite. The Stuka drive bomber was completely obsolete because it can't dogfight with a Spitfire. On the other hand, the analyst questions everything, including testing and re-establishing baselines. The issue with analysis is that it takes much longer to complete and still arrive at the wrong conclusion, as the right questions must be asked in the first place. For example, was the British 2 pounder a pea shooter, or was it the 88 of its time? Short answer it No. The 88 was already in service. But is this what is being asked? Is it really asking about range and penetration ratios comparing early war to late war antitank guns. So, my short answer is completely wrong in this context. Each generation will have its own way of wording this question. History and research have never been good bedfellows, and we have not placed politics into the mix yet.😮
I learned from historians that there are three types of sources. Primary sources are written by the people who were there. Secondary sources are written by people who talked to the people who were there. Tertiary sources are written by people who read the primary and secondary sources. All of these sources filter the facts through their own prejudices and beliefs and experiences. Even primary sources are limited by their experience - they saw a small sample of the facts.
The best stuff from ww2 is from the 60-70's when all the vets were talking.
There are a few still talking today. There's a young guy who took it upon himself to interview WWII vets and he posts the interviews on KZhead.
From an emotive standpoint I'd agree. Human memory however is a fickle beast and not every eyewitness account from an event can be said to be an accurate description if only for the reason that what Bill said he saw was not what Jim experienced (even though he was in that foxhole 50 yards away). Bill & Jim haven't spoken to each other since the last reunion. Even personal accounts need to be checked against other sources.
Not to mention some of them were actually able to talk to the policy makers themselves, such as Simon Newman in "March 1939: The British Guarantee to Poland"
@@whtalt92 I think both matter. Even with a perfect memory, misconceptions can spread through the ranks of soldiers. I think that Chieftain has described the fears that tankers had about the Sherman being prone to catching on fire due to the ammo stored inside. While true, this was a problem for all tanks. On the other hand, first experience is something that can't be replaced. There are bound to be things that aren't mentioned in the literature or are simply incorrect.
On the contrary, it is exactly that time period which was unfortunately corrupted much of our understanding of the war. Corrupted memories, lack of access to original materials and political pressures which forced many nations veterans to speak about the war in a certain way to secure their post-war careers and chances of a normal life.
We have similar problems in biology, as many researchers often propagate the mistakes of other scientists rather than read the primary sources. It's not uncommon to read a science article or press release that quotes researchers as saying they were the first to discover something that we've known for decades. Some will even claim to have disproven a belief that they attribute to past researchers despite the previous generation not having held those views in the first place.
The Chieftan!
I've always thought that this is becuse everything is researched already nad there's simply no new content left. It's a finite resource, basically.
I would like to become a historian when I become a adult. I love studying military history.
Interesting.
Hihi, studiing history and Recycling: We lurn recycling, we are more or les incorraged to just recicle when writing our papers, so when it gets to the thesys, i ecpect (not at this point jet), most people will try to do the same.
In decade or two all information from public archives will be digitised and machine-translated to all major languages.
And memory holed.
Digitised: OK. Machine-translated.... yikes.
@@whtalt92 It is free? If you need to pay from your budget and each page cost at least 50€ to be translated by person, you are not going to translate all 10000 pages of archive.
or you could just make a career about walking around a tank and then going in it.
WW2 history needs a total rewrite, as most histories do not include discussion on effect of the ULTRA/Enigma and other intelligence on the field.
Ima give u a like because ima try and support anything u put out but it was a lil boring to me lol. It did remind me i need to buy that sturmzug book tho
There was too much history as entertainment and not history as detailed information and analysis. No one wanted those old time war movies to be wrecked.
Yes, so true. It's badly researched history that spins off these nutty myths. Really glad to see these books coming out. I think that after reading Rommel's book and Otto Carius' books I think "Actung Panzer" will be my next book. Thank you again.
Achtung, Panzer is Guderian's iirc
selection bias
Not this again..😜
(min. 5:40) How should they know stuff if a book is not translated? Maybe simply learn a foreign language? Especially if you do reasearch about a country in which this language is spoken. Translation is costly and has its limits, especially if historic source material is involved. History is not like natural science where the most important message is in the numbers and figures and the text is more a guide to understand them. In other fields like ancient history it is absolutely normal to cite and work with books in different languages (at least in French, English, German, and Italian). If this is not done any more in military history, it shows that military history as an academic discipline is generally in an awful state.
