-
Please see the most recent updates in the "Where did the .com name go?" thread. Posts number 16 and 17.
It occurs to me
- Thread starter Helldiver
- Start date
c87
Charter Member
In my opinion everyone's reality is jaded by their own beliefs and prejudices resulting in completely different interpretations of the same event. One of my other hobbies is reading WWII history. I personally think that someone who does their homework relative to research can present an accurate accounting of the facts. In many cases, that research includes the testimony of those who were there and experienced the events first-hand.
My now deceased father who was a crew chief and engine change mechanic on C-87s flying The Hump probably thought that that aircraft was one that 'won the war'. My Forum handle bears my own prejudice toward this airplane. But was it truly the airplane that won the war? Probably not. In reality, I don't think many people even know what a C-87 is, and that's ok too. I believe more in the collective efforts of many; men, women and machines, for the victories and subsequent benefits we enjoy today, rather than the individual contribution of one person, group or airplane.
Having a bit of marketing experience, I'm aware of the techniques and strategies used to sell magazines and get email marketing messages "opened". To me a title like "The Planes That Won The War" should be taken with a grain of salt. It might not be historically accurate, but I'm sure the author (or probably the publisher) wanted a title that would sell the article. It's no different than movies that are really entertainment products that are discounted for not being historically accurate. They're not intended to be the final account of history.
I agree with Helldiver's position that when reading an accounting on WWII we should be cognizant of the resources used. I disagree with his position that if it was written by someone born after the conflict, those sources are questionable.
My now deceased father who was a crew chief and engine change mechanic on C-87s flying The Hump probably thought that that aircraft was one that 'won the war'. My Forum handle bears my own prejudice toward this airplane. But was it truly the airplane that won the war? Probably not. In reality, I don't think many people even know what a C-87 is, and that's ok too. I believe more in the collective efforts of many; men, women and machines, for the victories and subsequent benefits we enjoy today, rather than the individual contribution of one person, group or airplane.
Having a bit of marketing experience, I'm aware of the techniques and strategies used to sell magazines and get email marketing messages "opened". To me a title like "The Planes That Won The War" should be taken with a grain of salt. It might not be historically accurate, but I'm sure the author (or probably the publisher) wanted a title that would sell the article. It's no different than movies that are really entertainment products that are discounted for not being historically accurate. They're not intended to be the final account of history.
I agree with Helldiver's position that when reading an accounting on WWII we should be cognizant of the resources used. I disagree with his position that if it was written by someone born after the conflict, those sources are questionable.
Dave, just out of interest and a laugh to be honest, what would you be saying if Chuck Yeager came along and told us all of his fun days back in the later war years flying P-51D's with his old wingman, Anderson.
PS, I ADMIT IT, I AND OTHERS WHO LIKE TO USE LOGIC, EVIDENCE OUR BRAINS, CLEARLY KNOW IT ALL, EVERYTHING EVER. ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO US, HAZXOR L33T ETC ETC... If your going to treat us like children we might as well act like them!
My 2 cents ............... 
When someone says they did so-N-so, I believe them. Years later if that same person says they didn't do it, I believe them. People say they did things and later change their minds. They also say they didn't do things and later say different.
Back in the 70's I smoked my share of Mojo all the while saying I didn't. I had a job and child support and bills to pay and that was my decision. I don't smoke any more at all and don't work and don't have any bills so I can go the other way. Hell yes I smoked ........ enough to fill a semi. I'm making that statement because I want to and can now. Doesn't matter.
On WW2, I was in diapers about that time and was really upset because my cap gun was broke and couldn't get another. It didn't matter because I couldn't get caps either.
What I'm saying is that people say things and later change for all kinds of reasons. Why not just smile and remember what they say because it just may be the truth. How are you going to prove otherwise. It happened that way to them or they wouldn't say it.
When someone says they did so-N-so, I believe them. Years later if that same person says they didn't do it, I believe them. People say they did things and later change their minds. They also say they didn't do things and later say different.
Back in the 70's I smoked my share of Mojo all the while saying I didn't. I had a job and child support and bills to pay and that was my decision. I don't smoke any more at all and don't work and don't have any bills so I can go the other way. Hell yes I smoked ........ enough to fill a semi. I'm making that statement because I want to and can now. Doesn't matter.
On WW2, I was in diapers about that time and was really upset because my cap gun was broke and couldn't get another. It didn't matter because I couldn't get caps either.
What I'm saying is that people say things and later change for all kinds of reasons. Why not just smile and remember what they say because it just may be the truth. How are you going to prove otherwise. It happened that way to them or they wouldn't say it.
Bjoern
worst developer ever
If you want something unbiased have a human write an AI who in turn writes an AI who in turn writes an AI who in turn writes an AI who in turn writes an AI (to wash out any trace of bias the human brought into the code) who writes a book about WWII.
As long as you've got humans writing books you will have more or less bias in them, even if they're trying very, very hard to eliminate it.
Edward Sims did a fairly good job at an objective account of all three major western airpowers during WW2, but he was a fighter pilot for the USAAF himself so yeah, there's a bias.
I say the more detached you are from an occurred event, the better you can take everything into account objectively.
If someone who never served knocked down the combat value of the Leopard 2 compared to other current MBTs I'd violently disagree. Because I'm biased. Even though that guy may be right because he never had anything to do with tanks personally and could tackle the whole thing objectively.
As long as you've got humans writing books you will have more or less bias in them, even if they're trying very, very hard to eliminate it.
Edward Sims did a fairly good job at an objective account of all three major western airpowers during WW2, but he was a fighter pilot for the USAAF himself so yeah, there's a bias.
I say the more detached you are from an occurred event, the better you can take everything into account objectively.
If someone who never served knocked down the combat value of the Leopard 2 compared to other current MBTs I'd violently disagree. Because I'm biased. Even though that guy may be right because he never had anything to do with tanks personally and could tackle the whole thing objectively.