WW2 politics, and leading up to the War and beyond...

[Morley]

That's about it. He has no idea how historians actually work, and has had no historical training.

Markk can correct me if I'm wrong, but don't think he believes being a historian requires any special training, experience, or education. He probably feels the same way about most of the humanities, the arts, and the social sciences. This is in contrast to jobs like bridge building, chemistry, and construction supervisor.

[Markk]

Go back and read my conversations with Gad, and others, including yourself....

Follow the thread....

Yeah, I have. Though you kvetch that you, Cooper, and Tucker are misunderstood and vilified, you've yet to say why, how, or when.

You've yet to explain what contribution Cooper makes to the historical narrative.

Or here....LoI, am pretty sure this is a vilification for Cooper and Tucker..... viewtopic.php?p=2897885#p2897885

LOl...Sure I have, several times, such as here.... viewtopic.php?p=2897759#p2897759

Morley, I am interested in having an objective conversation. I have been very consistent here in my opinion, you haven't. You say I complain, Lol....read yours, and all the others' posts here, it is one big complaint about me, Cooper. That is classic.

Lol, Gad makes a living complaining about me on this thread....lol, this is funny, shall I post the threads not even addressed to me where you guys, and a occasional gal, complain about me? That is truly classic, and one more Lol....I feel like Oliver Wendell Douglas on this one.

I don't consider myself vilified....there are people here that disagree with me even if they agree with me...I get that.

[Markk]

That's about it. He has no idea how historians actually work, and has had no historical training.

Markk can correct me if I'm wrong, but don't think he believes being a historian requires any special training, experience, or education. He probably feels the same way about most of the humanities, the arts, and the social sciences. This is in contrast to jobs like bridge building, chemistry, and construction supervisor.

What does one have to do, have, or hold to be a historian?

[Markk]

And I doubt you knew the history behind Finland and WW2 politics, before this thread.....the very most of people in this world would have no idea, or folks on this board. The Winter War and the history of the two border countries is not exactly widely studied history.

Ha! You have those doubts, do you? Wow. What are these doubts based on?

I speak Swedish. Like Huck, my grandfather was an immigrant from Sweden and another great-grandfather came from Denmark. The Nordic peoples are my ancestors. I've driven through those countries. I've been to the bunkers in northern Sweden where the lines of defense against Russia still stand. I've been to Finland and heard the saying that "it's not if Russia will invade, but when Russia will invade." I've visited the Oslo City Hall where there are still murals against Quisling and the Nazis. Nordic fear of both Germany and Russia are very real. The short-lived Swedish aspirations of empire when Gustavus Adolphus took pieces of Russia and Germany continue to generate consequences. Yeah, please, go ahead and doubt that I know any of the history of this area. Doubt that anyone knows anything as well as you do.

I think this is a pretty good summary of your purpose in this thread. You're sure that nobody knows the history as well as you do. Everyone here is stumbling around in the dark, while Markk, Cooper, and Tucker are tutoring us. We give opinions while you provide facts. You can't believe that anyone has read as widely as you or thought as deeply as you--because that's obviously not possible. We are all wearing blinkers of liberal bias that can only be corrected by you, Tucker, and Darryl.

You won't say what unique thoughts you, Tucker, and Darryl have to contribute, but you're certain that this is must be true. Because liberals.

And you have read and understand the winter war, the siege at Leningrad and the roles the Finns played, and their complex dealings with Germany, and after Army group north was driven south, what they had to concede to Stalin and the Soviet Union. Which was the context of my remark. If I am wrong, then I am wrong.

[Chap]

Yeah, please, go ahead and doubt that I know any of the history of this area. Doubt that anyone knows anything as well as you do.

I think this is a pretty good summary of your purpose in this thread. You're sure that nobody knows the history as well as you do. Everyone here is stumbling around in the dark, while Markk, Cooper, and Tucker are tutoring us. We give opinions while you provide facts. You can't believe that anyone has read as widely as you or thought as deeply as you--because that's obviously not possible. We are all wearing blinkers of liberal bias that can only be corrected by you, Tucker, and Darryl.

You won't say what unique thoughts you, Tucker, and Darryl have to contribute, but you're certain that this is must be true. Because liberals.

