Posted: Oct 20, 2011 5:44 pm
jamest wrote:Tracer Tong wrote:jamest wrote:
Well, there is evidence - which as far as I know amounts to hearsay. Further, we should probably assume that the few witnesses were probably very loyal to Hitler, having being chosen to work that close to him. If this is the case, then "scholarly consensus" doesn't seem to cut it.
The scholarly consensus is that Hitler died in his bunker. I trust the scholarly consensus over your very shallow musings.
The scholarly consensus doesn't have the necessary evidence to state that Hitler actually died in Berlin. It's as simple as that. You just believe them because of who they are - not because of what they know.
I'm not even saying that I think Hitler did not die in Berlin. I'm just pointing-out that there is reason and [hence] credibility in doubting it as a fact.
How do you know that the scholars do not have the necessary evidence to state that Hitler died in Berlin? Do you really expect me to take your word for it over theirs? Of course I believe them because of who they are: since I don't know much about the topic, I accept the general opinion of the community of relevant experts. You do the same with doctors.
jamest wrote:
Why? Several prominent nazis escaped to South America. What exactly do you consider to be 'absurd'?
Several Nazis escaped to Argentina, ergo it is plausible that Hitler did also? Christ.
jamest wrote:Tracer Tong wrote:and it is not published by an academic press.
Granted, which is not to say that it is fiction. From what I can gather, one of the authors is an international journalist and the other has written more than 50 books on military history. Further, 5 years of thorough research went into writing this particular book. To brush them off as Laurel & Hardy, then, seems foolhardy.
Yet after all that research they couldn't persuade an academic press to publish their book. I expect OUP, Routledge, CUP, Blackwell, etc. just weren't "open minded" enough.
As far as the authors themselves are concerned, neither are academics. Your "military historian" has, from my brief survey of his work, not written a single academic text on history, but confined himself to short, popular narratives published by obscure, non-academic presses.
Thus, we have two non-academics, published by a non-academic press, making a prima facie ridiculous claim questioning the established scholarly orthodoxy. I know who I believe.
jamest wrote:
Within the context of this discussion, it simply means not asserting that this case is closed. Nothing more. I don't even have anything to say about the book itself, as I've not read it either. Yet.
The case is never closed in history. That doesn't mean we should entertain as credible all bullshit with which conspiracy theorists hope to make their reputation. You think you're engaged in some enlightened exploration of ideas. What you're actually doing is coming across as incredibly credulous and undiscerning.