Critical Thinking with History

Подписаться 360 тыс.

Просмотров 7 тыс.

50% 1

Never believe anything you see, read or hear... except maybe this. History teaches us to think critically about all the information we're given. Question everything no matter what source it comes from because it's probably biased in some way. Critical thinking isn't something they teach us in school (although they did teach me it in university when I did my History Degree) but it should be.
If you liked this, you may also like this video of mine - • History Books to the Moon
I'm reading "With Paulus at Stalingrad" as part of my research for my upcoming super-detailed and super-accurate documentary on Stalingrad. Are you interested in WW2 documantaries? Then you may like my BATTLESTORM series - • The REAL Fort Eben Ema...
Let me know what book you're reading at the moment. What are the biases and agendas of the author? What reasons do you have not to trust it? Let me know in the comments below.

Опубликовано:

3 апр 2017

Ссылка:

Скачать:

Готовим ссылку...

Добавить в:

Мой плейлист

Посмотреть позже

Комментарии : 59

@kushanblackrazor6614 7 лет назад

Thank you for giving attention to something that people just don't appreciate most of the time with the study of history. Everyone is biased, but sifting through those biases is a crucial skill in the reading of history. Speaking of what I've been reading, it's been Prit Buttar's series on the Eastern Front from 1914 to 1917. He writes in a very even-handed way that I don't see in a lot of other authors, criticizing Austro-Hungarian, German and Russian high commands as well as individual leaders with equal aplomb. Admittedly an easier thing to do, considering we in the West have a rather more detached view of things a century later compared to the more ideological struggles of the second world war. Less of an agenda that's relevant anymore (despite being one myself, who cares what a monarchist thinks anymore?). Considering the dearth of English language sources on the war in the East in WW1 I strongly recommend it as a good way to get a general grasp of what was happening at that time, and hopefully it will pave the way for more accounts so we won't have to just rely on a single source.

@TheImperatorKnight 7 лет назад

From my own experience in studying history at college and university in the UK, I don't think it was given anywhere near enough attention. Perhaps I was just unlucky and I hope it's not the norm for other students, but I only recall us ever dicussing this issue once in the whole of my education. The emphasis was more on handing in coursework and passing tests than teaching us the core values of the subject. It's no wonder people view history as "boring". I also see Prit Buttar's done a couple books on WW2. I will add them all to my wish-list of doom

@kushanblackrazor6614 7 лет назад

I've not gotten to those just yet. They tend to focus on the end of the war in the Baltics and Prussia which while interesting, are not immediately on my radar. You'll have to let me know how they turn out!

@michaelmccabe3079 7 лет назад

Yeah, the Eastern front is definitely underappreciated in both world wars. Russia's military history alone is extremely fascinating, as they dealt with Vikings, Mongols, Siberians, Modern Europe, and plenty of other enemies. This is one of the reasons I like more obscure wars and campaigns (like the Frontiers-Marne in WWI, or the Middle Eastern/Caucasus campaigns 1915-1917). TIK, your experience of history in college is very typical on this side of the pond. History is either rewritten for political correctness, or has the life and intrigue sucked out of it. Your documentaries have that life and intrigue, and you keep improving them every time. I still re-watch them. ^ ^ Oh, and I'm a monarchist, too, Kushan. ;) We can root for the kings together, aye?

@KaNa-kh2bi 5 лет назад

history is like a mountain. If you are on the mountain, all what you see are trees, rocks and so on. You are not able to tell about the mountain. When you are enough far from the mountain, then you can see the figure of it. But if you see it from different position or angle, the mountain may look different from what you saw at first, even though it is the same mountain. The problem of the history study now is that it is like a one side perspective, making things worse, it is not really accurate, distorted by someone's intention like a photoshopped self portrait.

@NeuKrofta 6 лет назад

Great videos m8, just discovered your channel, surprised you get so few views. Really top notch content and production. Keep up the good work!

