Seeing as how many people on this forum have history degrees I thought I'd ask this question. How much "benefit of doubt" are you willing to give a historian?

Let me say where I'm coming from.

As an example there is a writer, Edwin P Hoyt, which I have a couple of books from. I'll bet many people here have read some of his work. They are what I'd call "popular history." He's a decent writer, his work is interesting, and he can make some valid points, but I'd say he won't always let the facts get in the way of a good story. When you're reading a work like this and you come across one of two inaccuracies, do you then ignore everything else in the book because of this?

Another example is what I call a "revisionist historian." To me that term is kind of like what some people say about art, you can't always describe what it means but you know it when you see it. An example I would use is Day of Deceit by Robert Stinnett. I had to read this book for a paper I wrote for school a while back. I found that I had to question virtually everything because there were so many cases where I researched what he wrote and found that he was taking things out of context, making assumptions, or generally coming to what I considered the wrong conclusions about many issues. After just a few instances of this I found him pretty worthless as a source of information.

My question is when reading a historian do how many errors do you allow them to make before you pass judgment on the book as being something you don't consider valid? Do you ever completely disregard a book, or an author, because of too many such mistakes?

Hi Rodger,

Great question, but I'll go one step further. To someone like myself who has an interest in the subject but is not a historian. How do we begin to differentiate between factual history and questionable or revisionist history. I have a multitude of texts and I'm able to cross-reference specific subjects and passages, but how do I determine what is slanted or opinionated? Are there web-sites devoted to historical non-fiction?

Frank

None I'm aware of Frank.

For myself I had a history teacher that really started me looking at everything I read with a very critical eye. In his class he always gave extra credit anytime you could find something, either in a book, online, the latest newspaper, what have you. If you could find where the writer wrote something that was factually in error, was being subjective, or was jumping to a conclusion that wasn't proven. We got to be extremely good at things like this.

This especially true when it comes to online "history" sites. So many now are nothing more than fronts for neo nazi groups and the like. You have to develop a feel for when somebody is acting out a hidden agenda.

This may or may not be a relevant angle, but I have found over the years that, especialy with recent history, a book that is considered to be historicaly factual and well researched today can be completely refuted by newly released fact or documents. Just one example is Operation Market Garden. For many years my reference was A Bridge to Far, complemented by various books by veterans etc. I don't want to pretend I studied Op. MG indepth, but I thought I had a reasonable grasp of the known facts. Lately I have been reading some recent publications, and some interesting facts seem to come to the surface. I believe it is now accepted that ABtF is at best a complete and entertaining narrative, but far from factualy correct...
On a different timescale, I'm reading a book on Strongholds in Britain through the ages at the moment, and it trows up some interesting theories which turn over some long and deep held visions of early Brittain.


Another interesting topic Rodger..

Cheers
Henk

This is a rather intriguing question. Point-of-view or perspective as well as the intended audience would be one of the first questions that I would ask myself regarding any piece that I found questionable in regards to historical accuracy. Omission or distortion for the sake of promoting a particular argument or agenda is a far greater historical sin and in my humble opinion unforgivable rather than conclusions based upon erroneous information or faulty interpretations. As an example, a number of exceptional written works followed the end of WWII, however in retrospect due to declassified information there are incomplete or even some of the conclusions completely and totally wrong simply due to a lack of complete and total information. However, that is truly not the fault of the author. I think I am a little more lenient and would rather give the author the “benefit of doubt” if the intent of the piece isn’t a blatant attempt at revisionism for the promotion of a particular agenda…

Sometimes revisionist isn't necessarily a bad thing. When I was a kid things like dinosaurs being reptiles and the brontosaurus being real, Davy Crockett dying beating off the Mexican hordes, a bomb falling down the Arizona's smokestack were all totally accepted as gospel. Of course we now know that they all are wrong. I read everything with a grain of salt. I imagine Walter Lord's Day of Infamy has been torn to pieces by now, yet at the time most of his data came from surviiving participants.

Good question, Rodger. First of all, I haven't a history degree, and am just an interested amateur.

