7 ms·

Thucydides Roundtable, Book IV: History Is Written by the Losers

57 points by lermontov 10y ago

JoeAltmaier 10y ago
Wait - didn't the Mayans invent writing solely to record their history? Is this another case of writing history to include only western and maybe Asian history, and neglecting other, larger New World accomplishments?
- dghf 10y ago
  Herodotus is called the "Father of History" because he is believed to be the first to have systematically collected and critically evaluated various sources to produce his narrative. The OP argues that Sima Qian deserves the same title for the same reasons. Did the Mayans employ the same approach when writing their history? If so, your point is a good one.
  - JoeAltmaier 10y ago
    Probably not. Mostly just dry names, dates and events are recorded in stone stelae. Kind of like how history was taught when I was in school. And since missionaries collected and burned almost the entire corpus of 'degenerate' Mayan literature, we may never know more.
  - EthanHeilman 10y ago
    Among Historians Herodotus is also called the "Father of Lies" for some of the stories he reported that were then passed on as facts all the way to the medieval era. My favorite Herodotus fact is the large fuzzy gold digging ants[0] who dig up gold and attack anyone steals it: >In this sandy desert are ants, not as big as dogs but bigger than foxes [..]. These ants live underground, digging out the sand in the same way as the ants in Greece, to which they are very similar in shape, and the sand which they carry from the holes is full of gold. [..] So when the Indians come to the place with their sacks, they fill these with the sand and drive back as fast as possible; for the ants at once scent them out, the Persians say, and give chase. They say nothing is equal to them for speed, so that unless the Indians have a headstart while the ants were gathering, not one of them would get away. - Histories, Book 3 [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold-digging_ant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold-digging_ant [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0126%3Abook%3D3%3Achapter%3D102 http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%...
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - Amezarak 10y ago
      I had long ignored Herodotus because of that epithet, and I think it was a huge mistake. After reading him I was very surprised about how accurate he was in general. He also says where he got information, and presents different reports where they are available, and frequently expresses skepticism about some of the stories. Additionally, even the crazy-sounding stories are often rooted in some kind of truth: the Wikipedia article about the gold-digging ants claims there is a local tribe that did in fact collect gold dust from marmot burrows. One item that struck me was that in the Egyptian chapters, he reports that cats (then a curiosity to the Greeks) would leap into fires and burn to death; a footnote in my edition made some comment about the absurdity of his claims about cats and this in particular. But the reason it struck me is because my ex-girlfriend had a cat who exhibited exactly that behavior. It made me wonder if Herodotus mistook a singular anecdote for a generality, or if there was some kind of bizarre instinct in at least some breeds of cats in history that did indeed lead them to do that.
      - EthanHeilman 10y ago
        >I had long ignored Herodotus because of that epithet On the other hand, fuzzy ants were one of the reasons I've read Herodotus. The problem is not so much with Herodotus himself but with the uncritical use of his writings due to his authority. The lesson is not to ignore Herodotus but that even great historians make mistakes or use bad/mistranslated sources.
    - smacktoward 10y ago
      I always liked Kate Beaton's take on Herodotus, myself: http://www.harkavagrant.com/index.php?id=30 http://www.harkavagrant.com/index.php?id=30
jessaustin 10y ago
One is reminded, somehow, of this year's post-election reporting.
exuxu50 10y ago
loser ...
hga 10y ago
Hmmm, Churchill's "greatest" histories, The World Crisis (WWI) and The Second World War, which I've recently started re-reading (or at least The Gathering Storm, the first volume of the interim period ending with him being selected as PM as the Nazis descended upon the Low Countries and France), were written first when he lost his seat in Parliament altogether (and previously during the war had been removed from the government and his position as First Lord of the Admiralty, although he recovered his political position to a degree), and then when he was turned out as PM after winning WWII. And much of his later writing was when he was a backbencher: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winston_Churchill_as_writer#Writing_career https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winston_Churchill_as_writer#Wr...
tomgp 10y ago
If you're interested in the subject this episode of In Our Time on 'The History of the Peloponnesian War' is good: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b050bcf1 http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b050bcf1 (full disclosure/ source of glowing pride: my friend Katherine is one of the guests )
