On Historical Sources

[LWD]

[This thread was split off from "James Bacque: '1 million POW's murdered by the US'" at http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=27723 and recaptioned by the moderator - DT.]

At the risk of going further off topic.

... To take one minor example, on this site it was claimed by one poster that it was a US-crewed Catalina that spotted the Bismarck. It wasn't, but only by going to the national archives could one find definitive documentary evidence. A casual, unsourced remark by an almost purely internet-based "expert" that took only seconds to put up here could only be countered by several hours research in the archives. Worse, the poster never withdrew the misleading claim and it still stands here. I can give other examples. ....

Alternately one could find documents on the internet that not only refuted but make the source of the claim fairly clear i.e.
http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq118-3.htm
or
http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq118-1.htm
with only a few minutes worth of searching.

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi LWD,

Those are not documents or even facsimiles of documents. They just set one tertiary or quaternary internet "source" against another. You see the problem?

Cheers,

Sid.

[RichTO90]

Those are not documents or even facsimiles of documents. They just set one tertiary or quaternary internet "source" against another. You see the problem?

Um, Sid? Sorry, but http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq118-3.htm is a verbatim transcription of a historical document, i.e., a "facsimile" of the original. Are you trying to imply that only the "original" of the document counts as a primary source? Would a PDF of the original serve to satisfy you? Or does that render it a "secondary" source? Are the thousands of pages of documentary sources I photograph rendered secondary sources because they are now JPEG's? So yes, I see the problem, but it seems to be one entirely of your own creation. :roll:

In this case the original Intelligence Division of the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations document is dated and numbered, so if you wish you may go to the U.S. Navy History and Heritage Command at the Washington Navy Yard to demand access to the original so you may compare it to the facsimile they provide to find where it has been altered if you think it has been altered.

[OpanaPointer]

Those are not documents or even facsimiles of documents. They just set one tertiary or quaternary internet "source" against another. You see the problem?

Um, Sid? Sorry, but http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq118-3.htm is a verbatim transcription of a historical document, i.e., a "facsimile" of the original. Are you trying to imply that only the "original" of the document counts as a primary source? Would a PDF of the original serve to satisfy you? Or does that render it a "secondary" source? Are the thousands of pages of documentary sources I photograph rendered secondary sources because they are now JPEG's? So yes, I see the problem, but it seems to be one entirely of your own creation. :roll:

In this case the original Intelligence Division of the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations document is dated and numbered, so if you wish you may go to the U.S. Navy History and Heritage Command at the Washington Navy Yard to demand access to the original so you may compare it to the facsimile they provide to find where it has been altered if you think it has been altered.

Actually, you want to go the Naval Reference Library at 805 Kidder Breese. Better sources. Tell Glenn "hi" for me, please. And don't drink their coffee, it's awful.

[RichTO90]

Actually, you want to go the Naval Reference Library at 805 Kidder Breese. Better sources. Tell Glenn "hi" for me, please. And don't drink their coffee, it's awful.

Umm, the Navy Department Library is part of History and Heritage Command. However, it's been years since I've been able to get over there. I understand the security restrictions have gotten more severe since the shootings on base last year?

[OpanaPointer]

Actually, you want to go the Naval Reference Library at 805 Kidder Breese. Better sources. Tell Glenn "hi" for me, please. And don't drink their coffee, it's awful.

Umm, the Navy Department Library is part of History and Heritage Command.

Just giving the correct address. There are "other commands" on the Yard with fewer resources.

However, it's been years since I've been able to get over there. I understand the security restrictions have gotten more severe since the shootings on base last year?

Yep. I was there last July for a conference and it was show ID, get a pass and proceed independently. Now it's "escorted only" unless you have the proper credentials. I was texting with my friends there while it was going down. Total lock-down for 18 hours while they screened every swingin' dick on the Yard.

[RichTO90]

Just giving the correct address. There are "other commands" on the Yard with fewer resources.

Understood.

