Ok, not football at all, but it matters, eventually.

[Monaco_Totty]

? what if?s?! during times of war offer endless permutations. Unfortunate that many universities don?t offer that as ways of studying history or military tactics. You have to know what happened to do a lot of what if scenarios.

It?s also really stunning to think of what the terrible toll of war does to the pace of scientific and technological advancement. A century of development occurs in a decade.

I can?t even imagine what a conscientious objector goes through mentally in a time of war. Many corpsman were objectors and absolutely critical to the army.

I have found in discussions with the young folks at work that they studied no history or civics in college. Sad and alarming as these are key disciplines in studying human behavior.

Should a theory be dismissed ?

The issue of dismissing a theory is a more complex issue than just making a judgment about one specific statement. One aspect of the theory, for example one assumption, could lack support, but that would not necessarily make the theory as a whole uninteresting if it provides explanations on other aspects.

What I will say further is that noting certain aspects through my eyes & ears living in the UK balanced with residing in France & able to visit most of Europe freely, then one does have a greater depth of understanding, particularly seeing, hearing, reading & visiting battle sites of historic events going back to even medieval days.

I often ask myself can one living in a country that was under foreign occupation & one who has actually not even share a common theory ?
Identifying & mitigating bias in historical analysis as objectivity in selecting methodologies that are tailored to historical data sets, some would argue to.

Is historical theory a subject that is open to debate & challenge ?

The debate about the role of theory in history has been a part of the academic discipline since its inception & some say that the discipline of history has become too dominated by empiricist approaches & that the role of theory has been neglected.

[hopelesslyoptimistic]

An apt Latvian saying - to have one eye on the past is to be blind in one eye, to ignore the past is to be blind in both eyes.

[hopelesslyoptimistic]

I to add to the mix - many successful people or businesses failed many times before learning the lessons from that to be successful. Modern society seems to struggle to recognise that.

Similarly, taking risks and being first is often a key metric too.

Politics is often about stupid points scoring and highlighting failures to damn opponents with no recognition that this might impart knowledge and skills to learn from the success and turn it into failure.

[Monaco_Totty]

An apt Latvian saying - to have one eye on the past is to be blind in one eye, to ignore the past is to be blind in both eyes.

True H ☺
My pharmacist said similar when i walked away from taking advised prescription drugs which back then suppressed my brain to a frazzle.

In readings of History & mitigating for explanation then methodology includes vast ways to collect the info to decipher & further analyse it's data, so you have to dig deep & then dig deeper still often with your boots on the ground before trying to explain your rationale behind the methodology you wish to project to those who want to listen.

Or as they'll say next door to Latvia -
"Arkli pazinsi is dantu, mogu - iskalbuz" !

(You will know a horse by its teeth & a man by his talk).

[hopelesslyoptimistic]

True H ☺
My pharmacist said similar when i walked away from taking advised prescription drugs which back then suppressed my brain to a frazzle.

In readings of History & mitigating for explanation then methodology includes vast ways to collect the info to decipher & further analyse it's data, so you have to dig deep & then dig deeper still often with your boots on the ground before trying to explain your rationale behind the methodology you wish to project to those who want to listen.

Or as they'll say next door to Latvia -
"Arkli pazinsi is dantu, mogu - iskalbuz" !

(You will know a horse by its teeth & a man by his talk).

How many languages do you speak MT - think it?s four but have a feeling maybe a couple more?

[Monaco_Totty]

How many languages do you speak MT - think it?s four but have a feeling maybe a couple more?

Four ?
Close, but actually English (Sarf Landun), fluent
French, passable Lithuanian & a decent flow of Irish Gaelic which Gran taught me as she's from Ireland originally before marriage & then moved to Derry/Londonderry.
My sis & younger bro' the same but as they're French born, school's also got them speaking fluent Italian too. My older brother via work speaks quite a passable few via his work in the Euro media.

It's Mum who is the fluent lingo Queen at around ten fluent languages in 'da house' !
An unbelievable experience sat in her car driving while she instantly switches fluently from one lingo to another with clients in such quick succession via the hands free & as for her range of swear words, jeez, particularly in her English Yorkshire accent 😂

Like everything, the more you use it the easier it becomes but sometimes the brain does freeze for me on here trying to remember my lesser used Englsh words now & again, for sure via recall.
But any child of mine will be taught the lingo that I was, defo from the off.

[WTF11]

Should a theory be dismissed ?

The issue of dismissing a theory is a more complex issue than just making a judgment about one specific statement. One aspect of the theory, for example one assumption, could lack support, but that would not necessarily make the theory as a whole uninteresting if it provides explanations on other aspects.

What I will say further is that noting certain aspects through my eyes & ears living in the UK balanced with residing in France & able to visit most of Europe freely, then one does have a greater depth of understanding, particularly seeing, hearing, reading & visiting battle sites of historic events going back to even medieval days.

