Historical inaccuracy

[Dr Maturin]

I researched Sheridan's story in "In the Shadow of Z'ha'dum" about Winston Churchill and Coventry. Evidently, it was all one of the famous historical inaccuracies that have run rampant since World War 2. I thought it sounded like bull when I first heard it told, so I figured it was something JMS had just made up. But then I thought if he was going to make something like that up, he would have made it occur in 2050 or something. So I looked it up months back, to find it was on the books. But tonight, when it suddenly came to my mind, I researched it. As expected, it was all just history re-writing. There were literally dozens of debunkers in a quick search, but this one pretty much sums it all up in a short and sweet manner:

http://www.winstonchurchill.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=268

One hundred years from now, no doubt the books will tell the tale of how George W. Bush let al-Qaida terrorists crash planes into the World Trade towers and the Pentagon. And when he learned of it, he continued reading to children. And he allowed -- during a nationwide grounding of planes -- a plane to pick up the relatives of bin Laden who were in the country. And he did it all to have a reason to make war with countries so Haliburton could take the rebuilding contracts. Wow, was it a coincidence that he wasn't at the White House when this occured? Heh, how erroneous. If anyone in the future would believe that stuff, I surely hope the internet, in its current form or one close to it, will be there to check on how it really happened.

[Radhil]

Re: Historical inaccuracy

Originally posted by Z'ha'dumDweller
I researched Sheridan's story in "In the Shadow of Z'ha'dum" about Winston Churchill and Coventry. Evidently, it was all one of the famous historical inaccuracies that have run rampant since World War 2. I thought it sounded like bull when I first heard it told, so I figured it was something JMS had just made up. But then I thought if he was going to make something like that up, he would have made it occur in 2050 or something. So I looked it up months back, to find it was on the books. But tonight, when it suddenly came to my mind, I researched it. As expected, it was all just history re-writing. There were literally dozens of debunkers in a quick search, but this one pretty much sums it all up in a short and sweet manner:

http://www.winstonchurchill.org/i4a/...cfm?pageid=268

Hrm, interesting.

Although I'm kinda hazy on the 'tude with which the article closes - I never knew this story was used to attack Churchill's credibility or morals. Always thought it just a harsh example of the truths of war.

One hundred years from now, no doubt the books will tell the tale of how George W. Bush let al-Qaida terrorists crash planes into the World Trade towers and the Pentagon. And when he learned of it, he continued reading to children. And he allowed -- during a nationwide grounding of planes -- a plane to pick up the relatives of bin Laden who were in the country. And he did it all to have a reason to make war with countries so Haliburton could take the rebuilding contracts. Wow, was it a coincidence that he wasn't at the White House when this occured? Heh, how erroneous. If anyone in the future would believe that stuff, I surely hope the internet, in its current form or one close to it, will be there to check on how it really happened.

Point of advice: stick to your original points. Because now you're just babbling. Everything except his reasons and coincidences - which no one can really know - did happen. Assaulting a 50 year old fact is fine, but what do you know, all of us were here when this happened.

If you think it's foolish to believe in a 50 year old story about a bad time, how much more foolish is it to compare that story to present times with no basis in reality whatsoever.... OMG, Churchill was wronged!! Therefore Bush is a saint!! If you want to change someone's mind, start taking leaps of logic, not leaps of faith.

[Jan]

I researched Sheridan's story in "In the Shadow of Z'ha'dum" about Winston Churchill and Coventry. Evidently, it was all one of the famous historical inaccuracies that have run rampant since World War 2.

JMS stated in the commentary for that episode that he was aware of differing points of view of that story but that he chose the one that served *his* story.

Jan

[Dr Maturin]

<<If you want to change someone's mind, start taking leaps of logic, not leaps of faith.>>

There is logic in this pattern. The whole "Someone knew beforehand" is becoming something of an urban legend. I do know that one week before Spain was attacked that there were threats to French trains. And they did find a bomb in France after the Spanish attack. Those silly Frenchmen...appease the terrorists only to make them mad by banning religious symbols in school.

