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

[Morley]

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.

That was not what you asked. I responded to this:

And I doubt you knew the history behind Finland and WW2 politics, before this thread....

As I said, I was indeed familiar with the part the Finns played as had been discussed in this thread. Why would you want to argue about what you think I knew or didn't know? Seriously?

[Morley]

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?

I addressed this earlier in the thread and you brushed it off with some screed about Fox News. Either go back and find it or read (really read) the excellent responses above this one.

To all that, I'm going to add that in order to be considered a historian that one should profess to be a historian. Cooper maintains that he, himself, is NOT a historian. I don't know why you wouldn't take his word for this.

[Morley]

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?

Studying deeply for years doesn't make one a historian. Many flat earthers study deeply for years. It doesn't make them geographers--even though they may consider themselves to be so. Writing books and articles on how the earth is flat won't make them geographers, either. Neither will recording a dozen podcasts or appearing on some talk show like Tucker Carlson's.

[Markk]

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?

Probably? So you are not sure? Or does that mean some do some don't? And what do they need a degree in, in your opinion?

Can film makers or podcasters who make, write, research historical films, documentaries, podcasts....and are paid, some very handsomely, be considered historians?

Is Dan Vogel a historian in your opinion, or maybe just a good researcher, even though he may arguably know more about the life of Joseph Smith than anyone alive? I don't think Dan has a degree as a historian and I believe he works hard in the grocery business to supplement his income. Is he an expert?

Is there such a thing in your opinion as an amateur historian?

You brought up the Civil War. In your opinion, was the late Shelby Foote a historian? He was simply awesome in my opinion in the Ken Burns documentary on the war.

[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.

You never did answer this, Markk.

[Markk]

So are you saying you have to first be a student, and then eventually earn a degree in history, in order to portray an 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?

Studying deeply for years doesn't make one a historian. Many flat earthers study deeply for years. It doesn't make them geographers--even though they may consider themselves to be so. Writing books and articles on how the earth is flat won't make them geographers, either. Neither will recording a dozen podcasts or appearing on some talk show like Tucker Carlson's.

So what makes a historian to you?

Have you even listened to any of Cooper podcasts? They are history podcasts and he does his homework, whether you agree with him or not. I don't agree with every reconstruction of conclusion, but that does not mean I can't learn and appreciate his work. He has huevos in that he touches on very tough topic that folks often aren't comfortable talking about.

Give the guy a chance Morley. Take your time and listen to ten minutes a day on this one.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=407acHQpzR4&t=3s

[Gadianton]

Can a film maker or podcaster who make, write, research historical films, documentaries, podcasts....and are paid, some very handsomely, be considered historians?

Usually not. There's a reason why the History Channel barely has any history and is mostly UFO intrigue, and that's because history doesn't pay. Podcasters get paid handsomely for being shocking and entertaining; what the plebs like you want to see. Cooper's fans wait with bated breath for the dog whistle, for those not-so-cryptic lines loud and clear to them as pro-Hitler, whether or not it's because they are ideologically bent that way or just like the lols. Tucker likely doesn't have any horse in the race beyond shock and clicks. He likely doesn't think Cooper is the world's greatest historian (or even a historian) and just said that stuff to rock the boat.

People who make films about history are usually called documentarians. A good documentary will consult good historians. Your example of Foote as a non-credentialed historian is one of those borderline cases. From wiki, he was already a professional writer, which puts his foot in the door for taking on the project Random House (a credible outlet) pitched to him. He self-described as, "Foote described himself as a "novelist-historian" who employed "the historian’s standards without his paraphernalia," some of that paraphernalia he lacked got him criticism for limited sources and "Academic historians routinely lament Foote's lack of citations."

So the question about whether or not he achieved historian status would be the extent to which other historians cite his work. He definitely made it as a history popularizer...but? History isn't like the natural sciences where if somebody forgot how to do an experiment it can be re-remembered. In history, once a source is gone its gone. Provenance is everything. So if he's a great writer and storyteller and even if he more or less got his facts straight, all that blows away if his sources and citations aren't dead reliable, or if he didn't carefully articulate his sources. As a historian proper, it's less about how many people will read the book and learn something even if it's accurate, and more about how many historians will use his book to further their own research.