- nickik 10y ago
  The Great Gourses also has lectures on it. Its quite impressive. The have a Netflux style experiance now. I highly recommend it. Its 12h long, so be aware of what your getting into. https://www.thegreatcoursesplus.com/ancient-greek-civilization/the-peloponnesian-war-part-i https://www.thegreatcoursesplus.com/ancient-greek-civilizati...
crazypyro 10y ago
Fabulous article. Lots of the information was completely new to me. On a side note, I was surprised at how many names I had never actually read, but were immediately pronounceable in my conscious. I would have to credit Dan Carlin's Hardcore History[0] podcast for this. He has many great series that use these historians as sources quite a bit. [0]http://www.dancarlin.com/hardcore-history-series/ http://www.dancarlin.com/hardcore-history-series/
Amezarak 10y ago
I think there is something to be said for the author's argument that time and motive are crucial factors for a historian to write, but: > The exception is Brasidas. Brasidas, brave defender of Methone, and thus “the first man in this war to receive the official honors of Sparta” (2.25). Brasidas, whose strategems almost defeated the Athenians at sea (2.86-87). Brasidas, the daring leading who almost stormed the fort at Pylos (4.12). Brasidas, the savior of Megara (4.70-73). Brasidas, the only Spartan eloquent and wise enough to raise all of Thessaly into revolt (4.84). Brasidas, the general who defeated Thucydides. I think this is really too reductionist, but also inaccurate. Thucydides did not enlarge Brasidas out of a motive of glorifying himself in his defeat: Brasidas never defeated Thucydides, who in fact arrived too late to assist. Brasidas' record largely speaks for itself. That said, he was exiled because the Athenians blamed him for the defeat - probably unjustly and for political reasons. If anything, his unjust exile was his major motivation, and he in fact spent a lot of time among the Peloponnesians afterward
panglott 10y ago
It is amazing to me how little of the Chinese historical classics are widely available in the US in affordable, accessible editions. Part of this is the longer history of Classical studies, so contemporary scholars have to compete with the public domain. But the main English edition of "Records of the Grand Historian" is Burton Watson's translation, which heavily excerpts the material to focus on the Qin dynasty, rather than including some of the more mythological information about the Zhou.
Theodores 10y ago
At any time in history there is the narrative that you are supposed to believe and then there are the conspiracy stories. The problem with the truth is that there are vested interests in running the official narrative as well as the conspiracies. Therefore truth has a problem, it can only flow onto a page to be hopefully found by a future generation. If it sneaked out into broad daylight it would be cowardly dismissed by all as a conspiracy story. Thucydides wrote with this feeling in mind. He did not write for the here and now of his time, instead he wrote for eternity. He could not care less if nobody read his work, he knew that truth mattered more than the opinions of others no matter how important those people might think they are. If we look at the contribution to history made by Edward Snowden, is he a loser? I am sure he has lost a lot of relationships with people that see him as a traitor or those that sought to apprehend him. I am sure that the people he meets now don't see him as himself but who they want to see, some type of freedom fighting hero. So he has probably lost a lot in not being able to live the normal life. Financially too, so you could say that he is a loser. But he told the truth when nobody around him would. He fought back the fear and was prepared to accept consequences for the greater good. Through his deeds and thinking he escaped the narrative about the world that we are all led to believe. He almost certainly learned a lot about the truth along the way. Therefore, in my universe, those that don't have first-hand direct experience of 'the truth' are the real losers, including those that go along with whatever we are told about Syria and other wars fought for resources around the world. I would say that those that believe Western Propaganda excessively have lost their minds. What is a worse thing to lose? Edward Snowden certainly has not lost his mind, the vast majority of people actually have by this metric. Our leaders are true slaves to the lies, even knowing the truth about some of the tales they have told. These people write history and have ghost writers and others that help them project their version of reality. But historians are connoisseurs and prefer genuine fact based history so the fake history written by our leaders cannot last forever, particularly if an alternative truth based narrative exists.
nickik 10y ago
The perfect example of the loser writting history must be the Germans after WW2. The allies captured many of the generals and took much of what they said as true. The myths spread about this are still around today. The most important one is the primitive red army and its human wave attacks. When in reality the quite often just out generaled as well. Western history had developed a huge fetisch for German generals like Rommel that is mostly undeserved. Luckly after the fall of the USSR we were able to find out a lot more about the Soviet side. Equalling out story.