I think it depends on how many errors there really are in a book, and whether they are actually factual errors or just bad analysis, subjectiveness, political leaning, etc.

If they are really factual errors, I would find myself progressively losing faith in the piece as the errors mount, and at some point I'll bin it.

On the other hand, political leaning, hero worship, or subjectiveness I'll more easily forgive, just because the book might still give me a factual historical reference of timelines, units involved, officers commanding, perspective views, etc.

I'll give you a couple of examples. A year or so ago I read "Task Force Dagger" by Robin Moore about SF ops in Afghanistan. Moore blatantly worships US special forces at times, and is very politically conservative in his outlook. So it isn't really objective, but is good reference of the fighting and I'm hanging on to the book.

Last month I finished reading "Midnight in Some Burning Town" which claims to be about UKSF ops in Bosnia, Afghanistan, and Iraq. Utter rubbish when it comes to UKSF but has good reference on conventional units involved. Not worth keeping though.

McNab's famous "Bravo Two Zero" was later proven in Michael Asher's "The Real Bravo Two Zero" to be wildly exaggerated. But I'll still hang on to the former as a good view of an SAS soldier in modern combat.

Depends on what the writer is trying to say. If they are just writing a 'potboiler' version then mistakes can be overlooked as sloppiness, but if they are following the 'revisionist' route, then the question of agenda arises. It is then that each fact should be checked, because if you can't trust the 'facts', what about the conclusions that are drawn from them?

A fine example of this is David Irving's biography of Churchill, if Irving can't get the name of the radio actor who stood in for Churchill right, how seriously can we take the rest of the book? Of course with Irving it's not that difficult to spot the agenda, but then how seriously do we take his claim in 'The mare's nest' that he spotted the influence of Ultra before it was publically revealed?

Of course if there's a personal interest (like the Roman invasion of Britain) then no benefit of the doubt is given....

I only completed one year of a History & American Studies degree at Hull University in the 70's, but I saw enough in that year to convince me that virtually all history books have to be carefully cross - referenced before you reach your own conclusions. Nothing I've read since has changed my views on that.
At Hull, they were very big on the "Marxist view" of history, & I had many interesting (!) discussions with the history dons on how you could apply Marxist thinking to the English Civil War period, when Marx's theories weren't advanced until 200 years after! In other words the "revisionist" historians are basically wrong on many points, as they are applying modern interpretations to events that happened a long time ago, without taking into account the fact that people thought in a completely different way at the time. Attitudes that were commonplace even in the 1940s, would not be acceptable today in our current PC climate (I'll leave you to decide whether that's good or bad!). So how much more different were attitudes 200, 300 or 1000 years ago. Incidentally this is a major flaw of a lot of war films to come out of Hollywood etc in the last 20 years or so.
If we take as an example of skewed history that affects my personal area of study, the SS apologists. Before you read any of this literature, it's important to bone up well on the subject. The standard reference & first port of call is still Stein's Waffen SS book, for a properly balanced account. Yes it was written 40 years ago, & may be incorrect on some minor details, but it is still an excellent start. Don't discount sources because they are old.
When dealing with comparatively recent events (I include WW2 in this, as it is within living memory), there is a much broader database of contemporary witness reports, & here is where history splits. Personally I tend to favour books based strongly on eyewitness accounts, the reason being that even if the individual is only giving their own view, which may be at variance with the acknowledged facts (keep checking your references), or a microcosm of the whole, it will give a much more authentic "feel" for the period. But at the same time I like to check out all the latest theories. A good blend of the two will give the most accurate historical picture. Use the new research for the bones, then flesh it out with the period atmosphere.
To address Henk's specific comments about Market Garden, I'd be interested to hear about the new facts that have arisen lately (perhaps in another thread). I've read a couple of new books on this campaign lately; I have to say there weren't any great surprises, except perhaps for the comments on the general standard of training of 1st AB. If you've only read A Bridge Too Far, & Allied views of Market Garden, I'd recommend reading Kershaw's It Never Snows in September, the view from the German side, it certainly gives food for thought. A rather obscure title, not generally mentioned much today is Col Boeree's book, Arnhem the Betrayal Myth Refuted, which deals with the German penetration of the Resistance in Holland, & also is the only book I remember that mentions that pre-war Dutch army manouevers included practising an assault north to gain the Rhine bridges. Candidates who opted for a plan similar to XXX Corps assault up the main road failed the course. Since this book is written by a Dutchman, whose country this battle was, after all, fought over, it gives a slant that is frequently rather unfairly ignored in the English language.