@TheKulu42 5 лет назад

In my experience, the very fact an account is in print or on the internet suddenly makes it factual if not gospel to too many people. I'm so glad you pointed out the importance of critical reading and viewing. Critical thinking applies not only to history, but to the news as well. Fortunately, I did learn about critical thinking in college. Here's an example. A wise English professor of mine, let's call him Dr. K, reviewed an easy I wrote about Shakespeare's play "Titus Androicus." He just smiled at me, suggested that I revise it, and said, 'Forget Shakespeare wrote it." Yes, I had approached the play with the idea that Shakespeare's authorship made it brilliant work. I took Dr. K's advice and reread it carefully. Then I realized that it was pretty lousy. Elizabethan England's version of a slasher movie. I learned not to approach a work with a preconceived notion in my head.

@tobymaltby6036 6 лет назад

A good "weather-vane" on historical bias... is the history of history, so to speak. For instance, Edward Gibbon's "The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" tells you as much about the 1780's as it does about the ACTUAL decline and fall of the Roman Empire....

@opmdevil 6 лет назад

Well, there is books about historical study and then there are memoires. When you do study from the archieves and taken that study has made both russian and german ones, you can get pretty clera picture what has happaned. When you are reasing memoires, you usually get some historical facts but mostly I consider then as periodic pieces from one individuals perpective. Momoires don't even have to be biased in any way - that's how people's memory work that some times you forget something, you remember things a bit differently and sometimes you remember something that really didn't happen. Also what information one individual has at the time can change the story considerably compared to another person who was in the comptlely same place at the same time. So, "I was there and this is how it went" can be different from someone elses "I was there...story", especially if the story is written after a considerably later - also the outcome of the events effects. So, I guess what I am trying to say, if you read memoires, enjoy them as time pieces, not historical fact.

@laurancerobinson 6 лет назад

Well done. You definitely bring to the fore, one of the biggest issues in history. I'm currently reading The Naval War in the Baltic 1939-1945 written by a former Danish naval officer and current Military history lecturer. So far the book seems well done, not so much of a bias and relying on contemporary sources. I have a memoir lined up next, King of Karelia: The British Intervention in North Russia 1918-19. So we shall see what that shows.

@unitedstatesofamericamilit8588 4 месяца назад

Frederick W. Von Mellenthin, "Panzer Battles." Highly skilled critical thinker who quickly recorded his memoirs with amazing detail. His coverage as Rommel's Intelligence Officer is very enlightening regarding Rommels's so called "Dissapearances" and the details of many important battles in North Africa. Highly recommend 😉

@TalkernateHistory 6 лет назад

This is why I have a problem with people treating ancient historical accounts as reliable history. Most ancient historical accounts are either written hundreds of years after the subject they're discussing or are written by a person with first hand knowledge but is tainted by heavy bias (like The Secret History by Procopius) or treat history as framework to tell fables and moral tales instead of the reality of the situation. It also doesn't help that there's almost no way to tell what's real and what's a lie because our understanding of the time period is often very fractured.

@Rex1987 7 лет назад

well I just got Anthony Beevors book on the Spanish civil war. I read a good deal of it back in high school but never got around to finishing it. I will read more of it over the summer when I am done with my thesis. my problem with it - is that Beevors has this style of writing it where its full of detail but in the same way you don't get the overall picture which he just assumes you already know about. but speaking about history books I do have one I would really recommend! its not about WW2 but about the battle of Verdun during WW1. its called: The Price of Glory: Verdun 1916 by Alistair Horne. I got I when I visited Verdun with my dad some 10 years ago. Its one of my favorit history book. I still re-read it from time to time.

@TheImperatorKnight 7 лет назад

Beevor is a bit hit or miss. He's a good introducer to the battle or subject, but then I feel he doesn't provide the details. It's much the same as watching a WW2 documentary on tv. Great if you know nothing about the battle, but then you get to the end and realise you only learnt six things and wasted an hour. And sounds good! I will add that book to my wish-list :)

@dariengash3116 7 лет назад

I'm reading William Prescotts Conquest of Mexico and Peru, and because of the time period and because of the lack of clarity in some places the plot resembles a chicken leg in consistency: some parts are chalk full of great and unbiased information while others are like the bone part of the leg- the info is scant and pure guesswork and/or biased opinion. The book is great in every way except the part I just explained.