wazoox 10y ago
Interesting article. Now, spellchecker please :)
- hyperpallium 10y ago
  s/was \(published brutally\)/\1/
afarrell 10y ago
> Only in Greece and in China did this notion catch hold. Keep in mind that civilizations on the losing end of a campaign of conquest (or overthrow) tend to have their things destroyed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aztec_codices https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aztec_codices
- MichaelMoser123 10y ago
  The britannica article on historiography mentions the Hebrew Bible as a formative text of historic thought, so that it is not just Herodotus and Sima Qian - if you bother to ask the authors of encyclopedia britannica. https://www.britannica.com/topic/historiography https://www.britannica.com/topic/historiography Also we know of Ashoka from texts in Sanskrit.
- DubiousPusher 10y ago
  Yeah, this would be my main quibble with the article. Our literary history has a significant survivor bias. But I think the greater share of impact comes from moth and rot rather than human selection. The main point of the article stands. Our views of history are shaped by the most literate ancient societies, not the most successful.
caf 10y ago
When high position is stolen from you, and access to the heights of wealth and power denied, there is little one can do about it—except write. It's not hard to see here the tendency for political leaders to write their memoirs in the aftermath of their defeat. I had always assumed it was a rational play to monetise their name recognition while it was at its highest, but of course the ability to pour a bucket of shit on those who have wronged you must be pretty attractive too.
- DubiousPusher 10y ago
  Yeah, even Thucydides who tried to instill his work with a degree of rigor unheard of in ancient times, couldn't resist the temptation to ret-con his legacy. Not historical but Dante also did this, placing his political nemeses in the lower rungs of hell.
wallace_f 10y ago
>Those who rule do not have the time to write about it. History written by the losers... because those who rule cannot write about it? I think this article is interesting, but the underlying premise of the article really bothers me. I can think of several glaring examples of manipulation of history that we are guilty of in America today, despite how we feel about ourselves being "free" and generally too good for that. Here are some glaring examples off the top of my head: My observations have been that most people in America believe Japan just attacked Pearl Harbor for no good reason. This story is told in the hollywood movie Pearl Harbor. In the movie, there were just kids playing, good people BBQ'ing, and beach volleyball and then these evil bastards just attacked for no reason. They don't know who Perry was or what we did to Japan before this happened. I have also heard people say, time and time again, that they believe the atomic bomb "saved lives," so the argument in my high school textbook goes, "more people died in the fire bombings than the atomic bombings." This is perhaps the most outrageous manipulation of history. They don't know American generals were begging to not use the bomb, or to at least not use on a civilian target. They have no idea of the history, of Japan's confusion, of our unwillingness to compromise despite they were saying they would surrender. President Dwight Eisenhower said: "the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing." Another quote from a US General: "The war would have been over in two weeks. . . . The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all." However, conveniently most Americans now don't believe the atomic bombs were crimes against humanity, nor that the fire bombings of Tokyo were, either! The US General who oversaw the fire bombings of Tokyo himself said they were a war crime. I think most Americans know that Germany committed horrible mass murder against races of people, but not that their economy was destroyed by through financial schemes (even Keynes, mainstream macroecon's hero, told of this). It takes very strong character to be able to stand up and say that you made a mistake, and make good on it and make sure it doesn't happen again. I think one of the best ways this will never happen is just erase those mistakes from history, and declaring history written by the losers would be a good way to argue for that.
- marcoperaza 10y ago
  The Japanese were so ready to surrender that they waited for the SECOND atomic bomb. /s You are somewhat right, in that there was internal turmoil in the Japanese regime that may have led to a surrender without the nuclear attacks. But the United States did not know that. The behavior of Japanese forces and command during the rest of the war gave us every reason to believe that they were going to fight a fanatical battle to the death. You have to judge people by the information they had at the time that they made the decision.

