History is a Created Myth

[montrose]

The purpose of this thread is to discuss myth making in history. This is where agendas twist and distort facts to fit an agenda. As we know, myth making is an enormous part of the Little Big Horn.

ukiahcommunityblog.wordpress.com/2015/07/27/dunce-for-the-confederacy-the-lost-cause-of-shelby-foote/

My first example is Shelby Foote. He was from Mississippi, and a fiction writer. He decided to write a history of the American Civil War for the centennial, in 1961. He eventually published 3 volumes. Shelby was dedicated to the Lost Cause. The CSA was a utopia, a perfect society and culture. He portrayed history as if Gone With the Wind is a documentary.

He stated in interviews that even 100 years later the cause of the CSA was right. He would happily fight to reestablish slavery. He believes the USA would be better off if the CSA won.

Now he did serve in the American Army in WW2. He was a captain in artillery, before a court martial reduced him in rank and kicked him out. He finished the war as a private, in the USMC, though they discharged him after 9 months. This did mean he swore an oath, that his later writings and interviews clearly showed he broke his vow.

It is a bit amazing that his biggest hero of the CSA is Nathan Forrest.

So he dedicated his life to proving the Lost Cause theory, showing the supremacy of the white race, its values, culture and heritage superior to anything else on earth. You know damn well he would be a natural fit on the other board.

[noggy]

Would there have been a USA if the CSA won?


As more than a little interested in German military history, I can`t avoid writing some lines about Franz Kurowski. The man is even today often quoted without reservation by so-called serious historians who have been misled to think he was a peer, and some sort of expert on all branches of the WW2 German Army. He wasn`t. At all. But boy did he write about it, and boy did he have an angle... or even worse; a motive.

He served during the war and was awarded a prize by the propaganda ministry in 42 for a piece he wrote... this wouldn`t be the end of his work for nazi propaganda. He went on to publish hundreds of books plus publications for right wing-magazines. Many under pseydonyms and while his fiction books are harmless, his self-described "historical works" are just revisionist, neo-nazi bullshit. To illustrate, he and David Irving saw ey-to-eye and influenced each other. Kurowski is, as far as I`ve bothered dig around, maybe the primus motor (do you say this in English?) for the "clean Wehrmacht" ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_clean_Wehrmacht ) movement. Now, it`s one thing to distance the individual German soldier from the regime itself or not flat out call every man who wore the uniform as a Nazi, but Kurowski`s work for 40-50 years was solely menat to clear the German Army and especially the Waffen-SS of any misdoings and, while subtle, basically denying the Holocaust. He would however make much fuzz and fabricate ALlied/Soviet crimes and brutality.

Some of his profile books on lesser known infantry and grenadier "aces" are somewhat ok, because they are about ground soldiers whose stories have been overlooked compared to the German pilot and tank aces. But I`d trust them no more than to get the names of the individual and then start looking around for stuff myself. Or just read a Sven Hassel book. Still, 5-6 months ago I was writing a short piece about Erich Lepkowski, and almost all online sources on the man had to some degree based their work on Kurowski. The Holocaust-denying, revisionistic semi-nazi.

Scary.

All the best,
Geir

[noggy]

In relation to the opening post about this Shelby Foot guy, it reminds me of Mildred Rutherford, member and "historian" of the UOC. I`ll quote from a text I recently read ( listverse.com/2016/01/05/10-insane-attempts-at-rewriting-history/) about montrose`s subject matter:

"Speaker Mildred Lewis Rutherford eventually published a book called The Truths of History, which claimed to expose the truth of Lincoln’s weak intellect, the South’s plan to free its slaves, and the Ku Klux Klan’s true role as a peacekeeping organization. The book caused a major schism in what was taught in schools."

Re-writing or trying to change history is as old as history itself. You find it in ancient civilizations where yesterday`s hero was either tried removed or made a villain by the new boss in time. History is timeless, as probably nobody ever said.

G

[wild]

A myth is the relationship between 2 or more facts.
For example Custer was last seen alive heading down MTC. He was discovered dead along with all of his command in and around LSH.
What is suggested happened in between those two facts is myth
Best

[montrose]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._F._C._Fuller

JFC Fuller was a British general who was a dedicated fascist before, during and after WW2.He believed it was a tragedy that Germany lost. In 1961 he was still saying the world would be better if Germany had won. I get the German generals who pushed the good Nazi nonsense, it kept them out of jail and provided pensions for war criminals. But for Fuller, it proves him a traitor.

(The Germans are strongly committed to social benefits for war criminals. When the wall came down, how did we round up the Red Army Faction terrorists? They were all getting pensions from the East German government, we just went to the address on the checks.)

Fuller also claims the Germans learned Blitzkrieg from him. There are very distinct differences in German theory than Fuller and Hart. I have my doubts.