As Blaster76 said "revisionism" isn't always a bad thing. Where I think it goes very badly wrong is when one looks into the "ulterior motives", if any, of the revisionist. I'll try to give an example of what I mean. At the naval battle of Savo island the Australian cruiser HMAS Canberra was sunk. Popular theory at the time, and for years later, was that she had been hit by one or more Japanese torpedoes. Historians, some of them amateurs with no degrees, searched through the historical record to come to the conclusion that she was, in fact, NOT hit by a Japanese torpedo, though she might have been hit by an American one. The people could be called "revisionists" because they were revising history, but they had no ulterior motives, they only wanted the truth. Where I think this research could be shown as revisionist is if the "historian" chose to focus on the possibility of her being hit by an American torpedo to prove some political thesis perhaps. To me a revisionist is one who has already made up his mind about something, then makes the facts fit his preconceived notion of how things happened.


Back to my original question. One example I had in mind when I asked it was the book Brothers in Arms. I have not yet read this book but I was looking some reviews of in online. The reviews that were critical of the book seemed to focus on some relatively minor historical mistakes made in the book. Such as the book saying that Panzer meant panther, that Goering was propaganda minister, or that Patton was born in 1895 instead of 1885. My feeling is I would allow a few such errors, as long as they didn't take away from the historical narrative being written.

Hi, To me, it's those little things that count. If the author or publisher has let the small stuff slip by, like a date or mis-spelled word here and there (really quite common anymore) then this puts the whole book in a somewhat doubtful mood to me. Because if the small stuff isn't right, just how much off could the bigger items be? Esp. the ones I'm not sure of to begin with.

Also perspective. If a person begins to take sides in any conflict this is naturally going to throw them off as to just how much they are willing to believe if they happen to run across something here or there that just doesn't make them feel good about the side they mentally "support." The brain can do some strange things when emotions get in the way.

History is mainly written by the winner of the various conflicts and there is no doubt that a lot of 'doctoring' is done to cover points that would tend to make them look a little more human than they would like to appear.
It's very hard to keep that proverbial 'white hat' clean in the light of day.

Take care, Larry

Would this be the same Irving who has just been sentenced to 4 years by an Austrian court for denying the existence of the Holocaust? Definitely a man whose research we can rely on - NOT!

It would indeed.

I was really waiting for somebody to bring up Irving. Let me say this, I totally reject Irving's thesis about the Holocaust. This is exactly the case of somebody having an agenda I was speaking about.

Now because Irving so obviously has an agenda as far as the Holocaust does this mean he has an agenda as far as anything else he writes? Personally I would have to take anything Irving writes with a very large grain of salt, but that doesn't totally negate him as a researcher. I would just have to be very careful to cross check anything he lists as far as sources until I was sure he was relating them correctly, without biasis.

Irving was converted by a group he studied (those Nazis that weren't tried at Nuremburg) and lost his objectivity. I don't think his agenda is so much political, but financial. He earns his living by lecturing, writing, and selling books. He never attended college, but wants to be treated like an academic. Thats all I have to say about that.

As for the original question, it depends on factors. It depends on how good or bad the book is. Another factor is hard to complete. Checking with other sources. Since other sources usually include books, this takes time; time I don't have as not just a college student with multiple books with higher priority, but as a human with a life and work. You also have the problem of telling the story from one perspective or another. I recently read a pair of books on Operation Anaconda in Afghanistan and its failures. One was "Not a Good Day to Die" and the other's name is eluding me at the moment. "Not a Good Day to Die" comes from the perspective of the Army as he was a reported embedded with the 101st Airborne. The other book from the AF PJs perspective. Both kind of blamed the other, but by balancing the stories you get something of a full truth.