57 points by lermontov 10y ago

Wait - didn't the Mayans invent writing solely to record their history? Is this another case of writing history to include only western and maybe Asian history, and neglecting other, larger New World accomplishments?

dghf 10y ago
Herodotus is called the "Father of History" because he is believed to be the first to have systematically collected and critically evaluated various sources to produce his narrative. The OP argues that Sima Qian deserves the same title for the same reasons. Did the Mayans employ the same approach when writing their history? If so, your point is a good one.
- JoeAltmaier 10y ago
  Probably not. Mostly just dry names, dates and events are recorded in stone stelae. Kind of like how history was taught when I was in school. And since missionaries collected and burned almost the entire corpus of 'degenerate' Mayan literature, we may never know more.
- EthanHeilman 10y ago
  Among Historians Herodotus is also called the "Father of Lies" for some of the stories he reported that were then passed on as facts all the way to the medieval era. My favorite Herodotus fact is the large fuzzy gold digging ants[0] who dig up gold and attack anyone steals it: >In this sandy desert are ants, not as big as dogs but bigger than foxes [..]. These ants live underground, digging out the sand in the same way as the ants in Greece, to which they are very similar in shape, and the sand which they carry from the holes is full of gold. [..] So when the Indians come to the place with their sacks, they fill these with the sand and drive back as fast as possible; for the ants at once scent them out, the Persians say, and give chase. They say nothing is equal to them for speed, so that unless the Indians have a headstart while the ants were gathering, not one of them would get away. - Histories, Book 3 [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold-digging_ant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold-digging_ant [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0126%3Abook%3D3%3Achapter%3D102 http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%...
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - Amezarak 10y ago
    I had long ignored Herodotus because of that epithet, and I think it was a huge mistake. After reading him I was very surprised about how accurate he was in general. He also says where he got information, and presents different reports where they are available, and frequently expresses skepticism about some of the stories. Additionally, even the crazy-sounding stories are often rooted in some kind of truth: the Wikipedia article about the gold-digging ants claims there is a local tribe that did in fact collect gold dust from marmot burrows. One item that struck me was that in the Egyptian chapters, he reports that cats (then a curiosity to the Greeks) would leap into fires and burn to death; a footnote in my edition made some comment about the absurdity of his claims about cats and this in particular. But the reason it struck me is because my ex-girlfriend had a cat who exhibited exactly that behavior. It made me wonder if Herodotus mistook a singular anecdote for a generality, or if there was some kind of bizarre instinct in at least some breeds of cats in history that did indeed lead them to do that.
    - EthanHeilman 10y ago
      >I had long ignored Herodotus because of that epithet On the other hand, fuzzy ants were one of the reasons I've read Herodotus. The problem is not so much with Herodotus himself but with the uncritical use of his writings due to his authority. The lesson is not to ignore Herodotus but that even great historians make mistakes or use bad/mistranslated sources.
  - smacktoward 10y ago
    I always liked Kate Beaton's take on Herodotus, myself: http://www.harkavagrant.com/index.php?id=30 http://www.harkavagrant.com/index.php?id=30

jessaustin 10y ago

One is reminded, somehow, of this year's post-election reporting.

exuxu50 10y ago

loser ...

hga 10y ago

Hmmm, Churchill's "greatest" histories, The World Crisis (WWI) and The Second World War, which I've recently started re-reading (or at least The Gathering Storm, the first volume of the interim period ending with him being selected as PM as the Nazis descended upon the Low Countries and France), were written first when he lost his seat in Parliament altogether (and previously during the war had been removed from the government and his position as First Lord of the Admiralty, although he recovered his political position to a degree), and then when he was turned out as PM after winning WWII. And much of his later writing was when he was a backbencher: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winston_Churchill_as_writer#Writing_career https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winston_Churchill_as_writer#Wr...

