Message from @SimonTV
Discord ID: 653774020864376843
then you claim oh you musn't get your information from on place, do you understand how stupid you sound?
I DO know the allied side of wwii
everyone does
but the allied side is exaggerated
*Yawn*
both sides focus on their own atrocities as i said earlier
not always
did you watch hellstorm ?
also, there is a SIGNIGIFICANT difference between books that were written pre-internet and afterwards
for example, William Shreiber's "Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" is far more thourough than most historical texts written since the fall of the the Soviet Union
have you read "the bad war" ?
what about "The Myth of German Villainy"?
Heard of that one. No, haven't read it. If i remember right, i thought about it but the Foreward was looking to support an argument rather than reveiw the historical events
The Myth of German Villainy is a decent book
i think it lacks sources though
most books these days do
short form books realy
design for the masses
i mean, i'm from the days when if you cited wikipedia, your paper was dismissed out of hand
if wikipedia is valid, THEY have sources somewhere. track these down and cite them AND their sources
always was in my view
There are a lot of wikipedia sources that are literally just advertisement sites now
The older citation domains get bought up and replaced
there was a period when it was ok, but hte marxist moved in and re-wrote all the articles
I still have an old article on the peasants revolt saved
well, the academic community as a whole suffers from the problem that those papers that are POPULAR receive the most citations
it was rewritten and framed from a marxist perspective
and the more citations a paper has, the more credibility it is give
so it's a feed-back loop
it was essentially an anti-tax protest but the wikipedia article now states it was an early example of marxist revolution lol
yea the sources they accept are left wing media sites
which use wikipedia as their source
that drives me crazy when people go back and spin events to suit a particular narrativ
i guess that is history in a nut shell
the trick to learning history is learn which perspective the person who wrote it had and interpret it with a grain of salt.
well, there is a difference between documenting an event and interpreting an event
there is a fine line
from one side they were attacked, from the other they were attacked
used to be because it took TIME and MONEY to compile the history, there were MUCH fewer sources and thus they were held to a higher standard