[Dr Maturin]

<<JMS stated in the commentary for that episode that he was aware of differing points of view of that story but that he chose the one that served *his* story.>>

Interesting. I must admit, I have not watched any of the B5 commentaries as of yet. But a possible idea would have been to use something fictional from, say, 2050, considering the lingering question of legitimacy regarding the Churchill story. Then again, it is always better to use real life historical figures to get a bigger impact and create a sense of reality in the story. Not to mention that it kinda sucks when "predictions" don't come true. Well, in most cases, as we didn't go through the Eugenics Wars in the 1990's.

[Radhil]

Originally posted by Z'ha'dumDweller
There is logic in this pattern. The whole "Someone knew beforehand" is becoming something of an urban legend.

Allright, that's a little more specific. I actually agree with that - it's the natural tendency of people looking for someone to blame to assume someone knew.

Whether that applies specifically and correctly to current times or not, I won't get into. Too many shades of grey that concept can be fine tuned to.

[Dr Maturin]

<<Whether that applies specifically and correctly to current times or not, I won't get into. Too many shades of grey that concept can be fine tuned to.>>

I think it's just people with boring lives and big imaginations looking for some excitement.

[Andrew_Swallow]

Churchill was innocent of Coventry but there were other times that attacks had to be allowed through because the general was not able to develop a cover story in time.

In one incident the top secret communications people came to work in metal helmets just before an air raid. Questions were asked.

[Radhil]

Originally posted by Z'ha'dumDweller
I think it's just people with boring lives and big imaginations looking for some excitement.

Right. Because exploding skyscrapers and constant war isn't exciting enough.

[Joe Nazzaro]

I know this is splitting hairs a bit, but as I recall, it's actually Sheridan who relates the story to Zack, not Joe Straczynski. That doesn't necessarily absolve JMS from doing the research, but this is something that Sheridan is retelling some years into our future, under enormous emotional pressure. The same way that Dr. Franklin talks about the causes for the Black Death centuries earlier, in 'Confessions and Lamentations.' As I said, it doesn't excuse JMS, but he's always struck me as a well-read guy who generally does his homework. And as that old cliche goes, history is always told by the victors, or something along those lines.

[grumbler]

Two points: first of all, the story is in doubt. The last person to publish (after the others are dead) cannot be presumed to be more accurate simply because he is longer-lived!

Second, the conflicting stories come from personal experience, and so we do not know whose memory is better or who is polishing his own trumpet. Frankly, most of those who were "eyewitnesses" to Churchill not knowing were not nearly as well-connected with the sources of the information as those who claim he did know.

JMS had it exactly correct: the story is in doubt, and he is entitled as a writer of fiction to use the version of events that best suits his story. There is no amount of research that would "resolve" this story, because people like Stephenson maintained their side of the story even when people like Martin contested it. So, we are left with "eyewitnesses" who disagree, and only someone who was there (and the author of that piece was not will ever know the truth. Such is much of history. It is certain that much of what we "know" just wasn't so.

[Dr Maturin]

<<I know this is splitting hairs a bit, but as I recall, it's actually Sheridan who relates the story to Zack, not Joe Straczynski.>>

Well, the point of this exercise was not to accuse and point fingers. It was just something I'd watched and thought sounded a bit odd, so I looked it up. I do that a lot with TV shows. I'm not trying to question JMS' artistic integrity or anything. And yes, you are right, it IS likely that by 2269 stuff like Coventry will be believed by most people, including high-ranking military officers. It's a damn cool analogy to the whole dilemma in "ITSOZ."

[Dr Maturin]

<<Right. Because exploding skyscrapers and constant war isn't exciting enough.>>

Well, the latter is expected. At any given time in modern human history, I don't think there has ever been a point without war. Constant, as you say.

As for the former, our minds don't like mysteries left unanswered, and the more imaginitive of us will come up with all kinds of stories to fill the "Why?" of things like Pearl Harbor, 9/11, Oklahoma City and other atrocities. That's why a lot of men are sentenced to life in prison without any hard evidence. We need an answer to the mystery.

