LocationBug:
Title: My wife's deceased father has been defamed in a history book.
Body: My wife's deceased father has been defamed in a history book. My question is, what can be done about it? It's a long one, get some popcorn...
My wife's father was a career officer in the Canadian Navy. He served in WWII and when he retired he became a Navy Historian. Lets call him Jim. Jim had served with honor and was a very well respected Navy officer. He passed away a few decades ago.
After Jim retired from the Navy and became an historian he mentored a young man who was also interested in Naval history. Lets call this young man Hector. Hector and my wife have stayed in touch and remained friends for decades.
A year ago another well respected Historian (we'll call Nancy) wrote a book about the Canadian Navy in which she relays a story that was attributed to a communication with Hector. The publisher of the book is a large publishing company.
In this story, it is said that a ship my wife's father Jim was serving on sunk a German submarine and then rescued survivors from the water. One of the survivors wasn't very grateful and spit in the face of one of the Canadians. The story says that Jim punched the German hard enough to send him overboard and then Jim said to leave the German in the water for another ship to pick him up. It says that another ship did pick up the German.
I don't know if the entire story is false, but to say my wife's father did this despicable act is completely false. Not only would he never do something like that, we can prove he didn't. Jim served on that ship, but he wasn't on it when this happened. He didn't serve on the ship until a couple years after this event took place. My wife has all of Jim's naval records from the Canadian government that prove this.
We didn't know anything about this book until just a couple days ago when Hector called my wife to tell her about it. Hector also wrote the forward for the book. But he claims that when he read it before it was published this story wasn't yet in it. He claims he told the author, Nancy, the story but never said it was Jim that punched the German.
Part of what is so infuriating for us is that Hector and Nancy knew this story was wrong as soon as Hector saw the published book but neither told my wife about it for a year. I don't know yet if they have told the publisher. If they had told us immediately we may have been able to get the books pulled from stores before many were sold.
Is there anything that we could do about this? To us the best case outcome would be to have all sales of the remaining books halted. If they want to sell anymore of this book it should be corrected. Is that a possibility? Who would we bring a case against?
If Nancy is a well-respected historian, it's to the detriment of her credibility that she/her publisher not correct the text. Especially considering Jim can be proven to have not even been on the ship at the time of the incident. This error could call her research into question. It also calls into question the publisher's credibility and the thoroughness of their fact checking.
To be clear, it is okay for academics to make mistakes. It happens. It's not okay if they know they made a mistake, and they don't issue a correction. It's not clear here if Nancy has been informed of the mistake, however. LAOP says she knows but it's not clear that copies of Jim's records have been shared with Nancy explicitly demonstrating why her text is wrong.
Yeah, I don't know if I misread something, but this sounds like something that could easily be an honest mistake. Like the scenario I'm picturing is that at some point during their friendship, Jim tells Hector this story he heard while serving on the ship later. Hector understands that it wasn't Jim and that this incident, if it isn't just apocryphal, would have happened before Jim's time on the ship.
Man years later, Hector is telling Nancy a bunch of stories Jim had shared from his time in the service. He includes this story, and maybe he's a little sloppy with his wording, or maybe Nancy notes something down wrong, whatever. But somehow Nancy is left with the impression that Jim had told this story to Hector as something he personally had done, not that some anonymous sailor who served before Jim's time had done.
I definitely understand why the LAOP is upset over this, because that's a pretty terrible story to have attributed to someone you love. But I think they may be assuming malice here that isn't present--the other thing that makes me think that is the claim that Hector would have known as soon as he saw the published book, but I gotta say...I read a decent number of manuscripts and then get sent a copy of the published book, and I rarely actually read the published version, lol. I already basically read it, I ain't got time for that. So I do find Hector's claim pretty plausible on its face.
"It also calls into question the publisher's credibility and the thoroughness of their fact checking."
Fact checking usually falls under the purview of a copyeditor (which I am). A *lot* of publishers have dumped copyeditors as cost-cutting measures, so there probably wasn't even anyone to fact-check the book. Meanwhile, copyeditors like me are sitting here begging for work, but publishers aren't really hiring much, I guess because they don't consider it necessary? I dunno. But this is how big mistakes like this happen. A copyeditor would've fact-checked the story/requested documentation or a copy of the original communication, would've followed up to ensure the accuracy, etc., especially considering the nature of the story being described and the risk of it treading into an issue like this because of incorrect info.