Jeff

HI, I agree on the Irving thing. To deny the Holocaust is just not logical, as it is a historical fact. Just as it's a known historical fact that most every country, at some time in it's history, has been guilty of doing the same thing, to a certain group(s) of its own peoples. But then to pass laws against those who would publicly deny the Holocaust it isn't all that smart either. This just draws undue attention to these few people and what they say about it to begin with.

But I believe a lot of it has to do, at least in most of those countries who have this law, is out of a sense of guilt for having directly, or indirectly, participated with the Nazis in the first place. Concering the dealings with IBM and the Nazis, not to mention other Am. corporations and their assorted buisness dealings with the Third Reich, we should have it this country as well.

Not having re-read any of his books here in the last few years, or kept up on the recent controversies surrounding this author, as far as I can remember, his argument, at least at one point in time, was that Hitler, supposedly, had no KNOWN knowledge of the Holocaust as it was happening, till almost the end of the war. And that there is, or was here several years ago, no actual evidence that commits him to actually ordering it, physically speaking.

Now don't get me wrong here. Even with no known physcial link that doesn't mean that he didn't order it, either by verbal order or implied order, but this was my understanding of the issue concering Irving, at least at one time.

Am I right or wrong on this? Just curious if there has ever been any real physical link that's come to light, as of yet.

Thanks and take care, Larry

At the risk of being rapped for going , let me just clarify Larry's comment. The law in Germany and Austria (as far as I know) doesn't concern denial of the Holocaust per se, but rather the instigation of hatred against minorities, and the encouragement of race crimes. Denial of the Holocaust is seen by the law as doing both, and therefore deniers are prosecuted. There are other acts which fall under the same law.

Being a college student I am innundated with history classes. My shock is how much "revisionist" history I am subjected to. Many professors seem to have thier own political agenda to push. For example in my U.S. history from civil war to current times my professor only casually mentioned that there was a second world war and focused three weeks on the struggle of minorities in the U.S. during this time. He also made reference to Hitler being a "man of the people" that was mainly misunderstood and had his orders incorrectly carried out. Am I wrong or was this a bit off base? It seems to me that there should be a small gray area when dealing with history but what happened happened and the reasons behind it are fairly black and white.

It sounds to me that your prof is a typical example of an "American isolationist", ie "world" = US. He's way off beam on Hitler too. Hitler had a pathological hatred of the Jews developed during his time in Vienna before the First World War. While it's unlikely anyone will ever find a direct order to the SS from Hitler to exterminate the Jews, I can't believe for a minute he didn't know what was going on. Hitler had a mania for minutae, he wouldn't have missed something that big. Hitler's governmental style was "divide & conquer". He seldom allowed any of his subordinates access to all the facts or to make decisions on their own responsibility, he was paranoid about anyone becoming as powerful as he. What he would frequently do was to float an idea, which gave some insight into his requirements, which a subordinate such as Himmler would pick up on & attempt to bring to fruition to curry favour with the Fuhrer. This allowed Hitler to cherry-pick ideas which worked as being his own, while disowning anything that didn't work. Stalin's style was similar - he also wanted to keep an eye on everything.

Classic example of academic tunnel vision. Which leads them very quickly up blind alleys.

We (that is professional archaeologists) have to beware when we get involved with academics in the field of archaeology that we don't get a load of agendas dumped on us. Specially involving things like 'identity' and transitions between historic periods - academic hobby horses which are almost impossible to prove (which might be why academics like them so much... )

...or maybe a book to sell? One of my old headmasters wrote a history of the school (it was founded in the 12th century & didn't look like it had changed much since). Guess what was on the set book list? Strangely, I never knew anyone who bought it...

I'm cynical enough to belive that's exactlly the reason for so many "revisionist" books out there. Let's say I wanted to make a lot money. Ok, maybe not a LOT of money, to do that I'd have to get on Oprah's book club. :-) What do I write about? "The Japanese made a well planned, well executed attack and kicked the butts of the U.S at Pearl Habor" or "It was all FDR's fault, that liberal Democrat cooked it all up along with Churchill." Which book do you suppose would sell more copies?