The climate grift #358

[Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult]

History.

And history is a tricky one. The rigour is there but a fair amount of excellent works of history either come from outside academia or are denounced within it.

And I specifically said that scientific research does carry more rigour. Even within universities.

But often that rigour requires external input-Royal Socities, professional bodies etc etc.

Again, I am not questioning any research. I am merely challenging how universities operate. And don't make the mistake of thinking it is only former polys and the lower end of the sector that are hit with this. It is across the board.

Apart from Oxford and Cambridge, because of the GIGANTIC external funding they receive, mostly from us.

Oh, good man, P. Good man. Any specific areas? What bits did you really get into so I know I can ask you about? What was your dissertation on? {Mine was causes of WW2 - while most people think it was Versailles, or the Wall St Crash, or Appeasement, or some combination of all three, I believe the war was caused by the abnormality of Hitler's long term plans. Totally changed my opinion of Chamberlain. Without the benefit of hindsight, I personally would have taken every single decision Nev did in the lead up to the war. Though the other half of my 3rd year was imperial history and I'm rather into that as well. Especially British, the economic side, and of course India.}

Historians can be denounced in academia as well as outside. For example, the great AJP Taylor wrote a book on the causes of WW2 where he was trying to be too clever by half and overdid it. He later said it "wasn't one of my better works." But one small book I had to read for my dissertation was a collection of essays by different expert academic historians on specific parts of that AJPT book, ripping each section to shreds.

As I said, there has been *******s with the Passchedale casualty figures with people exaggerating on both the pro- and anti-Haig sides but subsequent historians have been able to go through their calculations and point out the {probably deliberate} errors, so we've got there in the end.

Likewise the Fisher thesis - he was the first person to be given full access to the Imperial German archives for WW1 - on the similarity of German war aims in both WWs - started in the '60s and gradually became the accepted historical consensus over the next 50 years.

Or in WW2, the concept of Hitler having a "Stufenplan" - a step by step plan for global domination - has again slowly become the consensus.

{Btw, did you know that Hitler's ideal aim - as expressed in the unpublished sequel to Mein Kampf - was, once he'd taken over Europe and then beaten Russia, for his German Empire and the British Empire to fight a war together against the Septics and beat them and then rule the world together, British and Nazi empires?}

Was there any specific areas you studied that led you to say that there's a real lack of rigour in academia?

I know the woke cancel culture bollox has affected all unis, not just former polys. But actual degrees in grievance studies subjects seem to be offered by the less good unis. Do you remember when 3 people submitted papers on these subjects to peer review journals just writing drivel, in one case taking stuff from Mein Kampf, and they all got published?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grievance_studies_affair

Some {at least} of the Russel Group are up there with Oxbridge. When I was at the LSE, it was top 5 globally with those two, Harvard and Yale. Imperial's now overtaken Cambridge, I believe. And UCL's always been decent.

A fellow historian. Well chuffed.

I guess that's why I believe the climate stuff. Cos in the last 35 years since I started taking an interest, I've watched it being debated and seen it become the consensus in the way the Fischer thesis did before my time - my course tutor is one of the experts and organised the 50th anniversary conference in 2011 by when it had become the accepted consensus - or the Stufenplan thesis has become accepted, starting in the 70s, but going from one of the theories to accepted consensus during and after my dissertation around 2012.

[Peter]

Oh, good man, P. Good man. Any specific areas? What bits did you really get into so I know I can ask you about? What was your dissertation on? {Mine was causes of WW2 - while most people think it was Versailles, or the Wall St Crash, or Appeasement, or some combination of all three, I believe the war was caused by the abnormality of Hitler's long term plans. Totally changed my opinion of Chamberlain. Without the benefit of hindsight, I personally would have taken every single decision Nev did in the lead up to the war. Though the other half of my 3rd year was imperial history and I'm rather into that as well. Especially British, the economic side, and of course India.}

Historians can be denounced in academia as well as outside. For example, the great AJP Taylor wrote a book on the causes of WW2 where he was trying to be too clever by half and overdid it. He later said it "wasn't one of my better works." But one small book I had to read for my dissertation was a collection of essays by different expert academic historians on specific parts of that AJPT book, ripping each section to shreds.