[wild]

I suspect our good friend Montrose is a myth.
Cheers

[noggy]

May 13, 2020 17:38:39 GMT -5 wild said:

A myth is the relationship between 2 or more facts.
For example Custer was last seen alive heading down MTC. He was discovered dead along with all of his command in and around LSH.
What is suggested happened in between those two facts is myth
Best

Custer was seen alive and well (most likely) by 200 + soldiers and hundreds upon hundreds of NAs in the time between being around MTC and dying on LSH.

[noggy]

May 14, 2020 9:00:47 GMT -5 montrose said:

Fuller also claims the Germans learned Blitzkrieg from him. There are very distinct differences in German theory than Fuller and Hart. I have my doubts.

Hart was initially someone I respected a lot when getting really interested in history. "The other side of the Hill" is sill around in my book shelf. That has changed. It`s one thing that he was a fan boy of the Panzerwaffe; but the way the way he tried to present himself as some kind of "mentor" for Guderian and Rommel is revolting. I once about how be more or less persuaded widows of German Generals (or maybe it was just one case as far as biographies goes) to allow him to weasel his way into their stories as some sort revelation for officers far more capable than himself.

Both he and Adolf light absolutely had some early ideas about mechanized warfare. As did the Soviets with their deep operations. And the Germans. After WW1, it would be crazy if not many people started to seriously re-think how wars could be fought in the future. As for Fuller and Hart being being the f---ing architects of moder armored warfare, well that`s BS.

All the best,
Geir

[wild]

The reason I say Montrose is a myth is because he will not debate , he will not take a position other than that which IS 99% factual.
But if a myth he is benign non controversial and suggests good subjects for debate. More like a teacher who suggests a subject throws it out for debate and stands back and observes.
Probably arrived too late to influence the "wars" of recent years.
If memory serves me correctly his only spats if they could be so described were with himself and both of them must have been greatly amused.
Cheers.

[AZ Ranger]

For example Custer was last seen alive heading down MTC. He was discovered dead along with all of his command in and around LSH.

Wild

That is not factually correct. All of Custer's 5 companies were not discovered dead in and around LSH. Custer's command had an additional 7 companies and a pack train.

Regards

AZ Ranger

[noggy]

If going with the theme "myth" and LBH, I guess there are many things which some people would consider a myth which others could argue for being facts. I try to keep an open mind about many things related to the battle, especially since I`ve still got.. 20-30-40-? years of reading to do if I`m to catch up to most people in here.

One thing I do struggle to accept is when some people try to present the 7th as some sort "elite" regiment. Perhaps not so much on this board, but elsewhere. What is the reasoning behind this view? It wasn`t a very combat experienced regiment, and training standards for the Cavalry at least during the 1870s (I know nothing about the US Infantry or Navy of the period) seems poor...very poor. Is it as simple as many people almost worshipped (still worship) GAC, and thereby the 7th also had to be brilliant, almost by association? I mean, a person who thinks GAC was the greatest cavalry officer to ever grace the Earth would probably have a hard time accepting that his regiment wasn`t "all that".

Other suggestions?

PS: Sorry for any typos, writing in a foreign language while hell`s breaking loose at work is a challenge.

All the best,
Noggy

[wild]

A bit pedantic AZ don't you think? The "last stand" envolved but 5 companies under Custer's direct command.

Put it down to Hollywood Noggy. Hollywood made the West and the West made Hollywood.

You can weaponise a myth and turn it into propaganda.

[noggy]

May 18, 2020 13:36:47 GMT -5 wild said:

Put it down to Hollywood Noggy. Hollywood made the West and the West made Hollywood.

To a large degree, I agree. But the notion that the 7th supposedly was something "extra" predates. Of course, it could just be that the rest of the US Cavalry wasn`t much to brag about, which montrose has mentioned before come to think about it... but the 7th still wasn`t the best of the lot. But again, it was Custer`s regiment so I guess many people just assumed it had to be good.

Noggy

[wild]

This I do not understand.
Was Custer the officer commanding the regiment or was it the Colonel [cant remember his name]who was the senior officer and if so why did he not lead on opperations?
Can't imagine why they would be regarded as an elite unit . They had the "victory" at the Washita and one or two other skirmishes
Custer had a reputation from the civil war along his with captins most of whom were brevet lt Colonels.But the troops were bog standard garrison troops.
Best

[noggy]

No Sturgis was highest ranking but as far as I remember never led (lead?) the regiment in the field. Preferred the desk, which I can respect

I know in some books the bloated status of the 7th has been mentioned, with quotes. Pretty sure I even have read some historians kinda trying to back up such BS. I could try to look it up. As you say, Custer had a reputation and being a superstar of his day, I bet that was pretty much the only thing which could have made people think that way.

Noggy