Those of us who have never experienced war at first hand cannot, of course, truly imagine what it is like. But it does not stop us wondering. We have to rely on other people to try and tell us. But, last year when the 90th anniversary of the Great War was commemorated, one of the last survivors of 3rd Ypres said that it was beyond imagination, because our imaginations "won't go that far", or words to that effect. Of course, he was right, but trying to imagine it is better than forgetting it happened. As far as Americans are concerned, from what I have heard and read, the British are almost edited out of a lot of what they see and hear. So are the Red Army for that matter. I think that we have to take particular care when we come across young people with an interest, but confused ideas about what happened, to put them right gently and point them in the right direction. After all, if the truth is to be kept alive at all, they are the generation which has to pick up the baton.
I agree with what you say Brian on authors having to please. There is a book, without naming names that I thoroughly enjoyed reading, and considered it one of the best on the subject that I was interested in. I then found out by chatting to other vets involved in this operation that the book had been 'sexed up' and that infact they had not seen half as many Germans as the book claims. Apparently when the author sent the story to the publishers they sent it back and said not enough action in it. So the author had to as you say Brian 'bend the truth a little'. Its still a great book but I learnt as you say not take everything as gospel. Stories get told and retold over and over again down the years. I look at it a bit like Hollywood, for the same reason you are not going to see a decent film or mini series on say Pegasus bridge and subsequent actions, the Americans are not going to put money into a film that glorifies what the British did, and its very unlikely that it would put bums on seats in the US. I look at alot of books from across the pond in a similar way. I feel in this country we can look at ourselves and see and admit our own mistakes and then write about them. Andy p.s good picture mate
From the moment the Ape picked up the jaw bone and used it as a weapon to pongoes under fire in Iraq, everyone how has ever been under fire has a totally personal perspective on the subject.
Sapper, I agree with you that nobody who has ever been in a battle can understand it. Even John Keegan admits it in the first sentences of "The Face of Battle," which tries to examine three major battles, Agincourt, Waterloo, and the Somme, from the bayonet (or lance) tip. He points out that he descriptions of battles never really give the sense of what happened. Obviously, writers are not objective. Nobody can be objective. It's impossible. To be truly objective, you would have to be neutral between the fire and the fire brigade. We saw the height of that insanity in the United States earlier this year when C-Span did a show on Deborah Lipstadt's book "History on Trial," about the David Irving libel suit. To recap: History professor Lipstadt wrote a book on Holocaust denial, and named British writer David Irving as one. Irving felt that injured his reputation as a historian, and sued for libel in London. Lipstadt had to prove her statements were true. In effect, it became a trial on whether or not the Holocaust happened, with Irving representing himself pro se, the height of arrogance. Lipstadt won a massive victory, which ended Irving's reputation as any kind of serious historian. Lipstadt wrote another book, her memoir of the trial, and gripping it is. So C-Span chose to put the book on their "Book Review" show, and thought it would be jolly good fun to interview Irving and Lipstadt back-to-back. Lipstadt has made a point of not having any discussion or debate with Irving at all. C-Span told her they wanted Irving on for "balance." Lipstadt -- and a vast mass of historians -- erupted. There was no balance, they rightly pointed out, between truth and fiction. To put Irving on, after his court defeat, would give new credence to his discredited views. It would suggest that there was "another side" to the Holocaust and denial was legitimate. Lipstadt didn't go on the show. C-Span backpedaled, and denied they intended to have Lipstadt debate Irving (both sides disputed that), and instead began the show with a producer explaining that their talk about "balance" was "journalistic bargaining" with Lipstadt, and that they really meant, "another voice," not a debate, and yes, the Holocaust happened as advertised. The review consisted of a reporter who had covered the trial, but not read the book, saying that he had covered the trial, but not read the book, and a few clips of Irving haranguing supporters from earlier events. So here we see ignorant journalists, obsessed with "objectivity" and promoting a nice little argument (because ratings soar over wrestling matches, intellectual and otherwise), willing to trash the truth in pursuit of bucks. There is no objectivity. For example, you cannot be objective over the Holocaust. It was sadistic genocide, pure and simple. To feel anything but shame and pain would make you less than human. You cannot be objective over the deaths of small children and old ladies in New Orleans. You cannot be objective over suffering in the Sudan. How can anyone look upon tragedy and not be moved? What you can be is fair. You sit down and admit that you are not objective, but you can say to yourself, "I will be fair. I will examine the motivations of the opposing side, to see what caused it, what motivated it, what it did, and what resulted." You cannot really apply this to the Holocaust, of course, because of its gravity, but you have to use some of it, to understand why the Nazis did what they did, and how. But you can apply it to more abstract concepts, like political debate, and, as in this case, the great "Patton vs. Montgomery" debate. And many other topics, even hard ones, like child abuse. Once you recognize your innate prejudices and can avoid having them overwhelm your intellect and emotions, you can write about horrific subjects. It's very difficult, but it can be done.
During the war little was known about what went on in those camps, it came as a very nasty shock...and out of the blue, to those that discovered it. Information on the camps was passed out by various means, the British government decided to supress the info. I have book which was printed prewar called "I was hitler's Prisioner" that described the prisons and the camps