As I said, there has been *******s with the Passchedale casualty figures with people exaggerating on both the pro- and anti-Haig sides but subsequent historians have been able to go through their calculations and point out the {probably deliberate} errors, so we've got there in the end.

Likewise the Fisher thesis - he was the first person to be given full access to the Imperial German archives for WW1 - on the similarity of German war aims in both WWs - started in the '60s and gradually became the accepted historical consensus over the next 50 years.

Or in WW2, the concept of Hitler having a "Stufenplan" - a step by step plan for global domination - has again slowly become the consensus.

{Btw, did you know that Hitler's ideal aim - as expressed in the unpublished sequel to Mein Kampf - was, once he'd taken over Europe and then beaten Russia, for his German Empire and the British Empire to fight a war together against the Septics and beat them and then rule the world together, British and Nazi empires?}

Was there any specific areas you studied that led you to say that there's a real lack of rigour in academia?

I know the woke cancel culture bollox has affected all unis, not just former polys. But actual degrees in grievance studies subjects seem to be offered by the less good unis. Do you remember when 3 people submitted papers on these subjects to peer review journals just writing drivel, in one case taking stuff from Mein Kampf, and they all got published?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grievance_studies_affair

Some {at least} of the Russel Group are up there with Oxbridge. When I was at the LSE, it was top 5 globally with those two, Harvard and Yale. Imperial's now overtaken Cambridge, I believe. And UCL's always been decent.

A fellow historian. Well chuffed.

I guess that's why I believe the climate stuff. Cos in the last 35 years since I started taking an interest, I've watched it being debated and seen it become the consensus in the way the Fischer thesis did before my time - my course tutor is one of the experts and organised the 50th anniversary conference in 2011 by when it had become the accepted consensus - or the Stufenplan thesis has become accepted, starting in the 70s, but going from one of the theories to accepted consensus during and after my dissertation around 2012.

We could argue forever about Taylor's Origins of the Second World War. Too clever, yes. But to my mind one of the most important works of history of the last century and one of the best i have ever read.

I also read the book you mention that dissected it. Even those (mostly American) historians admitted it was quite startling how much he got right without access to key archives.

Fascinating subject, but a far longer conversation....

Gradually my attention turned to the things that nobody wanted to talk about. Devolution in the 70s I had always been fascinated by. And while your imperial fascination focused on India, mine turned towards Ireland. I retain it to this day.

More recently I've turned to America and two key wars- the civil war, and Vietnam.

But my comments on academia come not from my studies but from a long career working in the sector. Universities are great at research in history and the arts. Genuine scientific research requires more time, more resource and more depth than Universities can provide on their own.

The lack of rigour I speak of comes from two things- the modern urge to suppress discussion on certain subjects abd to refine the parameters on others. And ego.....

[Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult]

We could argue forever about Taylor's Origins of the Second World War. Too clever, yes. But to my mind one of the most important works of history of the last century and one of the best i have ever read.

I also read the book you mention that dissected it. Even those (mostly American) historians admitted it was quite startling how much he got right without access to key archives.

Fascinating subject, but a far longer conversation....

Gradually my attention turned to the things that nobody wanted to talk about. Devolution in the 70s I had always been fascinated by. And while your imperial fascination focused on India, mine turned towards Ireland. I retain it to this day.

More recently I've turned to America and two key wars- the civil war, and Vietnam.

But my comments on academia come not from my studies but from a long career working in the sector. Universities are great at research in history and the arts. Genuine scientific research requires more time, more resource and more depth than Universities can provide on their own.

The lack of rigour I speak of comes from two things- the modern urge to suppress discussion on certain subjects abd to refine the parameters on others. And ego.....

Totally agree with that last point. People suppressing stuff is the total antithesis of what uni is meant to be about. I think everything should be up for discussion.

