Quote:
Originally Posted by Sigaba
TS--
With respect, I agree that the military history of the Second World War must center around the battlefields and the people who fought. I disagree that the history of the Second World War was made by warriors alone.
In regards to the former, in 1942, S.L.A. Marshall was on Kwajalein as part of the general staff's efforts to find ways to chronicle the army's combat operations. Marshall was interviewing one soldier about an engagement when another chimed in with a drastically different account. It was not until after Marshall had interviewed the rest of the two men's platoon that he felt confident in his reconstruction of the previous night's actions. From this experience, the army began its practice of conducting multiple oral interviews.*
Acknowledging the differences among such accounts did not (and does not) imply a lack of character or integrity of the soldiers involved. Instead, recognizing the differences and seeking to reconcile them into a single narrative reflect the fact that human beings remember shared experiences differently and that memories may change over time.
I understand that many warriors question the propriety, value, and utility of interpretations of the history of war, contemporaneous military affairs, and the armed services offered by civilians. I accept this skepticism.
However, what happens when the logic is applied to other types of professions and experiences? Are only African Americans allowed to offer views on the experiences of blacks in the United States? Are only lawyers and judges to comment upon the law?
____________________________________________
* S. L. A. Marshall, Bringing Up the Rear: A Memoir, ed. by Cate Marshall (San Rafael: Presidio Press, 1979), 71-72. To clarify, I am aware of some of the controversies surrounding Marshall's life and career. In this specific instance, I am unaware of any evidence that should cast into doubt Marshall's experiences with post-combat oral interviews.
|
IMO WWII was decided once the United States entered the war.
I never said warriors alone made all the history, I am not that ignorant. Politian's start wars, warriors fight and finish them.
I will tell you that even "history" can be distorted quite a bit by those that write it and those that report it. I also understand the theory of "oral reports", funny how many of us were never asked for an oral report yet our history has been written.
Not all of us require such in-depth history, some just want to hear one man's perspective on the battle he fought, share his thoughts, see his emotions, all things one cannot glean from a history book.
I am that sort of person, I have listened to old warriors, their stories from their perspective. You said: "what happens when the logic is applied to other types of professions and experiences" I can tell you this; that unless you have been in that specific profession, a warrior, it sure would be difficult to distinguish between the truth and the bullshit.
I'm sure they're quite a few warriors on here that have been involved in historic events or missions that have made "history" but will never be written about.....
BTW there's quite a long list of "individuals" I'd rather talk to than read any number history books about what they did or the battles they fought. Some I have spoken with at length, some I have worked with and some I have only read about.
"Of every One-Hundred men, ten shouldn't even be there, eighty are nothing but targets, nine are real fighters...we are lucky to have them...they make the battle. Ah, but the One, one of them is a Warrior...and He will bring the others back." Heraclitus (circa 500 BC)
Some here have had the honor to have spoken to, worked with and even fought along the side of that "One". History books, movies, news articles all pale in comparison.