Should historians use propaganda as a means to study history?
How can we trust the propaganda being pushed in the media today if it's misconstrued to serve an agenda?
Video related: youtube.com
In history, we can observe the misinformation yellow journalist would push as a means of propaganda. We can clearly observe this today. How can we make sure we don't repeat the same mistakes today? Why do historians use propaganda to justify the means of pushing the agenda?
Pic unrelated.
Other urls found in this thread:
Was Goebbels a propaganda?
All primary sources are useful, user. Part of studying history properly is recognising sources have bias and accounting for it.
For example if you are studying Nazi Germany it is best to remember that Josef Goebbels was literally propaganda minster for Nazi Germany and to appropriately interpret anything he says with that bias in mind.
Yes, any form of media is a form of propaganda and Goebbels was the propaganda minister. He differentiates different forms of propaganda in the video posted in the OP.
What makes Goebbel's propaganda invalid and other propaganda that opposed his propaganda valid?
Your question doesn't remotely resemble what I just said.
Let me rephrase it. What makes propaganda from the nation you reside in unbiased when interpreting history?
Yes. But not in an apologetic way like you obviously want to.
That doesn't remotely resemble what I said either.
>implying it has to
The thread is about propaganda and history. Don't derail this thread.
I'm not, I specifically said all sources have bias and you should take that into account when studying history and I also said all sources are useful.
I said absolutely nothing along the lines of "propaganda from the nation you reside in is unbiased when interpreting history" or "Goebbel's propaganda is invalid and other propaganda that opposed his propaganda valid".
So don't accuse me of shitposting or derailing the thread, Mr Strawman Shitposter Extraordinaire.
>all sources have bias and you should take that into account when studying history and I also said all sources are useful.
Except that's not the case. Is this how history is taught in public schools and documentaries shown on the history channel?
>implying my responses had nothing to do with your shitposting
>Except that's not the case. Is this how history is taught in public schools and documentaries shown on the history channel?
I'm not sure what your school system us like, I was studying sources at around 13 or 14. Isn't the History Channel that channel with Ancient Aliens stuff on it? This sounds like your fourth enormous strawman in a row.
>history channel in the 90s was the same as it is now
You are completely wrong, sorry. History taught in schools and documentaries is a simplified version of history written by the academics.
>academics do not only interpret a bias view of history to push an agenda as a means of propaganda
I have no idea, friendo, I have a BA in History and have never watched the History Channel and would not take some vague assertion about the History Channel as an argument about anything ever.
Fifth enormous strawman in a row.
Why are poltards so retarded?
There is always some kind of bias. It's impossible to write a work on the Third Reich without a bias. Most of us consider things like mass murder to be pretty evil. You can't be completely neutral, because even legal terms such as "crimes against humanity" are obviously not neutral.
>academia historians do not produce history documentaries
Not an argument
Seventh, you have some sheer balls on you by the way telling that other user what is "not an argument" given the posts you are making.
>retarded neo-Nazis post crap from sensationalist press all the time
>they accuse historians of doing the same even if it's not true
>le neo-nazi
when will this meme end? Name calling is not an argument.
It was always pleb tier, easily digestible American shit with dynamic music and unnecessary drama. Generally watching docus instead of reading book is for brainlets.
Can mods actually do something for a change? I'm tired of stormweenies constantly coming here and clogging up the catalog.
Oh look, leftypol has arrived to pretend like they're bothered by this.
>le Judeo declares war on Germany xd
>6 million before the holocaust meme
Only retarded neo-nazis post this shit.
You can use propaganda as a source retard, just remember that it is propaganda and use it appropriately with that in mind. Put simply look for the least biased sources and diversify your sources to help account for bias. If you are researching WW2 battles on the eastern front look at German, Soviet, and outside sources, consider propaganda to be generally unreliable.
>. If you are researching WW2 battles on the eastern front look at German, Soviet, and outside sources, consider propaganda to be generally unreliable.
Incredibly so much this. So many idiots still believe the Polaks charged the tanks at Krojanty because of German propaganda.
To clarify, the tanks only came after the battle of Krojanty. Journalists of course didn't know this and went haywire with the story
>derailing this thread about the six gojillian
Ah, how typical. Never forget goyim.
>watching a documentary about WW2
>poor primitive Poles charged at super advanced German tanks
>close the tab, delete Youtube from my hard drive
It's more common than people think.
Do they actually say advanced Jerry tanks? I'm fairly confident the Pz.I and II were literally babby mode.
Propoganda gives us perspective. Greek propoganda isn't a reliable source for the what the Persians were like, but it does give us an idea of what the Greeks thought about the Persians. Context helps to understand why and how things happened the way they did.
Pretty sure OP just wants to justify his beliefs by unconditionally accepting Goebbels propaganda as truth.
This thread is trash like every other thread made by poltards.
>implying they aren't all made by poltards
We've become another /pol/ vassal state. It's sad.
Keep dreaming potard. You're an annoying pest here and not much more.
I came here to escape what pol had become...
>mfw its happening again
Nah, everyone here constantly shits on Germans and /pol/'s narrative/
/pol/ shits on Germans
He didn't' even imply that you special snowflake fucking fascist.
Modern Germans. They still masturbate to the second and third reich and constantly talk about how if Hitler only did X than Germany would have won WW2 and the Nazi government was a perfect utopia.
2nd Reich did literally nothing wrong.
>implying it wasn't
It's unbiased when it suits your agenda.
Germany lost WW2 in 1939 they had literally zero chance to win unless the allies outright let them win.
It isn't unbiased, that is the very definition of propaganda.
I agree, they did deserve to lose WW1.