The way I look at it is that I'm happy to debate* any issue I've studied in detail with anyone. One of three things will {or should} happen. Either I'll win the argument and will hopefully teach them something while feeling clever myself. Or they'll show me I was wrong and I'll change my mind.** When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir? Or we'll both learn from each other and work out a new consensus between us. {As a really bland example, one of my crusty mates is also into mil-hist. And while I know more about WW1 and the British Indian army in general than he does, he knows more about WW2 and US mil-hist than I do. We were discussing VCs vs Purple Hearts and which was the harder to win. He thought PHs and I thought VCs cos I thought 1 in 4 were awarded posthumously. We looked into it and more VCs were awarded posthumously than PHs but the figure for VCs was 1 in 6. So now we both know the real truth.}

* Speaking of debating, I was chairman of the LSE debating Union. In my first year, this MA law student came over and was immediately made president because he'd been the best individual speaker at the world championships, though his team didn't win. {Back then, there were two main competitions - the World Championships and the Observer Mace.} So I was trained to debate by him. Googled him last year and he's one of Ireland's top human rights lawyers and has won shedloads of awards.

** There have been several times when reading/learning something has made me do a 180 degree u-turn on what I believed. I'd always thought like Blackadder IV about Haig in WW1 - that he was a donkey butcher. Then I read Gary Sheffield's Forgotten Victory and I now think he was a hero who was hugely under-rated as one of our greatest ever generals. Sheffield goes on about the ridiculously steep learning curve of the war and how he negotiated it better than any other general. And all my MA studies have confirmed this. By beliefs on GB's role in slavery and the slave trade changed totally after reading David Eltis, and learning that the anti-slavery campaign in the 1820s, especially by non-conformists, where people stopped buying slave sugar was not on the first fair trade movement, but the first example of a humanitarian campaign in human history. And my beliefs on the economics of the British empire changed totally after reading Gentlemanly Capitalism by Cain and Hopkins.

But the thing about AJPT's book is that he ignores vital stuff that would go against his thesis such as the importance of the Hossbach Memorandum. As Hugh Trevor-Roper said:

"I have said enough to show why I think Mr. Taylor's book utterly erroneous. In spite of his statements about 'historical discipline,' he selects, suppresses, and arranges evidence on no principle other than the needs of his thesis; and that thesis, that Hitler was a traditional statesman, of limited aims, merely responding to a given situation, rests on no evidence at all, ignores essential evidence, and is, in my opinion, demonstrably false. This casuistical defence of Hitler's foreign policy will not only do harm by supporting neo-Nazi mythology: it will also do harm, perhaps irreparable harm, to Mr. Taylor's reputation as a serious historian."

Have you read Hildebrand and Hillgruber's works on the Stufenplan? That's basically where I'm coming from on all this.

I'm not really interested in American history but glad you're enjoying it. Would like to know more about Ireland though. It's just they don't have as good religions or cricketers as the Indians {who have us 6 down at lunch.}

What work were you doing in the academic sector, btw?

Oh, and on the causes of WW2, did you read Noakes and Pridham with their collection of every single German primary source? I think it was volume 3 I had to read for my dissertation on the causes of WW2, the period 1937-41.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Nazism-1919...-8853929?psc=1

When you've read every single Nazi primary source from the period, you do end up with a vague idea what was going on. Or at least it allows you to better analyse the secondary sources from other historians.

But wow. 25 years later I find there's another historian on Awimb. Spent all that time chatting about food when the Tory Twins were both here every day, yet never realised there was someone else who actually gets history.

[Peter]

Totally agree with that last point. People suppressing stuff is the total antithesis of what uni is meant to be about. I think everything should be up for discussion.