Cooper isn't even up for consideration. The answer is "no" without further ado. He's a rabble rouser with an interest in history. He studies history in order to offer politically charged opinions and interpret world events to the liking of right-wingers. I like Peter Zeihan as a geo-politics guy. He's written several books that require considerable knowledge of world history, he'd wipe the floor with Cooper any day of the week in terms of knowledge of history, but he's not a historian. I have a friend from years ago who was an amateur history buff with a photographic memory. He could cite endless historical trivia and when he decided to get some college credits he walked in a tested out of any history class they'd allow him to do it with. But, until you've produced that paper or book with uniquely reliable content that future researches will cite rather than citing something else, then probably not a historian.

[Markk]

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.

You never did answer this, Markk.

I have to be selective, I only have so much time here. And, I addressed this some time ago to you..... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=407acHQpzR4&t=3s

And again, in my opinion, lazy history is bad history.

Was this addressed to me, or someone else?

I tell you what, pick just about any historical topic, and I will find a historian with a degree that has written about it that is a complete moron, in someone's view. It works both ways.

[Markk]

Can a film maker or podcaster who make, write, research historical films, documentaries, podcasts....and are paid, some very handsomely, be considered historians?

Usually not. There's a reason why the History Channel barely has any history and is mostly UFO intrigue, and that's because history doesn't pay. Podcasters get paid handsomely for being shocking and entertaining; what the plebs like you want to see. Cooper's fans wait with bated breath for the dog whistle, for those not-so-cryptic lines loud and clear to them as pro-Hitler, whether or not it's because they are ideologically bent that way or just like the lols. Tucker likely doesn't have any horse in the race beyond shock and clicks. He likely doesn't think Cooper is the world's greatest historian (or even a historian) and just said that stuff to rock the boat.

People who make films about history are usually called documentarians. A good documentary will consult good historians. Your example of Foote as a non-credentialed historian is one of those borderline cases. From wiki, he was already a professional writer, which puts his foot in the door for taking on the project Random House (a credible outlet) pitched to him. He self-described as, "Foote described himself as a "novelist-historian" who employed "the historian’s standards without his paraphernalia," some of that paraphernalia he lacked got him criticism for limited sources and "Academic historians routinely lament Foote's lack of citations."

So the question about whether or not he achieved historian status would be the extent to which other historians cite his work. He definitely made it as a history popularizer...but? History isn't like the natural sciences where if somebody forgot how to do an experiment it can be re-remembered. In history, once a source is gone its gone. Provenance is everything. So if he's a great writer and storyteller and even if he more or less got his facts straight, all that blows away if his sources and citations aren't dead reliable, or if he didn't carefully articulate his sources. As a historian proper, it's less about how many people will read the book and learn something even if it's accurate, and more about how many historians will use his book to further their own research.

Cooper isn't even up for consideration. The answer is "no" without further ado. He's a rabble rouser with an interest in history. He studies history in order to offer politically charged opinions and interpret world events to the liking of right-wingers. I like Peter Zeihan as a geo-politics guy. He's written several books that require considerable knowledge of world history, he'd wipe the floor with Cooper any day of the week in terms of knowledge of history, but he's not a historian. I have a friend from years ago who was an amateur history buff with a photographic memory. He could cite endless historical trivia and when he decided to get some college credits he walked in a tested out of any history class they'd allow him to do it with. But, until you've produced that paper or book with uniquely reliable content that future researches will cite rather than citing something else, then probably not a historian.

Have you listened to a Cooper podcast? Which one?

[Markk]

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

I addressed this earlier in the thread and you brushed it off with some screed about Fox News. Either go back and find it or read (really read) the excellent responses above this one.

To all that, I'm going to add that in order to be considered a historian that one should profess to be a historian. Cooper maintains that he, himself, is NOT a historian. I don't know why you wouldn't take his word for this.

Ken Burns says he is not a historian, but I think he is....listen to this and tell me he is not. And it is not a political podcast, and he is very left wing anyways, so I am sure it is okay for you to listen to it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmlhA3dpxnc