Landshark said:
Anyway I think this guy's just appeared on Newsnight on BBC2. I caught the last couple of minutes of it and there was one guy defending "counterfactuals" and another attacking them. Apparently by discussing AH we're undermining the general public's interest in real history or some such.
So that's us told isn't it.
Geez, the public's perception of history consists of Simon Scharmer and David Starkey with a bit of Tony Robinson thrown in for light entertainment (though IMHO it often touches on things deeper than the popular history programmes do, you just have to know how to recognise them)
Of course, in making my assertion what am I saying ? That popular history is a bad thing ? Well, compared to no history in the popular mind, clearly not. Only that 'the public's interest in real history' can hardly be 'under-mined' by counter-factuals
On a similar note, I found the BBC2 programme on those battles where it put teams of people in positions of command to be quite fascinating. As well as the general history, I really most enjoyed seeing the complete balls-up people made ! I remember one battle where this guy took charge with the sole purpose to seize and defend a hill... As one of the commentators said 'Its not a magic hill' !
I also found the complete inability of some teams to work as a team more illuminating than the real history of these battles. It showed just how and why some OTL battles go so badly wrong - one example brough Spion Kop to mind especially. Usually these failed teams consisted of the lower-level commanders losing all meaningful contact with the top brass - either the generals were ignoring them completely, or they were issuing orders based on hopes and not realities. I recall one woman saying pointedly you're ordering me to attack with troops who have already been killed - reminded me of Hitler in 1945 !
Grey Wolf