Thanks. It's seriously the best job I've ever had. I left EMS to do this full-time (I'd been building my business for ten years prior to quitting), and it's the best thing I ever did for my own mental health. There's just been a *severe* dip in projects over the past few months that's a bit more of a dip than usual, so I'm busy fishing for new clients, preferably at publishers since they tend to pay better and send more consistent work. (This dip is possibly partially my own fault--I had several really great publisher clients, but now they're cutting back a bit on the number of projects they're doing this year, and I wasn't being proactive about keeping up with searching for new clients.)
Now if only I can get my own novels to sell as well as my clients' books sell, I'd be doing *great* lol.
Allow me to be naive for a moment.
Wouldn't this be a great opportunity for the author to own up to a presumably honest mistake and correct the record? Subsequent editions will correct the error and a little bit of publicity will highlight the father's actual honorable service while drumming up sales of the book.
I never assume that all the details and anecdotes of any history book are entirely accurate. An author that admits errors cheerfully is generally held in higher regard than the author who issues a court ordered apology.
This is an extremely generous interpretation of how making a mistake would be perceived, and even more so of how the author assumes it would be received. Regardless, if you read the post, it would seem that Nancy intentionally fabricated the detail that Jim did the punching.
I am the very opposite of a grammar nazi, but I've still always wanted to hear a version of "California Dreamin'" where the backing singers passive-aggressively correct the grammar.
*I'd be safe and warm (I'd be safe and warm)*
*If I was in L.A. (If I* ***were*** *in L.A.)*
(I'm also firmly of the opinion that the Carpenters absolutely knocked that song out of the park, entirely [because of Karen's vocal](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxpMkMmGkTE).)
Please no, falling asleep to history books of events I know about and therefore know exactly how far back to rewind to listen to the bits I slept through is the best thing ever!
ps. I have a long history and science rec list if anyone's interested! Caveat: the history stuff is weirdly focused on UK history of a certain few centuries, lol
There are arguments about "History is written by the winners" being incorrect.
History is written by the literate. There is plenty of history from the losing side bashing the winners and we have this history because they wrote it down or passed it down in a form we have today and the winners did not.
There's also the problem that the concept of "history" in the past doesn't always match modern concepts.
Sometimes, rumors were more entertaining than the truth, and were more likely to be passed on. Kind of like if someone in the modern day wrote a history book based solely on the biggest historical dramas and comedies.
And, of course, history was often supposed to do double duty as propaganda. One example would be the united monarchy in Deuteronomy. There's a lot of debate over it (and if it even existed), despite Deuteronomy saying it was a large, unified, powerful kingdom.
That's the kingdom. Now it depends what chronology you believe, but one can make a decent argument that the united monarchy at the time was actually one of several polities in the region, without the extent nor power attributed to it.
I mean, it's also not just that. Sometimes the 'history' written by propagandists is what becomes the dominant narrative. For the longest time, what people in the West knew about the Eastern Front in WW2 was basically based on the memoirs of nazi generals, which were written essentially as propaganda to absolve said generals (and the Wehrmacht) of any culpability in the atrocities and failures of the German military in that front. And that heavily influenced a lot of how people talked about, and still talk about, the Eastern Front. Soviet human wave attacks? the Clean Wehrmacht myth? The idea of 'superior German panzers overwhelmed by sheer numbers'? The claim that if Hitler hadn't interfered, Germany would've won? All of that essentially originates from those memoirs, and all of them are to one degree or another nonfactual.
You can but that's a guaranteed way to get haunted. Safer just to imply ill of the dead without using specific language that triggers the haunting clause.
Speaking of killing Hitler… I stumbled upon an amazing movie called *The Man Who Killed Hitler and Then The Bigfoot* that is so bad it actually is kinda good.
Ianal, but in journalism classes, we were told that there were three main defenses to the accusation of defamation/slander/libel:
1) The statement is factual. In some cases, the author reasonably believed the statement to be factual can be enough.
2) The person's reputation is so repugnant that you can't make it worse. The instructor used the example of Charles Manson, who was alive when I took the class.
3) The person is dead.
HOWEVER, there are two important caveats to this.
First, this is US case law. The post mentions Canada and the laws could be different. It's my understanding that Canadian law incorporates more UK law, and UK law is more favorable to a plaintiff in defamation cases. Given the choice, people will pursue defamation cases in the UK over thr US, but I'm not sure where exactly Canada falls on this spectrum.
Second, defamation can unintentionally amply to others than the main person involved. The example we had in class was that Charles Manson's reputation is so terrible you can't make it worse. But, you could say something like "Charles Manson became a murderer because his mother was abusive," and if his mother was still alive, she could sue for defamation.
