Quote Originally Posted by Grace View Post
I don’t argue with the historical facts – I argue with her comparing Obama with the leaders of the Third Reich.
You may not argue with historical facts -- but most historians do!

"Facts" -- as it used is a slippery word. The Allies won WWII. That is a fact. We know because there are documents with that and signatures, etc.

But HOW they won the war? That all becomes interpretation and analysis. One historian may consider a certain battle the "key" another a different battle.

I am a volunteer at a local historical site. We frequently have historian come in and speak to us. No two have the same story. And - if you have a Native American historian and a historian whose focus is the European view -- Look out! Sparks are going to fly. Last week it was historians from two branches of the local tribe -- even they don't agree.

I once visited a WWII museum in Normandy. I will never forget one line from the film they showed - About the "surprisingly audacious Yanks" who sort of popped in at the end and helped out a bit.

There is an expression that "history is written by the side that won the war." That is why the name "Civil War" is more common than "War of Northern Aggression."

So to suggest that someone's interpretation or analysis of historical events is a valid predictor of future events is to confuse cause with effect. The effect is the fact...the cause is opinion. If that was not true -- there would only be one book on history.

p.s. I so often hear people compare Obama to Hitler based on his oratory skills and his desire to change how our government works. Great communicator who wants to change government -- doesn't that describe Reagan? Yet, I never hear him compared to Hitler.