The way I look at it is that I'm happy to debate* any issue I've studied in detail with anyone. One of three things will {or should} happen. Either I'll win the argument and will hopefully teach them something while feeling clever myself. Or they'll show me I was wrong and I'll change my mind.** When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir? Or we'll both learn from each other and work out a new consensus between us. {As a really bland example, one of my crusty mates is also into mil-hist. And while I know more about WW1 and the British Indian army in general than he does, he knows more about WW2 and US mil-hist than I do. We were discussing VCs vs Purple Hearts and which was the harder to win. He thought PHs and I thought VCs cos I thought 1 in 4 were awarded posthumously. We looked into it and more VCs were awarded posthumously than PHs but the figure for VCs was 1 in 6. So now we both know the real truth.}

* Speaking of debating, I was chairman of the LSE debating Union. In my first year, this MA law student came over and was immediately made president because he'd been the best individual speaker at the world championships, though his team didn't win. {Back then, there were two main competitions - the World Championships and the Observer Mace.} So I was trained to debate by him. Googled him last year and he's one of Ireland's top human rights lawyers and has won shedloads of awards.

** There have been several times when reading/learning something has made me do a 180 degree u-turn on what I believed. I'd always thought like Blackadder IV about Haig in WW1 - that he was a donkey butcher. Then I read Gary Sheffield's Forgotten Victory and I now think he was a hero who was hugely under-rated as one of our greatest ever generals. Sheffield goes on about the ridiculously steep learning curve of the war and how he negotiated it better than any other general. And all my MA studies have confirmed this. By beliefs on GB's role in slavery and the slave trade changed totally after reading David Eltis, and learning that the anti-slavery campaign in the 1820s, especially by non-conformists, where people stopped buying slave sugar was not on the first fair trade movement, but the first example of a humanitarian campaign in human history. And my beliefs on the economics of the British empire changed totally after reading Gentlemanly Capitalism by Cain and Hopkins.

But the thing about AJPT's book is that he ignores vital stuff that would go against his thesis such as the importance of the Hossbach Memorandum. As Hugh Trevor-Roper said:

"I have said enough to show why I think Mr. Taylor's book utterly erroneous. In spite of his statements about 'historical discipline,' he selects, suppresses, and arranges evidence on no principle other than the needs of his thesis; and that thesis, that Hitler was a traditional statesman, of limited aims, merely responding to a given situation, rests on no evidence at all, ignores essential evidence, and is, in my opinion, demonstrably false. This casuistical defence of Hitler's foreign policy will not only do harm by supporting neo-Nazi mythology: it will also do harm, perhaps irreparable harm, to Mr. Taylor's reputation as a serious historian."

Have you read Hildebrand and Hillgruber's works on the Stufenplan? That's basically where I'm coming from on all this.

I'm not really interested in American history but glad you're enjoying it. Would like to know more about Ireland though. It's just they don't have as good religions or cricketers as the Indians {who have us 6 down at lunch.}

What work were you doing in the academic sector, btw?

Oh, and on the causes of WW2, did you read Noakes and Pridham with their collection of every single German primary source? I think it was volume 3 I had to read for my dissertation on the causes of WW2, the period 1937-41.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Nazism-1919...-8853929?psc=1

When you've read every single Nazi primary source from the period, you do end up with a vague idea what was going on. Or at least it allows you to better analyse the secondary sources from other historians.

But wow. 25 years later I find there's another historian on Awimb. Spent all that time chatting about food when the Tory Twins were both here every day, yet never realised there was someone else who actually gets history.

Trevor-Roper is a classic example of ego. To present Taylor's work as a defence of Hitler's foreign policy is nonsensical. There was a huge lack of respect between the two of them that is characteristic of theajority senior, research-active academics. It is a problem across the board.

And to note, Taylor's response was that misquoting, or selectively quoting his work would do harm to Trevor-Roper's reputation as a serious historian- if he had one

The point isn't that Taylor was right. It is that he blew the debate open from the narrow confines of one evil man who ruined the world. And his book is still essential in understanding the subject.

I am afraid I am partial the people we now refer to as disruptors

I'll give you another example, one I'm sure you ar e familiar with. George Dangerfield's Strange Death of Liberal England. Roundly derided as utter nonsense but still a crucial source in studying pre WW1 Britain. And an astonishing read. I love that book

I can't talk publicly about the work I do but it isn't teaching or research.