Not quite understanding modern outrage

[TDH]

History is written by the winners and changed by the weak minded. Those are facts and the rest is merely opinions (and we all know what Daddy said about opinions) and conjecture. Today is my step daughters birthday she is 42. I tell because when she was a junior in high school I looked through her history book and under the section on Viet Nam I didn't recognize what they were teaching then and I was there. What children are learning today that is called history is a far cry from what is being taught today. When Allied troops started finding the death and work camps Ike told his generals to have then take as much film and pictures as possible because somewhere down the line someone will try to deny it ever happened. Today in the middle east there are factions already claiming the Holocaust was a fake.

[Paul S.]

The understanding of what the causes of war are is changing. The farther we get from a conflicts the more we can actually analyze it in a unbiased manner. . . .

While this could be true, it is equally possible that those who find truth particularly troubling, or have an agenda or other motivation could just as easily promulgate an untrue version of history. This is what we are experiencing with revisionist histories.

Hence:

. . . Today is my step daughters birthday she is 42. I tell because when she was a junior in high school I looked through her history book and under the section on Viet Nam I didn't recognize what they were teaching then and I was there. What children are learning today that is called history is a far cry from what is being taught today. When Allied troops started finding the death and work camps Ike told his generals to have then take as much film and pictures as possible because somewhere down the line someone will try to deny it ever happened. Today in the middle east there are factions already claiming the Holocaust was a fake.

[Sentryduty]

Without getting too abstract, the concept of truth is very subjective to an individual or group, and the reality is, the decision to go to war is seldom made by one sole person for single reason.

A national figure head may declare something but the facts are that many people had a part in that decision, and each person has a personal motivation for their support.

As a soldier I resolved not to worry about the politics of deployments, but to do my job well, within the scope of warrior ethos and the law of armed conflict. I was better for it, the political motivations of any modern conflict are so complex that the are not only difficult to define, they are hardly worth bothering over.

Recording history is again something of a personal bias, any history author cannot be totally neutral, each will have their own beliefs and will present facts that are in line with that.

I watched a Netflix film "Tell Spring Not to Come this Year" it follows a group of Afghan National Army soldiers for a fighting season in Helmand circa 2011, and their perspectives are that all of the problems are because of the "Americans". Some think because of their "reckless" method of conducting operations, others because they left too soon, others because they didn't give them enough weapons, equipment, bases, etc etc. The religious officer would both praise the recently withdrawn Americans and backhand compliment them during pre-operation motivational speeches.

The film was both interesting, enlightening, and made my blood boil, but it re-affirmed my experiences and concern that the ANA are not an effective, disciplined, professional fighting force yet.

As a historical film it provided one side of the Afghanistan war and as such carried a heavy slant on whose's fault the mess was. Oddly enough none of the soldiers seemed to express hatred or blame of the Taliban for their impact on the country.

[enfield303t]

I would love to comment however it would get very political and that is verboten!

[HOOKED ON HISTORY]

I would love to comment however it would get very political and that is verboten!

Thanks to the modrators for allowing this thread to remain open as I am certain it has come precariously close to the no go zone. It is quite obvious most here are acutely aware of the importance of history
and its preservation, as the preservation of the artifacts of history and history itself are inextricably linked. Countless posters have recoiled at the damage done to an old ware horse by bubba with a hacksaw.
Good to see I am not alone in my revulsion when the same is done to history itself.

[Eaglelord17]

While this could be true, it is equally possible that those who find truth particularly troubling, or have an agenda or other motivation could just as easily promulgate an untrue version of history. This is what we are experiencing with revisionist histories.

That is very true as well. Truth as Sentryduty says is subjective, however the farther we get from a conflict the less emotionally tied we are to it.

The thing I like about the farther we get from the conflict is the less people feel the need to try and justify it. Information which was hidden becomes available allowing us to reanalyze what happened and understand it from both sides (or more depending on how many sides were involved). For me roughly WWI and earlier is the area where we are mostly able to debate without emotion as it is now more or less outside of living memory. It is also partly why I have switched my main focus to WWI because I can actually hold debates with people which aren't emotionally charged (I also just find the era fascinating).

On the other hand WWII and Vietnam are still much to recent to debate with people, as there is still a fair bit of emotional baggage involved with those conflicts. It is hard to look at things in a unbiased manner when people are insistent there perspective is correct without any information to back it up (not saying it isn't correct, they just aren't willing to even consider it from another view point).

Its like I tell people, to go find their truth. To listen to what people have to say and figure out what is right and wrong to them. Most people just aren't willing to do that however as it is much easier to just listen to what others tell you.

[Gil Boyd]

Stay strong guys............a lot of experience on this site, and we are big enough and ugly enough to be able to talk about this sort of stuff as one group without offence, as if we stood shoulder to shoulder in many varied conflicts together, regardless of country of origin.

Each conflict is a powder keg of varied opinions and emotions, and seen through the eyes of those who were there. Only they can relate to what they have seen.

We were, and many are, still serving soldiers, we don't do politics, we fight for the man standing next to us.......................we stood together to give those that wanted it, safety and also to be able to possess what we all value.................Freedom of Speech

[TDH]

when people are insistent there perspective is correct without any information to back it up (not saying it isn't correct, they just aren't willing to even consider it from another view point).

Sorry Gil but that's sounds like the liberal left. I'll take my spanking now.

Another historical faux. the idea that has been perpetrated that the entire 7th calvary was wiped out at the Little Big Horn. Less than half were slaughtered Major Reno and Captan Benteen got most of their men to a mesa top and held out until the next day when Gen Crook with the infantry and artillery arrived. If he hadn't been killed Custer should have been court marshalled for disobeying a direct order. Crook gave him implicit instructions NOT to attack but to scout and report back. The Indians claim Custer and his troops lasted less than fifteen minutes and Custer was one of the first to go down

[villiers]

Personally, I couldn´t care a monkey´s what insignia anyone cares to decorate his aircraft with. If it´s a Nazi symbol I´d consider him an idiot who either never knew (or is too ignorant to understand) how many people fought and lost their lives in the battle against the Third Reich. The difference would lie in a museum or a public display for information purposes using an object with Nazi insignia for educational purposes. Re-enactors all seem to be a bit of a joke, looking nothing like the real thing.

[Gil Boyd]

TDH,
Definately not a Liberal mate. I am a supporter of the "Speak your mind party" so no worries there.

Villiers,
Agree totally there. Museums were formed to show exactly that...history as it was, no holds barred so children of the future don't repeat the mistakes of the past!