Alternative History World War II Documentary - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

The Second World War (1939-1945).
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14785941
I am a documentary film maker and I believe that modern day accepted version of history is faith based nonsense religion. It is very hard to almost impossible to predict what happened long ago in the past even as late as a few decades ago historical accounts are mostly assumptions and wild guesses. To further illustrate my point I made a documentary about world war II that shows it through an alternative lens yet remains as accurate as any other modern day counter part even though the accounts are radically different. For all we know History played out completely differently then we realize and in all likely hood it did.

#14786046
I am a documentary film maker and I believe that modern day accepted version of history is faith based nonsense religion. It is very hard to almost impossible to predict what happened long ago in the past even as late as a few decades ago historical accounts are mostly assumptions and wild guesses. To further illustrate my point I made a documentary about world war II that shows it through an alternative lens yet remains as accurate as any other modern day counter part even though the accounts are radically different. For all we know History played out completely differently then we realize and in all likely hood it did.

Indeed. As Napoleon Bonaparte once said, history is merely a pack of lies on which everyone agrees. The point is that, in order to 'understand' history, we must construct a narrative out of it. And like any narrative, our own chosen historical narrative can only exist by omitting awkward facts or events which don't 'fit in' with that narrative. In other words, the past gets edited and censored until we can make sense of it. History, in that sense, is written by the victors and one of its functions is to act as a retrospective justification of the actions of the victors. As Churchill famously put it, "History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it." Until it gets retrospectively edited and reshaped, the past is just a bunch of stuff that happened. Once our chosen narrative has been constructed out of it, then it becomes history, from which the appropriate 'lessons' can be drawn.
#14786084
Potemkin wrote:Indeed. As Napoleon Bonaparte once said, history is merely a pack of lies on which everyone agrees. The point is that, in order to 'understand' history, we must construct a narrative out of it. And like any narrative, our own chosen historical narrative can only exist by omitting awkward facts or events which don't 'fit in' with that narrative. In other words, the past gets edited and censored until we can make sense of it. History, in that sense, is written by the victors and one of its functions is to act as a retrospective justification of the actions of the victors. As Churchill famously put it, "History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it." Until it gets retrospectively edited and reshaped, the past is just a bunch of stuff that happened. Once our chosen narrative has been constructed out of it, then it becomes history, from which the appropriate 'lessons' can be drawn.


Exactly history is just man made and random.
#14786144
Okay, I can go along with all this as long as we agree to certain ground rules. You can only use shit that actually happened, not shit you make up. Also, whatever criteria you use to include or exclude certain events has to be consistent throughout.
#14786155
quetzalcoatl wrote:Okay, I can go along with all this as long as we agree to certain ground rules. You can only use shit that actually happened, not shit you make up. Also, whatever criteria you use to include or exclude certain events has to be consistent throughout.


Ok yeah that is not a problem but you must understand its hard to say what actually happened. There is lots of theories one of them is the most popular its the text book theory but all the theories just make the best guess at filling in the blanks between the evidence. This is my best recollection of those events based on my research.
#14786172
I have recently becoming quite engrossed in how the history of World War 2 has been misrepresented and so this discussion is very interesting to me. I have a lot of questions about the Documentary though as there seems to be a lot of things which seem very unlikely and I would appreciate some citations even from some non-mainstream sources.
On the subject though I was blown away by, "the greatest story never told" on YouTube.

I would like to hear some opinions from people who might be more well versed on the subject, because although the Documentary makes a lot of sense I don't want to be sucked into
something with a lot of factual errors.
#14786183
Eamonor wrote:I have recently becoming quite engrossed in how the history of World War 2 has been misrepresented and so this discussion is very interesting to me. I have a lot of questions about the Documentary though as there seems to be a lot of things which seem very unlikely and I would appreciate some citations even from some non-mainstream sources.
On the subject though I was blown away by, "the greatest story never told" on YouTube.

I would like to hear some opinions from people who might be more well versed on the subject, because although the Documentary makes a lot of sense I don't want to be sucked into
something with a lot of factual errors.


This looks interesting Im going to check it out. Thanks for sharing.
#14786303
There are many excellent documentaries about the life and career of Hitler but "The greatest story never told" is not one of them. I'm assuming you know this is Nazi propaganda and that's why you posted it.
#14786461
It is certainly a biased and lopsided view of the conflict, but when one view of history is given absolute precedence over the other, and people who question the way things happened are persecuted and arrested simply for asking questions, then as free speech advocates it becomes our duty to discuss them.
“He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion... Nor is it enough that he should hear the opinions of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and accompanied by what they offer as refutations. He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them...he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.”
― John Stuart Mill, On Liberty
#14786533
I don't really have questions about the accuracy of the facts taught to me about the second World War, it is more the lies by admission that I have a problem with. The fact that Communism was rife in the Weimar Republic, and the 1918 socialist revolution.
But the biggest doozy in my mind is quite simply that the Nazi's atrocities are overstated and are still being held over the heads of the German people to this day, while Marxism is taught in University as being a wonderful humanitarian philosophy and openly advocated for in many Western countries. Arguably my biggest intellectual hero, Jordan B Peterson did a lecture on it.
#14786638
What's unreasonable about movie plot is that Trotsky was in charge of defending St. Petersburg. Trotsky died in 1940 after years of exile and he would have been assassinated by Stalin, if he had stayed within the Soviet Union. Lenin had also been long dead by the time the Germans invaded the Soviet Union in 1939 and Lenin would have chosen Trotsky as his successor over Stalin, had he been alive.
#14786646
ThirdTerm wrote:What's unreasonable about movie plot is that Trotsky was in charge of defending St. Petersburg. Trotsky died in 1940 after years of exile and he would have been assassinated by Stalin, if he had stayed within the Soviet Union. Lenin had also been long dead by the time the Germans invaded the Soviet Union in 1939 and Lenin would have chosen Trotsky as his successor over Stalin, had he been alive.


Ok so I understand that if we examine it through the lens of the official version just the dates alone do not make sense. However I believe the official version lied and had revision to this part of history to cover up what actually happened. When I drew up the timeline for my documentary I abandoned the official version completely and instead speculated on a much more plausible explanation of the events and players. Also while some dates are contested this doesn't change the over all message of my documentary. I believe that it still makes a lot more sense then the official story.
Trump's Dumb Economics

You, and other Trump ass-kissers always have an e[…]

apparently KSA and USA are both paper tigers their[…]

Part 2 of 3 Which is also a sign of how far t[…]

How rich are the Rotschilds realy

Here a clip explains how the FED works https://ww[…]