tomgp 10y ago

If you're interested in the subject this episode of In Our Time on 'The History of the Peloponnesian War' is good: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b050bcf1 http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b050bcf1 (full disclosure/ source of glowing pride: my friend Katherine is one of the guests )

nickik 10y ago
The Great Gourses also has lectures on it. Its quite impressive. The have a Netflux style experiance now. I highly recommend it. Its 12h long, so be aware of what your getting into. https://www.thegreatcoursesplus.com/ancient-greek-civilization/the-peloponnesian-war-part-i https://www.thegreatcoursesplus.com/ancient-greek-civilizati...

crazypyro 10y ago

Fabulous article. Lots of the information was completely new to me. On a side note, I was surprised at how many names I had never actually read, but were immediately pronounceable in my conscious. I would have to credit Dan Carlin's Hardcore History[0] podcast for this. He has many great series that use these historians as sources quite a bit. [0]http://www.dancarlin.com/hardcore-history-series/ http://www.dancarlin.com/hardcore-history-series/

Amezarak 10y ago

I think there is something to be said for the author's argument that time and motive are crucial factors for a historian to write, but: > The exception is Brasidas. Brasidas, brave defender of Methone, and thus “the first man in this war to receive the official honors of Sparta” (2.25). Brasidas, whose strategems almost defeated the Athenians at sea (2.86-87). Brasidas, the daring leading who almost stormed the fort at Pylos (4.12). Brasidas, the savior of Megara (4.70-73). Brasidas, the only Spartan eloquent and wise enough to raise all of Thessaly into revolt (4.84). Brasidas, the general who defeated Thucydides. I think this is really too reductionist, but also inaccurate. Thucydides did not enlarge Brasidas out of a motive of glorifying himself in his defeat: Brasidas never defeated Thucydides, who in fact arrived too late to assist. Brasidas' record largely speaks for itself. That said, he was exiled because the Athenians blamed him for the defeat - probably unjustly and for political reasons. If anything, his unjust exile was his major motivation, and he in fact spent a lot of time among the Peloponnesians afterward

panglott 10y ago

It is amazing to me how little of the Chinese historical classics are widely available in the US in affordable, accessible editions. Part of this is the longer history of Classical studies, so contemporary scholars have to compete with the public domain. But the main English edition of "Records of the Grand Historian" is Burton Watson's translation, which heavily excerpts the material to focus on the Qin dynasty, rather than including some of the more mythological information about the Zhou.

Theodores 10y ago

At any time in history there is the narrative that you are supposed to believe and then there are the conspiracy stories. The problem with the truth is that there are vested interests in running the official narrative as well as the conspiracies. Therefore truth has a problem, it can only flow onto a page to be hopefully found by a future generation. If it sneaked out into broad daylight it would be cowardly dismissed by all as a conspiracy story. Thucydides wrote with this feeling in mind. He did not write for the here and now of his time, instead he wrote for eternity. He could not care less if nobody read his work, he knew that truth mattered more than the opinions of others no matter how important those people might think they are. If we look at the contribution to history made by Edward Snowden, is he a loser? I am sure he has lost a lot of relationships with people that see him as a traitor or those that sought to apprehend him. I am sure that the people he meets now don't see him as himself but who they want to see, some type of freedom fighting hero. So he has probably lost a lot in not being able to live the normal life. Financially too, so you could say that he is a loser. But he told the truth when nobody around him would. He fought back the fear and was prepared to accept consequences for the greater good. Through his deeds and thinking he escaped the narrative about the world that we are all led to believe. He almost certainly learned a lot about the truth along the way. Therefore, in my universe, those that don't have first-hand direct experience of 'the truth' are the real losers, including those that go along with whatever we are told about Syria and other wars fought for resources around the world. I would say that those that believe Western Propaganda excessively have lost their minds. What is a worse thing to lose? Edward Snowden certainly has not lost his mind, the vast majority of people actually have by this metric. Our leaders are true slaves to the lies, even knowing the truth about some of the tales they have told. These people write history and have ghost writers and others that help them project their version of reality. But historians are connoisseurs and prefer genuine fact based history so the fake history written by our leaders cannot last forever, particularly if an alternative truth based narrative exists.