I often ask myself can one living in a country that was under foreign occupation & one who has actually not even share a common theory ?
Identifying & mitigating bias in historical analysis as objectivity in selecting methodologies that are tailored to historical data sets, some would argue to.

Is historical theory a subject that is open to debate & challenge ?

The debate about the role of theory in history has been a part of the academic discipline since its inception & some say that the discipline of history has become too dominated by empiricist approaches & that the role of theory has been neglected.

As I said, the suggestion that there were alternative realities had different paths been taken/decisions made in the run up to the outbreak of and during WWII isn't a theory, which suggests and outcome given certain conditions, a statement of an opinion or an explanation of an idea that is believed to be true, but might be wrong, it's postulation about what may have happened had events been differently dictated.

Obviously Hitler could have decided not to invade the USSR, re-inforce Rommel (more than he actually did), or it might have been that the House of Commons rejected Churchills exhortation to resist and abandon any thought of appeasement. None of that happened and the rest, as they say, is HISTORY, not theory.

[Monaco_Totty]

As I said, the suggestion that there were alternative realities had different paths been taken/decisions made in the run up to the outbreak of and during WWII isn't a theory, which suggests and outcome given certain conditions, a statement of an opinion or an explanation of an idea that is believed to be true, but might be wrong, it's postulation about what may have happened had events been differently dictated.

Obviously Hitler could have decided not to invade the USSR, re-inforce Rommel (more than he actually did), or it might have been that the House of Commons rejected Churchills exhortation to resist and abandon any thought of appeasement. None of that happened and the rest, as they say, is HISTORY, not theory.

Disagree.
Like many folks my age the Brexit vote & subsequent fallout saw many of us leave our UK shores feeling let down by our elders decision making via alleged evidence given regarding all facts at that time.

The Churchill Archives Center hold collection of papers not previously available but when declassified are made public - they often includes personal letters, speech-notes & diary entries of Churchill.

Such acquired "Papers" offer an unrivalled view of not only Churchills personal & political life but also the global politics of the 20th century which are an interesting read that draw light on matters not previously known to the public.

The continued process of opening up of such archives is a valuble source to draw opinion for researchers of theory past & present, as the RF Foreign Ministry declassifies an amount of document evidence relating to the WWII period rarely.

I often read released "papers" following 'selection' that are prepared for readers of the International Affairs reading journal, Oxford, which can be of interest to me & often comprise of telegrams bearing on achievement of mutual understanding in the political & military sphere back then.

One declassified paper detailed I still hold on laptop file was the subsequently ensuring effective interaction between the Soviet Union & Great Britain, which became the core of the military union of powers great & small that defeated Nazism.

1,700 pages that changed opinions cos of unknown facts never seen before created debate for comment for those to formulate fresh opinions on this said evidence.

Not sure how you research but this declassified stuff can sometimes make uncomfortable reading - one of many thousands is below as an example, released by Anatolii Filev, Consultant of the Historical-Documentary Department of the RF Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
From I.M. Maiskii to the USSR Peole's Commissariate for Foreign Affairs (NKID)
June 26, 1941
Urgent and most secret.

Now, four days after the Nazi attack against the USSR, there is cause to say with satisfaction that we have won the first round in ensuring political support for the war effort, insofar as Great Britain is concerned.

Hitler's calculation, which was implicit in, among other things, his proclamation, was perfectly clear: funneling the entire firepower of his army and aviation to strike eastward, once again assuming the role of "savior of civilization from Bolshevik barbarity," thus appealing to the mood of the most conservative circles of the British bourgeoisie, dividing the "national front" here, and achieving peace in the West, or at least considerably weakening Britain's military activity and U.S. assistance to Britain.

The purpose behind Hess's "visit" now becomes absolutely clear: It was to lay the ground for a British-German deal shortly before or at the beginning of the Nazi attack against the Soviet Union. Hitler's calculation at this stage has completely misfired. Britain did not allow itself to be deceived and agreed neither to a peace deal nor scaled down its military activity. Quite the contrary, through Churchill, it declared, more firmly than ever, its intention to continue the war until Nazi Germany was routed.

Moreover, Britain enlisted the support not only of its empire but also of the United States.This turn of events is hardly surprising. Recently (in early May), I already set out in detail the circumstances that predetermine the militant stand adopted by the British bourgeoisie (a relatively strong social base and recognition that a "Nazi world order," which is the solely possible scenario at present, means the fall of the British empire within five year at the most).

The Soviet Union's entry into the war against Germany had two extremely important consequences for Britain. First of all, it further strengthened the "unified front" (and therefore, the social base, for the time being) as now even the Communists have dropped their opposition to the war.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Other further evidence in diary entries go further into Europe events back then, including letters sent to the Duke of Windsor regarding his dubious role in 1937 sent by Churchill, that prior only created theory about their possible existence & now have been confirmed by evidence in Churchhill's own hand.