Hey😂
Why Historians repeat themselves
please do a video on these (this is a copy and paste list for a few channels) units and tactics/evaluation of loadouts of troops (from different jobs (and other branches) like the 82 snd 101 airborne units or infantry tank units, (or when tanks were assigned a infantry unit like i think earlier war Russia then all tanks were formed into there own units wich meant the infantry no longer knew the true strength of there own tanks but alowed tank units to fight more efficiently) the tank doctrine of countries evaluation of tank veiw ports evaluation of tanks/armored vehicles of different countries evaluation of aircraft types of different countries, different between navil and army/air force fighters logistics units of the axes and allied powers in ww2 ww1 estern front tactics Russian Civil war tactics and strategies navil ship cross sections (all the rooms and how it all works) evaluation of types of ships or evaluation of navil warfare (or just dedectsded videos on ww1 and ww2 navil doctrine as theres stuff out there on other times of history) air craft carrier strike group formations exsamples (from different countries) ancient persan ships, ancient veneti ships (gauls that fought ceaser) ships used by genoa and the vernesain republic the vernesain republic government all sailing ships, (i know theres many on yt but some contradict each other and i think theres more left out) ancient macenean greek and trojan troops 2b9 vasilyok morter tactics used so far in the Ukraine war, better for squads to be 2 teams of 5 or 3 teams of 3, and probably the easiest, better to keep troops well feed or starved like an animal how dose age effect comsnders eg napoleon got older so took less risks, ancient urban warfare ww2 tactics in Asia, tactics in the Chinese age of warlords, (and Chinese civil war) tactics in the ruso jap war cold war navil tactics, Korean war tactics, strange tactics or unque battles from the American war of independence and America civil how were 17th centry sailing ships build types of bombs lunched by drones comands given on sailing ships (like ease the sheets and get ready to chine, or slack n beases, basically things you hear movie capitns say) why did the nazis never return (or a video on best occupations) why did the Japanese empire fall, dont just say "America" like things like how there army and navy argued alot alot more on the Polynesians and māori, but please learn pronounceations if you do this
🤦♂️🤦♂️ Is this a pun? 😂
Funny you should say this I was listening to Lazer pig and he has an issue with this related to the reformers. Having watched a lot of WWII day by day ot would be amazing if the consultants would do a pannel qa kind of like tank fest thing cheiften did where you discuss your research. With Indy and the team and review all the busted misconception and how your understanding has changed. I'd pay for a ticket to stream it.
You mean the guy who thinks the T-14 Armata uses the same engine as the Tiger II?
gas lecturer?
It doesn't seem like that to me. I have the impression that there has been a hard U-turn in some ways when it comes to how WW2 is talked about. For a long time most historians were pretty impressed and appreciative about the military achievements of the Wehrmacht and about how they kept putting up a impressive fight against horrible odds and all that, but all that swooning for 2-3 generations seems to have created a backlash and the pendulum swinging the other way, where now everybody seems to shit on everything Wehrmacht related. Everyone is constantly complaining about how annoying and ubiquitous Wehraboos supposedly are, but in my experience Wehraboos are really rare, while Anti-Wehraboo complainers are everywhere. As I said, now the new narrative is that everything Wehrmacht was shit, the Bismarck was a outdated piece of garbage, the Luftwaffe aircraft were all trash and the kill claims by Luftwaffe aces are all fake lies and the Wehrmacht as a whole was just a bunch of inept losers who were easily defeated and never had a chance in the first place and so on and so forth. I think the fact that the internet was opened to Russians and East Europeans who grew up with Soviet propaganda added to this new atmosphere and narrative.
I mean its not really soviet propaganda what has changed the discourse but after the fall of the soviet union western histories got access to soviet archives which disproved a lot of german myths since in the past it was the germans the ones telling the history of the eastern front bc the cold war didnt allow for soviet sources in the west
@@simwish6921 Soviet archives were not that closed off to western historians. They could often be accessed and there were Soviet allied states that were more open to the west, like Yugoslavia and other ones. Western historians just didn't value Soviet archives much, because they were so heavily manipulated and full of propaganda. Who would expect a man like Stalin, who was famous for retouching people out of pictures to keep accurate historical records? German archives are considered very accurate and honest, not because Hitler and his regime would have been much better than Stalin and the Soviets, but simply because the Hitler regime fell and was overrun by its enemies before it had the time to do much whitewashing of its records and archives. Of course German generals had a incentive to make themselves look better, but their ability to lie was limited because they were cross-checked by their former enemies who didn't like them very much and had little reason to buy into their lies. The only people who made sure Soviet generals or even western Allied generals were telling the truth were their own colleagues and governments who had no interest in making them or themselves look bad. That is the big difference and why German archives are considered more trustworthy than Soviet ones. Another reason is that German spies sucked and a lot of information was leaked out of Germany even when the Nazi regime was still in power. Germans just seem to be bad liars and pretty bad at the whole espionage and subterfuge game. There is this famous funny anecdote about how 11 or so well trained German spies were successfully landed on a US shore with a U-boot, all of them speaking accent free English and having bullet proof backstories and fake identities, but all of them got caught within weeks after arriving in the USA because all of them started fights over political discussions with Americans, defending the Nazi party and shitting on the US government and so on.