@bradgolding6847 3 года назад

A late comment as it's 10 Nov. 2020. Currently halfway through Vassily Grossman's "Life and Fate," having already read his, "Stalingrad." I can see why some consider these 2 books the 20th century equivalent of "War and Peace."

@blakewinter1657 7 лет назад

It's a problem even with contemporary sources. People make mistakes, or even deliberately tweak the facts or omit things, sometimes without even being conscious of it really. Of course, the problem is worse when dealing with a memoir written 20 years later, but just look at the mess of trying to sift through the news today and separate out speculation, editorializing, and actual evidence-based reports. Critical thinking definitely needs to be taught in school more. Critical thinking, problem solving, and reading comprehension are the three keys to being able to succeed at literally any field of study, but instead schools focus on rote memorization... EDIT: Also, even when relying on multiple sources, you have to be a little careful. Someone, I think Matt Easton of scholagladiatoria, but I might be misremembering, made a video talking about the commonly-claimed 'fact' that 'English longbow archers could loose twelve arrows per minute.' In fact, it seems like there are no primary sources for this, even though you can find many sources today repeat it as fact. They all seem to just be quoting from one another, however.

@TheImperatorKnight 7 лет назад

Very true. I really don't trust any media news outlet. They're all pushing their own agendas. And that's why I always list my sources just in case something like that "fact" slips in

@kushanblackrazor6614 7 лет назад

I think its less a matter of "don't trust the news" and more a matter of "be discerning with what they're saying." At some point you do have to trust what you're hearing to some extent or you can't function as a person at all. That doesn't mean you have to immediately buy into what they're selling, but if you spend all your time vetting and doubting you can't get much done. Unfortunately with life its a series of compromises, and sometimes all you can do is spread the risk by taking in a variety of sources and remain skeptical within reason.

@blakewinter1657 7 лет назад

Sure, I'm not saying don't trust news sources, just that you need to be really careful to sort out the things for which there is reasonable evidence, and the editorial slant. It's illustrative of how hard it is to sort through historical sources, even the ones that were written contemporary with the events in question.

@zenzenthaiamulethobby7109 6 лет назад

Thanks

@paulrobinson4256 6 лет назад

One thing i've always pondered - did Britain and France have a good idea Hitler was going to attack France anyway after Poland? Or did their declaration of war provoke Hitler into it? ie Whilst I'm aware Britain and France had made allegiances to Poland - and were hoping one last ultimatum to Hitler would prevent war - could they have bought themselves more time by not declaring war, and might Hitler have gone East first instead of West? I noted from your WW2 Oil documentary that being at war with Germany meant Britain could then sea-blockade German oil and food supplies.... but was Britain aware how fragile Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was when they declared war? By all means point me in the direction of a book or documentary if you have time for this reply.

@graycap44 7 лет назад

Check out the books on Stalingrad published by Leaping Horseman Books in Australia. Also David Glantz has just produced a single volume version of his three part history of the battle.

@TheImperatorKnight 7 лет назад

Thanks to my awesome Patreons, I've just bought the "Death of the Leaping Horseman: The 24th Panzer Division in Stalingrad" by Jason D. Mark, which I believe is the same author? And yes, Glantz' book's not out until the end of this month (in the uk at least) although I'm not sure I'll need to get it since I have the other books now

@Sirlunchalot1962 6 лет назад

Sure,usually you can,t remember your birthday,especially if you are older. But I,m sure,in those times you can remember and it would burn into your mind. Sorry for my bad school english,it,s a little bit rusty.

@billbolton 4 года назад

Predicting the future vs determining the past. The uncertainty principle.

@sebastianadensam5184 7 лет назад

Well, I currently am reading 3 books about the Operation Overlord and the battle of Caen. All of them are pretty decent in my opinion. Btw.: That's the reason why I interviewed this 90 year old man, who was in the 12.SS Division. He was there, at first in a "Aufklärungsabteilung"(Reconnaissance Batallion) and later, after he was wounded, in the SS Panzergrenadierregiment 26.