So upon reading many journal releases from other Governments once classified, then i'd suggest a more broad viewing of your literature choices, politely,for contemplation before jumping to tag all events as "historical fact" - unless you have access to original evidenced historic classified papers.
Not arguing with you but expressing my firm opinion after reasoned study from information that emerges after a period of time for public view for a reason.

Totty xx

[WTF11]

Disagree.
Like many folks my age the Brexit vote & subsequent fallout saw many of us leave our UK shores feeling let down by our elders decision making via alleged evidence given regarding all facts at that time.

The Churchill Archives Center hold collection of papers not previously available but when declassified are made public - they often includes personal letters, speech-notes & diary entries of Churchill.

Such acquired "Papers" offer an unrivalled view of not only Churchills personal & political life but also the global politics of the 20th century which are an interesting read that draw light on matters not previously known to the public.

The continued process of opening up of such archives is a valuble source to draw opinion for researchers of theory past & present, as the RF Foreign Ministry declassifies an amount of document evidence relating to the WWII period rarely.

I often read released "papers" following 'selection' that are prepared for readers of the International Affairs reading journal, Oxford, which can be of interest to me & often comprise of telegrams bearing on achievement of mutual understanding in the political & military sphere back then.

One declassified paper detailed I still hold on laptop file was the subsequently ensuring effective interaction between the Soviet Union & Great Britain, which became the core of the military union of powers great & small that defeated Nazism.

1,700 pages that changed opinions cos of unknown facts never seen before created debate for comment for those to formulate fresh opinions on this said evidence.

Not sure how you research but this declassified stuff can sometimes make uncomfortable reading - one of many thousands is below as an example, released by Anatolii Filev, Consultant of the Historical-Documentary Department of the RF Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
From I.M. Maiskii to the USSR Peole's Commissariate for Foreign Affairs (NKID)
June 26, 1941
Urgent and most secret.

Now, four days after the Nazi attack against the USSR, there is cause to say with satisfaction that we have won the first round in ensuring political support for the war effort, insofar as Great Britain is concerned.

Hitler's calculation, which was implicit in, among other things, his proclamation, was perfectly clear: funneling the entire firepower of his army and aviation to strike eastward, once again assuming the role of "savior of civilization from Bolshevik barbarity," thus appealing to the mood of the most conservative circles of the British bourgeoisie, dividing the "national front" here, and achieving peace in the West, or at least considerably weakening Britain's military activity and U.S. assistance to Britain.

The purpose behind Hess's "visit" now becomes absolutely clear: It was to lay the ground for a British-German deal shortly before or at the beginning of the Nazi attack against the Soviet Union. Hitler's calculation at this stage has completely misfired. Britain did not allow itself to be deceived and agreed neither to a peace deal nor scaled down its military activity. Quite the contrary, through Churchill, it declared, more firmly than ever, its intention to continue the war until Nazi Germany was routed.

Moreover, Britain enlisted the support not only of its empire but also of the United States.This turn of events is hardly surprising. Recently (in early May), I already set out in detail the circumstances that predetermine the militant stand adopted by the British bourgeoisie (a relatively strong social base and recognition that a "Nazi world order," which is the solely possible scenario at present, means the fall of the British empire within five year at the most).

The Soviet Union's entry into the war against Germany had two extremely important consequences for Britain. First of all, it further strengthened the "unified front" (and therefore, the social base, for the time being) as now even the Communists have dropped their opposition to the war.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Other further evidence in diary entries go further into Europe events back then, including letters sent to the Duke of Windsor regarding his dubious role in 1937 sent by Churchill, that prior only created theory about their possible existence & now have been confirmed by evidence in Churchhill's own hand.

So upon reading many journal releases from other Governments once classified, then i'd suggest a more broad viewing of your literature choices, politely,for contemplation before jumping to tag all events as "historical fact" - unless you have access to original evidenced historic classified papers.
Not arguing with you but expressing my firm opinion after reasoned study from information that emerges after a period of time for public view for a reason.

Totty xx

Appreciate the trouble taken, but you're still wrong. All the evidence of papers (unclassified or not), which show what views and opinions might have been contemporaneous or not are documents which throw light on historical fact. They do not support the assertion that assessing one possible version of events against another is theorising, quite the contrary. Published and documented historical events may change their shape and the contemporary view is likely to differ from that of those involved previously.

Revisionism is a dangerous and very slippery slope, to be avoided at all costs, despite the insatiable appetite on the part of some to impose their own (IMHO biased) view on historical fact. Very few remain who are able to provide first hand accounts of these events and I count myself fortunate in having had such an opportunity to acquire such a view from my father-in-law and to an extent from my father who served with British forces during our overseeing of the mandate given to Britain by the UK which saw the establishment of the state of Israel.

WTF xx

[WTF11]

The Palestine/Israel mandate was if course given by the UN not the UK, predictive texting strikes again!