Yep. I was there last July for a conference and it was show ID, get a pass and proceed independently. Now it's "escorted only" unless you have the proper credentials. I was texting with my friends there while it was going down. Total lock-down for 18 hours while they screened every swingin' dick on the Yard.

Glad you stayed out of the line of fire. Are you a full time Metro D.C. resident or do you just visit a lot?

[OpanaPointer]

Just giving the correct address. There are "other commands" on the Yard with fewer resources.

Understood.

Yep. I was there last July for a conference and it was show ID, get a pass and proceed independently. Now it's "escorted only" unless you have the proper credentials. I was texting with my friends there while it was going down. Total lock-down for 18 hours while they screened every swingin' dick on the Yard.

Glad you stayed out of the line of fire. Are you a full time Metro D.C. resident or do you just visit a lot?

I only go to DC when Uncle Sugar pays for the ticket.

[RichTO90]

I only go to DC when Uncle Sugar pays for the ticket.

Wish I could say the same, but I'm the obverse - I only leave D.C. now when Uncle Sugar pays for the ticket...unless I'm on vacation.

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi RichT90,

You ask: "Are you trying to imply that only the "original" of the document counts as a primary source?"

Yes, exactly. That is what primary source means.

A facsimile is at least secondary.

A document reproduced in a book, then photocopied, then posted on the internet would be quaternary..... and so on. Each is more remote from its primary source.

Cheers,

Sid.

[siwiec]

Hi RichT90,

You ask: "Are you trying to imply that only the "original" of the document counts as a primary source?"

Yes, exactly. That is what primary source means.

A facsimile is at least secondary.

A document reproduced in a book, then photocopied, then posted on the internet would be quaternary..... and so on. Each is more remote from its primary source.

Cheers,

Sid.

That is quite a strict definition, I would say. If a photo of a document is not a primary source, then microfilmed documents are not either, or? That would mean most of the historians are quite often relying on secondary sources in their works and would render documentary collections rather irrelevant for historians.

[LWD]

Hi RichT90,

You ask: "Are you trying to imply that only the "original" of the document counts as a primary source?"

Yes, exactly. That is what primary source means.

A facsimile is at least secondary. ...

That doesn't seem to conform to the defintions at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_source
http://ipr.ues.gseis.ucla.edu/info/definition.html
http://www.lib.umd.edu/tl/guides/primary-sources
https://www.princeton.edu/~refdesk/primary2.html
All of them seem to note that:"A secondary source interprets and analyzes primary sources." or words to that effect. Thus a reproduction of a primary source, as long as it is unaltered, should indeed count as a primary source.

[Urmel]

Yep.

[OpanaPointer]

Hi RichT90,

You ask: "Are you trying to imply that only the "original" of the document counts as a primary source?"

Yes, exactly. That is what primary source means.

A facsimile is at least secondary.

A document reproduced in a book, then photocopied, then posted on the internet would be quaternary..... and so on. Each is more remote from its primary source.

Cheers,

Sid.

Nonsense. The Declaration of Independence is a primary source when quoted.

[Webdragon2013]

1 million seems like an unrealistic number.
However it's likely thousands died. Much much more in Soviet hands aswell.

Also about the argument between revisionism and history:
People seem to miss the point that history is interlinked with politics. As long as WW2 has an impact on current politics, revisionism of any kind is logically not tolerated. There is still much classified about WW2 by Western governments and of course Modern Russia, why do you think that is?

Some people here are quite naive historians, thinking the Axis side whether Japanese, German, or even Italian, can be portrayed accurately and without bias. Reality is war itself is biased, its cruel its destructive. You do everything you can to win.

Most Americans, French, British, Russians, even Germans...Do not want history "revised" because it would burst the bubble of their moral superiority. People want to keep believing in myth to sleep better at night.

And no evidence will ever be found to prove anything.
When you win a war, you make sure the evidence that ends somewhere is the evidence your side CHOSE to end somewhere.
Of course there are some deranging flukes, like Katyn, but that sometimes happens.