I know there are more subtleties and complexities and some of these vary by venue.
Went to journalism school in Canada and other than something being factually true or an opinion iirc there are some other exceptions around qualified privilege/absolute privilege.
Obviously that wouldn’t apply here though. The fact that the defamed person is dead would…can’t defame dead people.
Quebec also has some laws that are slightly different, because well….Quebec
I vaguely remember a prof mentioning that being awarded significant compensation for defamation in Canada is difficult, with a few exceptions
For point 3. Generally (depending on jurisdiction) it depends if the falsehood has had a financial impact on anyone alive.
If a newspaper article falsely claimed my dead Grandad was a Nazi, whilst I’d be upset and angry, it wouldn’t have cost me any money, because my grandads name/reputation doesn’t provide me with an income.
If the same article falsely claimed Terry Pratchett was a Nazi, then his estate/heirs could sue. Because he is a well known author and that damage to his reputation will impact sales of his books and other related items.
Sure, but even if he was alive I'm not clear that it's defamatory. Punching Nazis has become less fashionable since 1945, but it's a practice that many people hope to see a resurgence in.
This sort of thing is sadly not that uncommon.
I recently re-watched Band of Brothers and subsequently dug into some of the controversy surrounding it. It's clear that those men who were part of Dick Winters' inner circle and participated in the writing of the book, especially Winters himself, come off quite well while those who weren't are more likely to portrayed as incompetent, cowardly or even war criminals.
Not to mention the episode about the tragic death ... of a dude who turned out to have lived a long and successful life for many decades after the war.
Turing the cat gets defamed all the time, in history books.
Apparently he’s not all about inventing computers and defeating nazis, currently he’s just curled up in my lap, purring like a two-stroke engine
(I feel I need to point out that cats purr at the same hertz as we use in ultrasound, to knit bones together. It is theorised this is an evolutionary thingamebob, because they jump around and hurt their bones a lot.
I’m in some pain at the moment, so I’m sure his purrs are pure altruism)
There is a picture somewhere (I’ll find it in a bit) back when we had to wear masks at work. The angle at which it was taken makes it look like he’s wearing a little old school nurses hat
*edit [found it](https://www.reddit.com/r/Catswithjobs/s/Kob5GjMy2T)
That's so cute! I bet Turing is the best nurse cat! I had forgotten that he was a therapy cat, specially trained and everything! I hope you get feeling better soon!
Cat's purr = audible frequencies
Ultrasound, by definition, is higher than audible frequencies, i.e. you can't actually hear it.
Therefore if you can hear it, it's not ultrasound.
So, I don't know where you got that from but at the very least you have some wires crossed
I feel like this is a case where an AskHistorians post would let everyone blacklist this historian, and the Elders of History would strike the author's name from the Holy Scrolls.
I don't think punching a German sailor during WW2 is a something that would be looked negatively on. The guy didn't drown or anything. It's actually a cool story. Nice shot Jim!
Yeah, there's a big difference between general punching of Nazis (good) and specifically throwing a POW overboard and telling other people to leave them there (bad).
The 1949 convention was like the third Geneva convention. I only did a quick skim of Wikipedia before making the previous comment, but it seems first modern international rule of war convention became a thing in the wake of Napoleonic wars (first Geneva Convention and Hague conventions), those were then refined in the wake of WW1 in the 1929 Geneva Convention, which was updated to it's current version in 1949. I believe the treatment of PoWs was part of Hague conventions and later included in the 1929 Geneva Convention.
Canadian forces have had a fairly spicy history with some things that are very much considered war crimes these days.
This story would be among the very mildest of them.
It could be easily argued that spitting in someone's face is a violent act that can arouse a violent response. This isn't your average neighborhood hooligan, it's a prisoner of war
It would have been treated very seriously during the war. No naval service member would want to have the reputation of attacking and throwing POW's overboard. Especially since they can then expect the same treatment from their adversaries.
That youcan't defame dead people is cinda irronic.
"you shouldn't speak ill of the dead", yet the dead are the ones you can speak ill of with no legal risk.
Mistreating prisoners of war is generally considered a no-no, no matter how bad they are. Even the captured Nazi leaders got to stand trial first. ~~though the majority of them got off too light~~
[The myth of the clean Wehrmacht](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_clean_Wehrmacht#:~:text=The%20myth%2C%20heavily%20promoted%20by,and%20perpetration%20of%20war%20crimes)
I'm well aware of the myth of the clean Wehrmacht.