That's about it. He has no idea how historians actually work, and has had no historical training. He loves reading 'war books', and if he finds some guy somewhere who says in a video or a podcast that everybody else who has studied WWII over the last eighty years has had things upside down, he starts jumping up and down like a little girl in a school playground chanting "I know a secret!" It doesn't occur to him that the guy in question may just be a publicity-seeking amateur, whose opinions aren't worth a pitcher of warm spit, which appears to be the case with Cooper.

Markk can correct me if I'm wrong, but don't think he believes being a historian requires any special training, experience, or education. He probably feels the same way about most of the humanities, the arts, and the social sciences. This is in contrast to jobs like bridge building, chemistry, and construction supervisor.

What does one have to do, have, or hold to be a historian?

You have a perfect right to ask this question. This is of course just a discussion board, and you are not expecting me to give a full account of the kinds of skills and approaches that historians have adopted in the past and tend to use nowadays (by no means the same thing, of course).

I think you may find something useful in this guide for beginning Harvard history students:

A Brief Guide to Writing the History Paper

To give you an idea of its tone and content, here is the content of half a page that sums up an extremely important part of historians' techniques, to do with the critical use of evidence. If you don't want to read everything quoted below, please at least look at the last two sentences.

A Historian’s Use of Evidence

Students unfamiliar with historical analysis often confuse
sources with evidence. Sources, at best, provide raw
materials (metaphorical straw and clay) that scholars
fashion into evidence (bricks) to assemble a historical
argument (structure). In order to collect this evidence,
historians interrogate sources by reading closely and asking
critical questions:

Who produced this source? Is the author’s biography
(i.e., viewpoints and personal background) relevant to
understanding this source? Was the author biased or dishonest?
Did he or she have an agenda?

When was this source created? Where? Is it representative
of other sources created at the same time? In what ways is it
a product of its particular time, place, or context?

Why did the author produce this source? For what audience
and purpose? Did the author make this purpose (or argument)
explicit or implicit? Was it intended for public or private use?
Is it a work of scholarship, fiction, art, or propaganda?

How does this source compare with other sources you
have analyzed for this assignment? Does it privilege a
particular point of view? Incorporate or neglect significant
pieces of evidence? Structure its argument according to
similar (or different) time periods, geographies, participants,
themes, or events?

Although your teachers will expect a persuasive thesis
statement, they will ultimately judge your argument’s success
on the collection, organization, and presentation of its
evidence. Once again, selection is essential. Because of space
and time constraints, you will not be able to marshal an
exhaustive body of evidence. (Don’t worry! Even if you
had a lifetime to devote to this project, you could never
be exhaustive.) Instead, think carefully and critically about
what evidence to include, what to exclude, and how to frame
your analysis. Because issues of selection and interpretation
are at the heart of most historical disagreements, make sure
to consider reasonable counterarguments to your thesis.
Effective essays anticipate the reader’s likely responses and
address (if not reconcile) contradictory pieces of evidence,
rather than simply ignoring them.

If you want a really long and substantive answer to your question, you are lucky in that this is one of those cases where a Wikipedia article on the topic can be useful. See:

Historical Method

I am not giving you this link because I am certifying it as The Truth About History', but simply to show that there is a lot that has been said, is being said, and could be said in answer to the question "How should we do history?".

[Markk]

That's about it. He has no idea how historians actually work, and has had no historical training. He loves reading 'war books', and if he finds some guy somewhere who says in a video or a podcast that everybody else who has studied WWII over the last eighty years has had things upside down, he starts jumping up and down like a little girl in a school playground chanting "I know a secret!" It doesn't occur to him that the guy in question may just be a publicity-seeking amateur, whose opinions aren't worth a pitcher of warm spit, which appears to be the case with Cooper.

Markk can correct me if I'm wrong, but don't think he believes being a historian requires any special training, experience, or education. He probably feels the same way about most of the humanities, the arts, and the social sciences. This is in contrast to jobs like bridge building, chemistry, and construction supervisor.

What does one have to do, have, or hold to be a historian?

You have a perfect right to ask this question. This is of course just a discussion board, and you are not expecting me to give a full account of the kinds of skills and approaches that historians have adopted in the past and tend to use nowadays (by no means the same thing, of course).

I think you may find something useful in this guide for beginning Harvard history students:

A Brief Guide to Writing the History Paper

To give you an idea of its tone and content, here is the content of half a page that sums up an extremely important part of historians' techniques, to do with the critical use of evidence. If you don't want to read everything quoted below, please at least look at the last two sentences.

