Revisionist History

1,181 Views | 2 Replies | Last: 6 yr ago by option short side
RPag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I have become interested in revisionist history as of late; David Irving's 'Hitler's War' and Buchanan's 'Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War' most recently. Most of the actual history seems to be bunk but I find it a great test of what I think I know and why. Anyone else have this guilty pleasure or has been convinced by similar ideas?
option short side
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I welcome most revisionist history so long as it is not driven by a present-day agenda, which Buchanan's book certainly is. However, ole Pat is an incredibly talented writer and I would be lying if I said I wasn't persuaded while I was reading it. It took quite a while for me to debunk his main premise.
RPag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I certainly agree that it was well written but the main issue for me was that it did not really provide any new information. Who really disagrees that without WW1 there would have been no Hitler? Or that Churchill absolutely loved war and conflict? His strongest point for me was why should Britain give a guarantee to Poland when they are incapable of backing it up?

The parts about the Holocaust were fantastically distorted and just plain false.
option short side
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
RPag said:

I certainly agree that it was well written but the main issue for me was that it did not really provide any new information. Who really disagrees that without WW1 there would have been no Hitler? Or that Churchill absolutely loved war and conflict? His strongest point for me was why should Britain give a guarantee to Poland when they are incapable of backing it up?

The parts about the Holocaust were fantastically distorted and just plain false.

I didn't see his assertion that without ww1 there would be no Hitler as the main point, rather I enjoyed the view that British foreign policy in the early 20th century effectively brought upon what they were trying to prevent, the death of the British empire. That while Churchill is seen as some heroic figure fighting to preserve the empire, he actually was th knife that sliced their throat. I haven't read it in a few years but that was the main point i came away with
Refresh
Page 1 of 1
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.