[Radhil]

Originally posted by Z'ha'dumDweller
Well, the latter is expected. At any given time in modern human history, I don't think there has ever been a point without war. Constant, as you say.

To be expected, yeah, I'll have to admit that. Hardly something to be tolerated or allowed though.

As for the former, our minds don't like mysteries left unanswered, and the more imaginitive of us will come up with all kinds of stories to fill the "Why?" of things like Pearl Harbor, 9/11, Oklahoma City and other atrocities. That's why a lot of men are sentenced to life in prison without any hard evidence. We need an answer to the mystery.

Well, here's one mystery I've got that I can't quite pin down - you. You start off with this odd broadside on how everyone will believe these wild stories - about things that are true. You follow up with a tangent on the French that seems to have nothing to do with anything. You continue with a seemingly snide comment about excitement when I try to drop the matter. Now history lessons - on atrocities that history usually doesn't seem all that mysterious on - I can recall few wild stories about either Pearl Harbor or Oklahoma offhand, only the grief of them. I can't tell whether you're trying to honestly argue, trying to annoyingly provoke, or are now just batting the ball in random directions to see which way I'll leap.

I get the feel you wanted to make some point on recent events. Otherwise your first post wouldn't have gone so bizarrely political. I suggest if you want to make some point or paint some view of recent events, you should actually discuss something that's recent.

So if you could, I'd like that mystery cleared up a bit, please. If there's a point to all you've posted thus far, go ahead and make it, and use something preferably within the last year to back it up. If not, I'll just leave this all be.

[Dr Maturin]

<<To be expected, yeah, I'll have to admit that. Hardly something to be tolerated or allowed though.>>

And if there were a wand to be waved and end it all, who wouldn't use it?

<<Well, here's one mystery I've got that I can't quite pin down - you. You start off with this odd broadside on how everyone will believe these wild stories - about things that are true. You follow up with a tangent on the French that seems to have nothing to do with anything.>>

The French point was that the threats to their trains were probably a swerve by the terrorists, as they hit France's neighbor. The rest of the comments on France was just a little something extra. A versatile man I am.

<<You continue with a seemingly snide comment about excitement when I try to drop the matter.>>

My, Radhil, what wisdom you have to spot snide comments from reading words on an electronic message board. I didn't mean to be snide in any way. It's what I've always said. I called into my local conspiracy theory shock jock in town and told him the same thing. He didn't like it, but he said it was an interesting theory (this coming from a guy who believes the 9/11 plans were remote-controlled). No, snideness was neither intended nor achieved. I am sorry you read it that way.

<<Now history lessons - on atrocities that history usually doesn't seem all that mysterious on - I can recall few wild stories about either Pearl Harbor or Oklahoma offhand, only the grief of them.>>

I have heard that the US knew about the PH attack beforehand. I have heard many, many stories about Oklahoma. There are books written on everything -- by both qualified and unqualified authors, meaning ones involved in the investigations and ones not -- that come up with some wild, wacky stories. How much of it all is true, I don't know. One small example is one of the guys investigating the OK bombing said several witnesses saw a car with three Middle-Eastern men speeding away a few minutes before the explosion. Stuff like that. Did they do it? Or did some anti-social lunatic do it? I don't know, but someone thinks it may have been one and others may think it was the other. It's a mystery, and people want to explain it somehow. Maybe one person thought they saw the Middle-Eastern men, due to some subconcious stereotypes within their mind, and others agreed, because sometimes people will agree when you ask them something because it fills in an empty spot in their mind. I wonder if the author of that book reveals how many people DID NOT see the men speeding away?

<<I can't tell whether you're trying to honestly argue, trying to annoyingly provoke, or are now just batting the ball in random directions to see which way I'll leap.>>

Heh, well, Radhil, I am not batting the ball for anyone, and for you to presume I am doing all of this to personally peeve you, then you are mistaken. I am not arguing. Heck, this isn't even a debate. I am just talking here about what I think is an interesting subject. Everything I say you act confrontational to, man. Lighten up, junior.