You're allowed to care about multiple things at once, you know. I also feel that the "story" is the important part of history. However, this bit of historical analysis would indisputably be better if it did not contain errors.
- 1
WW2 The Resource War - III: The Engines of War by Extra History
- Thread starter BjornB
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
@BattleMoose this can be the Internet, but if you wanna argue with logic and some degree of respect, at least refrain yourself from saying to someone things like that. Other then that I really will not bother to engage you on debate.
I returned the respect that you offered me. It was reciprocal. You will note that in my previous post I was respectful. You can choose not to respond to the arguments I put forward, that is your prerogative.
FYI we put Holocaust Deniers in the 'list' of people who 'do a disservice' to the historian profession. If disagreeing with you or pointing the errors in those videos, which at any point I said I hate, I just said that it is not history, but stories, which are very, very different things in historian vocabulary, are your parameters to tag someone as a bad or terrible historian, maybe you should think twice if that gap between deniers and different thinkers are so close or we really think so very apart that I definitely don't wish to debate with you at no given moment. I see by your flag and I imagine you are German, then you should know very well what Holocaust Deniers are and how grave the distortion of history is. If you really are up to debate and different thinking, and no insults, I really do have many more points and sources then I had when I first posted, if it interest you.
It wasn't you disagreeing with me that I took exception to. It was a complete rejection of what I initially posted as being completely "wrong", without any argument or discussion. It was just wrong. And that I simply, "did not understand". Disagreement is fine. That wasn't.
And I absolutely cannot agree with your assessment that the quality of the videos can be described as, "invented stories", or "myths". They got the broad story correct. They handled the timeline of how an assassination resulted in a general European war well. People who don't know the story, watching that series would gain a lot of knowledge from it.
I simply cannot reconcile the idea that someone who has a love of history, would view this series in a poor light. And for what reasons were given? Using a term incorrectly? Getting a name wrong? Or familial relations? None of which impact the sequence of events or decisions that resulted in a general European war.
The July crisis has shaped so much of our present lives that I think everyone should know how it unfolded. This series does that. There is very real value here. But you don't agree?
And I absolutely cannot agree with your assessment that the quality of the videos can be described as, "invented stories", or "myths". They got the broad story correct. They handled the timeline of how an assassination resulted in a general European war well. People who don't know the story, watching that series would gain a lot of knowledge from it.
I simply cannot reconcile the idea that someone who has a love of history, would view this series in a poor light. And for what reasons were given? Using a term incorrectly? Getting a name wrong? Or familial relations? None of which impact the sequence of events or decisions that resulted in a general European war.
The July crisis has shaped so much of our present lives that I think everyone should know how it unfolded. This series does that. There is very real value here. But you don't agree?