A Historian’s Use of Evidence

Students unfamiliar with historical analysis often confuse
sources with evidence. Sources, at best, provide raw
materials (metaphorical straw and clay) that scholars
fashion into evidence (bricks) to assemble a historical
argument (structure). In order to collect this evidence,
historians interrogate sources by reading closely and asking
critical questions:

Who produced this source? Is the author’s biography
(i.e., viewpoints and personal background) relevant to
understanding this source? Was the author biased or dishonest?
Did he or she have an agenda?

When was this source created? Where? Is it representative
of other sources created at the same time? In what ways is it
a product of its particular time, place, or context?

Why did the author produce this source? For what audience
and purpose? Did the author make this purpose (or argument)
explicit or implicit? Was it intended for public or private use?
Is it a work of scholarship, fiction, art, or propaganda?

How does this source compare with other sources you
have analyzed for this assignment? Does it privilege a
particular point of view? Incorporate or neglect significant
pieces of evidence? Structure its argument according to
similar (or different) time periods, geographies, participants,
themes, or events?

Although your teachers will expect a persuasive thesis
statement, they will ultimately judge your argument’s success
on the collection, organization, and presentation of its
evidence. Once again, selection is essential. Because of space
and time constraints, you will not be able to marshal an
exhaustive body of evidence. (Don’t worry! Even if you
had a lifetime to devote to this project, you could never
be exhaustive.) Instead, think carefully and critically about
what evidence to include, what to exclude, and how to frame
your analysis. Because issues of selection and interpretation
are at the heart of most historical disagreements, make sure
to consider reasonable counterarguments to your thesis.
Effective essays anticipate the reader’s likely responses and
address (if not reconcile) contradictory pieces of evidence,
rather than simply ignoring them.

If you want a really long and substantive answer to your question, you are lucky in that this is one of those cases where a Wikipedia article on the topic can be useful. See:

Historical Method

I am not giving you this link because I am certifying it as The Truth About History', but simply to show that there is a lot that has been said, is being said, and could be said in answer to the question "How should we do history?".

So are you saying you have to first be a student, and then eventually earn a degree in history, in order to portray a accurate history about a person or subject. And by default, if someone studies deeply for years and maybe a lifetime on a subject, and knows that subject inside and out, writes books, reference volumes, speaks professionally (makes a living) on the subject, cannot be considered a historian, and more importantly, and to my point, offer a real detailed and accurate history of that subject?

As an example, that I previously used on this thread, if I did not know anything about the life of Joseph Smith, would I be wrong to read, study, and recommend reading Dan Vogel's books, or video series, on the life and ministry of Joseph Smith, in order to learn a accurate history about the man?

An interesting subject that we might want to discuss, is the future of how history will be done. With the invent of the internet, and now with AI, what is the future of this?

As an example, there are some really awesome podcasters that do history, some very accurate, other not so much, that don't have degrees in History, but do history very well and are very informative.

Like Cooper, not referring to themselves as a historian, I have learned a lot about the History of several subjects, like the Civil War, the Vietnam War, WW2, Baseball, and others subjects by watching Ken Burns documentaries....and while Ken would say he is not a historian but a film maker and story teller, I would say with no qualm he is a historian. If you or anyone else were to listen to this podcast, I think you might agree. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmlhA3dpxnc

Would you consider Ken Burns documentaries a history of the subjects he covers?

If you were to listen to this podcast, would you consider it a history of the subject? I certainly did.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=407acHQpzR4

[Gadianton]

Morley, I am interested in having an objective conversation. I have been very consistent here in my opinion, you haven't.

That's like saying you've consistently smoked cigarettes for the last 40 years, even after learning about lung cancer.

You know, Germany, look, they put themselves into a position in Adolf Hitler’s chiefly responsible for this, but his whole regime is responsible for it, that when they went into the east in 1941, they launched a war where they were completely unprepared to deal with the millions and millions of prisoners of war, of local political prisoners, and so forth that they were going to have to handle.

Cooper's point was at the beginning of the war they were not ready for all the POWs and Jews. When they invaded Poland the Germans, basically overnight, had 3 million Jews to deal with. And again they had six camps. They took around 400k Polish POWs. They took 2 million French POWs in the Battle for France 6 months or so later. Then Barbarossa, they had by early 1942 3.5 Million Russian POWs.

You're going to remain consistent in your opinion on points from Cooper that you've misrepresented? How is that to your credit?