@TheImperatorKnight 7 лет назад

Not sure if you've seen my Western Desert Campaign documentaries, but I'm a big fan of General O'Connor for his performance during Operation Compass. The issue is that he didn't do quite so well in Operation's Goodwood and Epsom in the fighting near Caen. There's even a book written (which I have) talking about why his performance in 1944/45 wasn't as good as in 1940/41. Sadly, I haven't read enough yet on the battle of Caen to come to any conclusions but it's one of those questions I hope to have answered one day. I didn't ask, did you record the interview? Or did you write it down?

@sebastianadensam5184 7 лет назад

TIK Yes, I saw this Battlestorm series, it was actually the first one I saw. That's a really interesting question, I hope to have it answered too. I wrote the Interview down(in german), if you want to, I could send you the pictures of the Interview and a translation. By the way, a fortnight ago , I found a Channel named 'New York State Military Museum', which has an astonishing amount of Interviews. Most of the Veterans interviewed are Americans, but I found one with a german named Walther P. Guenther(Günther), who served as a Lieutanent in the Wehrmacht. I believe that he was in Stalingrad, at least according to an articel I found. (m.timesunion.com/local/article/Walter-Guenther-of-Colonie-a-German-soldier-in-1006262.php) But I haven't watched the whole Interview yet, so I am not sure of this.

@BlutUndEhre88 Год назад

@@sebastianadensam5184 do you still happen to have the transcripts, so to speak, of that interview? Sorry, i know it's been a long time.

@sarlaccbattelion1 Год назад

@@BlutUndEhre88 Well, I recorded it back then, but I wouldn't really feel comfortable giving those recordings away. I'd suggest you check the Walther P. Guenther Interview on the New York State Military Museum out if you are interested in german interviewees of WW2

@01codblackops 4 года назад

we can check if great jamie was first or not just sort the comments by newest first and go to the bottom and as for this video he indeed is first

@ps4trophyguide56 6 лет назад

Troop Leader is a good book

@tcofield1967 6 лет назад

Wilhelm Adam was a General in the East German Army. He wasn't an anti-communist. He probably didn't have time to write his memoirs until after his retirement. I agree that you can't go off of one person's perspective at the war.

@jamiengo2343 7 лет назад

FIRST

@jamiengo2343 7 лет назад

I'm so important that I had my own section of the video, amazing

@UnderBoss648 7 лет назад

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH, I can't believe it

@jamiengo2343 7 лет назад

UnderBoss648 I know right. Of course I always tell the truth, so when I say I'm first, I'm first

@seanmac1793 5 лет назад

But is this really the case

@nocx4592 2 года назад

It's been 4 years since this video came out... I can sort by newest comment and find which is on the bottom, but in 4 years there's the possibility that the comments that were posted before yours just got deleted.

@markkelly9621 7 лет назад

the problems of history are evident whenever there is a news story in the media. Different sources have differing biases and approach or interpret "facts" in different ways - or they exclude some information or choose to include it. even if you take a news story of something that happened today , the reports can vary widely. if a story lasts a longer period of time, often information reported initially is found to be incorrect or new information comes to light. that's not touching on psychology of primary witnesses - everyone knows how unreliable human recall can be.

@TheImperatorKnight 7 лет назад

Exactly. Interpretation is one thing - especially when evidence just doesn't exist. But taking people's opinions or accounts as the gospel truth and then insisting that it's the truth is another.

@donfelipe7510 6 лет назад

I recently watched a video by Lindybeige on a similar topic, as followers of his may know he was an associate researcher with the University of Newcastle and therefore has a very good critical eye in my opinion. He was comparing two books in the video I'm talking about which I'll try and find the link for. The both books purported to be first hand accounts of soldiers in World War II and while the first is believable and graphic the second is like fan fiction, Lindy says "it's like the tank spotters guide to German tanks" 1945 the most famous vehicles the Germans had are all mentioned and everything explodes and flies through the air when hit, all clearly seen from inside another tank which is very unlikely given the limited view of outside. Here is the link to this video for those interested: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-z7Cjo_Ft28U.html