nickik 10y ago

The perfect example of the loser writting history must be the Germans after WW2. The allies captured many of the generals and took much of what they said as true. The myths spread about this are still around today. The most important one is the primitive red army and its human wave attacks. When in reality the quite often just out generaled as well. Western history had developed a huge fetisch for German generals like Rommel that is mostly undeserved. Luckly after the fall of the USSR we were able to find out a lot more about the Soviet side. Equalling out story.

wazoox 10y ago

Interesting article. Now, spellchecker please :)

hyperpallium 10y ago
s/was \(published brutally\)/\1/

afarrell 10y ago

> Only in Greece and in China did this notion catch hold. Keep in mind that civilizations on the losing end of a campaign of conquest (or overthrow) tend to have their things destroyed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aztec_codices https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aztec_codices

MichaelMoser123 10y ago
The britannica article on historiography mentions the Hebrew Bible as a formative text of historic thought, so that it is not just Herodotus and Sima Qian - if you bother to ask the authors of encyclopedia britannica. https://www.britannica.com/topic/historiography https://www.britannica.com/topic/historiography Also we know of Ashoka from texts in Sanskrit.
DubiousPusher 10y ago
Yeah, this would be my main quibble with the article. Our literary history has a significant survivor bias. But I think the greater share of impact comes from moth and rot rather than human selection. The main point of the article stands. Our views of history are shaped by the most literate ancient societies, not the most successful.

caf 10y ago

When high position is stolen from you, and access to the heights of wealth and power denied, there is little one can do about it—except write. It's not hard to see here the tendency for political leaders to write their memoirs in the aftermath of their defeat. I had always assumed it was a rational play to monetise their name recognition while it was at its highest, but of course the ability to pour a bucket of shit on those who have wronged you must be pretty attractive too.

DubiousPusher 10y ago
Yeah, even Thucydides who tried to instill his work with a degree of rigor unheard of in ancient times, couldn't resist the temptation to ret-con his legacy. Not historical but Dante also did this, placing his political nemeses in the lower rungs of hell.

wallace_f 10y ago

>Those who rule do not have the time to write about it. History written by the losers... because those who rule cannot write about it? I think this article is interesting, but the underlying premise of the article really bothers me. I can think of several glaring examples of manipulation of history that we are guilty of in America today, despite how we feel about ourselves being "free" and generally too good for that. Here are some glaring examples off the top of my head: My observations have been that most people in America believe Japan just attacked Pearl Harbor for no good reason. This story is told in the hollywood movie Pearl Harbor. In the movie, there were just kids playing, good people BBQ'ing, and beach volleyball and then these evil bastards just attacked for no reason. They don't know who Perry was or what we did to Japan before this happened. I have also heard people say, time and time again, that they believe the atomic bomb "saved lives," so the argument in my high school textbook goes, "more people died in the fire bombings than the atomic bombings." This is perhaps the most outrageous manipulation of history. They don't know American generals were begging to not use the bomb, or to at least not use on a civilian target. They have no idea of the history, of Japan's confusion, of our unwillingness to compromise despite they were saying they would surrender. President Dwight Eisenhower said: "the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing." Another quote from a US General: "The war would have been over in two weeks. . . . The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all." However, conveniently most Americans now don't believe the atomic bombs were crimes against humanity, nor that the fire bombings of Tokyo were, either! The US General who oversaw the fire bombings of Tokyo himself said they were a war crime. I think most Americans know that Germany committed horrible mass murder against races of people, but not that their economy was destroyed by through financial schemes (even Keynes, mainstream macroecon's hero, told of this). It takes very strong character to be able to stand up and say that you made a mistake, and make good on it and make sure it doesn't happen again. I think one of the best ways this will never happen is just erase those mistakes from history, and declaring history written by the losers would be a good way to argue for that.

marcoperaza 10y ago
The Japanese were so ready to surrender that they waited for the SECOND atomic bomb. /s You are somewhat right, in that there was internal turmoil in the Japanese regime that may have led to a surrender without the nuclear attacks. But the United States did not know that. The behavior of Japanese forces and command during the rest of the war gave us every reason to believe that they were going to fight a fanatical battle to the death. You have to judge people by the information they had at the time that they made the decision.