[Chap]

So are you saying you have to first be a student, and then eventually earn a degree in history, in order to portray a accurate history about a person or subject.

No, I did not say that, as anyone who reads my post can see.

I did my best to give your question a thoughtful and helpful answer, but you seem to be in 'output only' mode. On balance, I don't think it is worth my while spending any more time on you.

[Molok]

So are you saying you have to first be a student, and then eventually earn a degree in history, in order to portray a accurate history about a person or subject.

You asked about being an HISTORIAN, not about being able to accurately portray history. Anyone who says "The prime cause of the Civil War was the issue of slavery" has accurately portrayed history, that does not require a degree. An HISTORIAN is an actual paid professional and expert in their field, so yes, you would probably need a degree to be an HISTORIAN. Do you understand now?

[Morley]

Yeah, I have. Though you kvetch that you, Cooper, and Tucker are misunderstood and vilified, you've yet to say why, how, or when.

You've yet to explain what contribution Cooper makes to the historical narrative.

Or here....LoI, am pretty sure this is a vilification for Cooper and Tucker..... viewtopic.php?p=2897885#p2897885
LOl...Sure I have, several times, such as here.... viewtopic.php?p=2897759#p2897759
Morley, I am interested in having a objective conversation. I have been very consistent here in my opinion, you haven't. You say I complain, Lol....read yours, and all the others posts here, it is one big complaint about me, Cooper. That is classic.
Lol, Gad makes a living complaining about me on this thread....lol, this is funny, shall I post the threads not even addressed to me where you guys, and a occasional gal complain about me? That is truly classic, and one more Lol....I feel like Oliver Wendell Douglas on this one.
I don't consider myself vilified....there are people here that disagree with me even if they agree with me...I get that.

Ah, so perhaps vilified, but where’s the first and most essential part of the pair? How have you, Tucker, and Cooper been misunderstood? What are you and Cooper trying to say that nobody is understanding?

Morley, I am interested in having a objective conversation. I have been very consistent here in my opinion, you haven't. You say I complain, Lol....read yours, and all the others posts here, it is one big complaint about me, Cooper.

In response to the part about you wanting an objective conversation: You've got to be kidding. It's not possible that you even believe that yourself. There is nothing objective in this entire thread about either your tone or your sources.

You begin the thread by trying to pass off as fact that FDR knew about Pearl Harbor in advance. That was the first hint that you weren't after objective discussion.

In the same OP, you urge everyone to view a video featuring a discredited crank who thinks Winston Churchill was a worse villain than Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, Joseph Stalin, or Hideki Tojo. You do this without any kind of embarrassment or disclaimer. Only when pushed on this villain thing, do you concede that, well, Cooper may be wrong. But only partly--because you can understand how he arrived at that conclusion. An objective discussion might offer some insight about why the hell you can understand his point.

Early on, you want us to know that you know more about WWII than anything but religion. You've been studying WWII for 50 years (but shucks, you're no expert). In spite of all this study, you think everyone should and will be surprised that Germany wasn't totally prepared in how they were going to get rid of their Jews, homosexuals, and Gypsies. When most seem to be nonplussed, you're frustrated. You wonder why we won't admit that this is new to us. Not only must it be new to us, you maintain that everyone disagrees with it. I ask for proof of this. You provide none. Later you again maintain that no one agrees with Cooper on this. Objective discussion, my ass.

At another point, without even a wee sense of irony, you chide me for asking you to speculate--because you're attempting to conduct an objective discussion, and that this is not a place for anyone to engage in speculation. This is shortly after you wrote a page of 'What Ifs' for Chap speculate about--what ifs about what would have happened to Britain, Europe, and the Pacific had America not entered the conflict and saved everyone's bacon.

None of this bears the slightest blush of an attempt at objective discussion. None of this is just delivering the facts. It's all weighted with the overeager excitement of "Golly, I'll bet you didn't know that!" "Admit that you were ignorant about this!" and "Before I told you about it, I'll bet you didn't know anything about Finland in World War II!"

When you're confronted and corrected, you always want to ignore it and move to another subject. An objective discussant would be willing to acknowledge and explore it. Avoidance is not a symptom of someone who wants an objective discussion.

When someone expresses an opinion you don't like, you often as not call them a liar or some other name. You know, just like everyone who's aiming for an objective discussion does.

As I said before, objective discussion my ass.

edit: And before you do a 'what-about-you', find where I've claimed that all I'm doing is trying to have an objective discussion.