@narreddarr8092 7 лет назад

a favourite book of mine is Hitler's Last Gamble [the Ardennes Offensive] [ i've been moved around a lot over the past 10 years so i could be slightly off with the title ad it's in a terrible state as it's so old] and i can't rem the author but he's Belgian and it was written in 1953. There have been MANY 'updates' to this book i've read from libraries and the updates apparently correct some of the statements of, say, the commandr of the disastrous airborne op that failed miserably for Hitler so i'm left wondering... "which one is more correct? the book from 1953 that i have? or the updated 1975 book... th one with MANY updates of the behaviour of US troops after the Malmedy massacre". I'm inclined to believe the book written by a relatively young Belgian, only 8 years AFTER the end of WW2. He had made several interviews with the people of the Ardennes at the time and asked them what it was like knowing that the 'bloody Germans were coming back!' or the Cafe owner who deliberately [acc. to her] was woken at 3am by a German tank commander [turns out it was one of Peiper's commander's of his Kampfgruppe] and asked whether she had seen or heard any americans and she lied that sh had seen them and pointed in the direction their tanks were heading, which caused the germans to turn around and actually gave the American engineers time to set certain bridges to be blown. She hadn't seen nor heard any americans but lied to simply throw the Germans off whatever plans they had and because they were heading in a set direction she thought forcing them to go the long way around would at least give the yanks time to deal with them. true? who knows... but the fact is he went about the Ardennes and interviewed not just the soldiers but the people of that area.

@TheImperatorKnight 7 лет назад

I've got that book (you may be able to spot it on the shelf behind me in the video). Sadly I'm not well versed on the Ardennes Offensive [yet] so can't give you much comment beyond that, except to say that I bought this and other books so that one day I can cover the battle in one of my documentaries.

@narreddarr8092 7 лет назад

TIK I wonder if it is the same book as i have seen a few Hitler's Last Gamble titles? I've got to dig that book out. It's probably boxed up somewhere. it IS one of my most fav battles as it was one of those times when Churchill [old goat that he was, he seemed to know his enemies well enough] literally predicted that the winter of '44 was possibly one of the most dangerous times for the ETO Western Allies as, in WW1 during the Spring offensives by the Germans in 1918 when France and the UK had General Pershing's massive green US 'Doughboys' and everything looked like it was gonna be over for the Germans with such materiel support, Churchill warned that "the German, in his most weakest and seemingly darkest hour, can strike back, like a cornered snake"... about 2 months later they DID attack and on such a massive scale that the Allies couldn't believe just where they had gotten such manpower & materiel from. I'm convinced Peiper's Kampfgruppe, without King Tigers and with PzIVHs could have quickly taken those small bridges as the Tigers and Panthers used up what little POL they had. Many Tigers were simply abandoned BEFORE they were trapped and emptied of their fuel and spare parts. The initial attack was a political decision - Hitler wanted his Waffen SS to charge across the..er.. Hautes Fagnes or the Fagnes Plateau with the 6th Army [changed later to 6th SS Pz Army] in the North but they were kinda relying on capturing US fuel depots by coup de mains. But under 4 feet of snow? in driving winds that grounded most aircraft [Fw190s STILL flew though]. If you have the same book as i then it explains in great detail about certain admin staff of Hitler'sthat kept in immaculate detail the Ardennes Offensive in 1940 and he had them all drawn up and poured over them in Sept 44. He had never respected the US forces and so looked to a breakthru thru them. The US forces at ST.Vith are battles that should be more talked about. what such small units of US Infantry did against large armoured German Divisions at not only St.Vith seems to be ignored. A handful of US Inf. Regts held up Panzer and PZ Grenadier Divisions!! for, i believe, about 3 days, completely throwing off the hitler timetable. Hitler planned on them collapsing within an hour.

@tankgirl2074 Год назад

'With Paulus at Stalingrad' was an interesting read but it sits on my history shelf as unreliable. The massive amount of first person quotes, out of his memory is... extremely suspect. A good read when borrowed from your local library but not worth spending money on.