@@TrangleC i mean german generals were considered pretty accurate back then, sure people were aware they were lying a bit but not all that much, thats why since the 90s a lots of myths have been debunked by newer historians since while previous access to soviet info was heavily censored after it felt westerners were given more access to the uncensored archives. David Glantz has made a career out of this and plenty other books discuss it too. Sure not all soviet archives are trustworthy but not primary source should be taken at face value but they allow us to double check what others claims such as the wild claims the german generals made after the war. Also as addressed in this video german archive sources are still not that widespread
Historians seem to repeat themselves probably because "Adolf Hitler's Evil Henchmen and How Germany Started WW2" is more likely to be published and sell well compared to "Edward Halifax's Evil Plot and How Britain Started WW2", given the result of said conflict.
Adolf Hitler's Evil Henchmen? He had a political move. He didnt pay his henchmen, they -> German people created him. Also, "Edward Halifax's Evil Plot and How Britain Started WW2" sells well in countries that Halifax invaded... A agree that Britain if in part to blame for Germans going to war. They (John Maynard Keynes) created the myth that its not fair to make Germany pay for the things that they destroyed in France. Its the appeasement politics of UK, cooperation of USSR, and A (not a popular thing to say today) isolatism of USA that allowed a bitter looser called Germany to make a vengeance war.
@@Paciat I imagine we'd all still be blaming Germany for war if it was the Germans that maliciously undermined Anglo-Irish relations, went around Europe looking for allies in said war and then ultimately declared war on Britain after refusing a peace conference.
@@AFGuidesHD What are you talking about? It was the Germans that invaded Austria Czechoslovakia, patrs of Lithuania, Poland, Norway, Belgium, Nederlands, France, Yougoslavia. Are you dumb enough to blame Britain for not agreeing Germany to conquer the world, one country after the other? You think Hitler raised his army for not fighting at peace negotiations? Hitler attacked Poland on the 1st of September and Britain asked Germany to stop the aggression an then waited till the 3rd of September for Germany to withdraw from the war.
@@Paciat Why do you include war time invasions that otherwise would not have occurred ? Or do you think the Brits would invade Iceland, Iran, Norway, Portugal and Lybia outside of the war ? "Germany one day invaded Poland". You should read Simon Newman's "march 1939 the british guarantee to poland" and then read the primary sources of the diplomatic communications in "documents on british/ german foreign policy" to get the full picture yourself. Germany wanted and tried to get a peaceful and by (German) standards a very amicable deal with Poland. It was the British that feared Poland would remain a partner of Germany instead of an antagonist and thus sought to undermine their relations with Germany. Even if we pretend the narrative is as simple as "Britain merely defended Poland from big bad Germany", it was still Britain that chose to start a war against Germany. Has Russia started WW3 for invading Ukraine ? Did the USA start WW3 by invading Iraq ?
@@Paciat "You think Hitler raised his army for not fighting at peace negotiations?" Yes actually. In 1930 and 31 Austria and Germany sought to form a peaceful, cordial trade relationship. Germany had no army, the French did not want this to happen and threatened Germany. Had Germany had an army, France would have had no position to dictate upon Germany and Austria's bilateral trade relations. So it was actually proven that you need an army even to have a peaceful and wholesome economic existence.
oLo gmo u r os funz i cnt spk wel dey r watchin me rit now i mst hide . rip
ok
I see one Major Problem. Military History is such a delicate field of science, you're literally Tiptoing through a social minefield! You have so many fanatics arguing emotionally instead of reason-based theories or based on sources. I mean look at your comments. You do a video about the facts behind a common Wehrmacht believe...the Wehrmacht Fanatics go nuts 🤪 immediately. You do a video about the Tiger and you show some positive aspects...some other Fanatics go nuts 🤪 And this is no difference in the world of Universities and between researchers themself. In Germany it was always a great "PFUI BAH" to do pure military History research (especially ww1 and ww2). It is like walking on raw eggs in the academic world. That is why none military historiy historians prefer to work with the same sources again and again without factchecking them...