6 ms·
I dont know the author and why its here on HN, but its easy to make obvious statements that most of TV shows are oversimplified BS. I'd be interested to read hi
by vgurgov 16y ago
I dont know the author and why its here on HN, but its easy to make obvious statements that most of TV shows are oversimplified BS. I'd be interested to read his vision of true WWII history though. I think the truth is that its was complex combination of various forces. None of them were evil/good or black/white, simply because it was a story about huge masses of ppl , who are hmmm.. more complex than good elves and bad orcs. Perhaps its hard to see from US but here in Europe its still a big deal that should be touched with respect as so many ppl died and so many lives changed during that period.. RIP
- CodeMage 16y agoI think that the author's point was something else. People expect fiction to be consistent, believable and predictable and yet they take their own history for granted. You'll hear people complain that the show X jumped the shark because of the character A or plot device B. Yet a lot of those same people don't question much of what they "know" about World War II. And a lot of those who do question it, just give up and say "Oh, well, it's history. We'll never really know, will we?"
- chipsy 16y agoThat's what I got out of it too. "Believable" or "realistic" often translates to "conventional" or "predictable." Fiction authors tend to toe the line between them very carefully; yet some of the most respected literature around tends to be based on a ridiculous or fantastic premise. Examples: Moby Dick, the Odyssey, Don Quixote, the Metamorphosis.
- brazzy 16y agoPart of that is that fiction generally gives a very immediate, close-up view of events, whereas you get history as a biased summary of a vast amount of indirect reports.
- vgurgov 16y agowell i can only agree with you. to me lessons here are quite obvious: 1) history channel is not a right pick if you want to learn some history. 2) if you take any complex story and try to make popcorn story out of it - you most likely end-up making something inconsistent/unbelievable for some curious minds(like HN readers)
- Quarrelsome 16y agoOh cmon, it has definitely been long enough to poke fun at now. The last people who fought in it are dying as we speak. The important thing is we should never forget the dead and forget Europe's folly of WW1 and WW2. Its our generation's responsibility to work together in Europe so it doesn't happen again.
- skalpelis 16y agoIt is our all generations' responsibility to work together in the whole world to prevent such atrocities happening again.
- rmc 16y agoShame we're not doing great. Just look at Rwanda. A genocide in the mid 1990s
- metamemetics 16y agoThe Second Congo War was the deadliest conflict since World War 2 and lasted until 2003.
- tomjen3 16y agoOkay there is no way to say this that is nice, but: It is Africa, and as much as it sucks for the people there, it has always been so and will properly be so long after we are gone.
- malkarouri 16y agoThere is nothing special about Africans that will make them "properly[sic?] be so long after we are gone". The same tendency for long wars is everywhere. The history of Europe in the 19th century and earlier was almost a series of continuous wars. The main difference is that the cost of war is now too high for advanced countries. Even WWI wasn't enough. People recognize it and made the League of Nations, which still wasn't enough so the lesson had to be repeated with bigger losses.
- DrJokepu 16y agoI believe you have misunderstood the article. What he was saying was that how incredible the story of the Second World War is (and while he didn't say that, I think it's safe to extrapolate and say that the whole history of the human race is generally incredibly interesting) and using that as a reference he has shown that perhaps there's nothing wrong with a bit of "unrealistic" plot in fictional stories.
- arethuza 16y agoI don't know about your definition of evil - but to me parts of the Nazi and Soviet leaderships were as close to pure evil as has ever existed.
- brazzy 16y agoAnd to lots of people in Palestine, Afghanistan and Iraq, the Israeli and American leaderships are as close to pure evil as has ever existed. "Evil" is a concept useful for propaganda and little else.
- stcredzero 16y agoOften, those who say this haven't been on the receiving end of much evil. Also, please name a government that hasn't done anything evil. There's none! Governments are dangerous things.
- brazzy 16y agoUsually, those who are most enthusiastic about dividing things into "good" and "evil" are themselves extremely evil by common standards. Case in point: the Nazis, to whom the Jews were evil incarnate, and they themselves the valiant defenders of the Aryan race. Calling an action "evil" does not explain it or help prevent it - it's usually a way to express revulsion and avoid further thinking. Calling specific people "evil" again does not explain their actions or give insights how to make them not-evil or prevent others from becoming like them. In fact, all such explanations and insights are usually strongly rejected by those who'd rather express the strongest possible revulsion for them. Finally, calling groups of people "evil" is almost always a method to dehumanize them and justify killing them, while suspending critical thought in those you want to do the killing.
- arethuza 16y agoWell said - I guess I was using "evil" as a personal shorthand for my own beliefs about certain political regimes. Certainly using a label of "evil" as a shortcut to avoid any further analysis is something to be avoided.