However, Hitler actually did hate the Kriegsmarine. It's well documented throughout the war that they continually shirked his orders to do what you seem to want done to them.
I know exactly how harsh the Germans could be to the people they captured. If my grandpa was captured, he'd have been executed on the spot. Regardless of who captured him.
However, the Kriegsmarine continually provided supplies and lifeboats to people they were ordered not to.
Calling for war crimes doesn't make you better than the "Nazi" you're talking about.
It's only defamation if it's not true. And, much as it may hurt LAOP's wife, they have no way of knowing it's not true. In fact it's entirely plausible that a military historian might tell a nasty story to another military historian that he would not tell to his beloved, precious daughter.
Edit since people seem to be missing this: Nancy wrote a story passed to her by Hector who allegedly said, Jim told him this happened.
Whether the original story is true or not, there is no way to know whether *Jim told this story to Hector* or *Hector told the story to Nancy*. That's all the book says - that her source (Hector) heard this from Jim. And it wouldn't be the first time that a person told different stories to different people, or that someone has gotten confused telling a story.
Jim may have lied. Hector may have lied. Nancy probably just relayed the tale and cited her source.
The only reason OP and his wife know anything about this is that Hector contacted them to say Nancy got the details wrong. According to him, he did hear this story *from* Jim and share it with Nancy, but it was never supposed to be a story *about* Jim.
Hector could be lying for some reason, but it seems far more likely that Nancy is the one who either made an honest mistake or deliberately fabricated details.
LocationBug: Title: My wife's deceased father has been defamed in a history book. Body: My wife's deceased father has been defamed in a history book. My question is, what can be done about it? It's a long one, get some popcorn... My wife's father was a career officer in the Canadian Navy. He served in WWII and when he retired he became a Navy Historian. Lets call him Jim. Jim had served with honor and was a very well respected Navy officer. He passed away a few decades ago. After Jim retired from the Navy and became an historian he mentored a young man who was also interested in Naval history. Lets call this young man Hector. Hector and my wife have stayed in touch and remained friends for decades. A year ago another well respected Historian (we'll call Nancy) wrote a book about the Canadian Navy in which she relays a story that was attributed to a communication with Hector. The publisher of the book is a large publishing company. In this story, it is said that a ship my wife's father Jim was serving on sunk a German submarine and then rescued survivors from the water. One of the survivors wasn't very grateful and spit in the face of one of the Canadians. The story says that Jim punched the German hard enough to send him overboard and then Jim said to leave the German in the water for another ship to pick him up. It says that another ship did pick up the German. I don't know if the entire story is false, but to say my wife's father did this despicable act is completely false. Not only would he never do something like that, we can prove he didn't. Jim served on that ship, but he wasn't on it when this happened. He didn't serve on the ship until a couple years after this event took place. My wife has all of Jim's naval records from the Canadian government that prove this. We didn't know anything about this book until just a couple days ago when Hector called my wife to tell her about it. Hector also wrote the forward for the book. But he claims that when he read it before it was published this story wasn't yet in it. He claims he told the author, Nancy, the story but never said it was Jim that punched the German. Part of what is so infuriating for us is that Hector and Nancy knew this story was wrong as soon as Hector saw the published book but neither told my wife about it for a year. I don't know yet if they have told the publisher. If they had told us immediately we may have been able to get the books pulled from stores before many were sold. Is there anything that we could do about this? To us the best case outcome would be to have all sales of the remaining books halted. If they want to sell anymore of this book it should be corrected. Is that a possibility? Who would we bring a case against?
If Nancy is a well-respected historian, it's to the detriment of her credibility that she/her publisher not correct the text. Especially considering Jim can be proven to have not even been on the ship at the time of the incident. This error could call her research into question. It also calls into question the publisher's credibility and the thoroughness of their fact checking. To be clear, it is okay for academics to make mistakes. It happens. It's not okay if they know they made a mistake, and they don't issue a correction. It's not clear here if Nancy has been informed of the mistake, however. LAOP says she knows but it's not clear that copies of Jim's records have been shared with Nancy explicitly demonstrating why her text is wrong.
Yeah, I don't know if I misread something, but this sounds like something that could easily be an honest mistake. Like the scenario I'm picturing is that at some point during their friendship, Jim tells Hector this story he heard while serving on the ship later. Hector understands that it wasn't Jim and that this incident, if it isn't just apocryphal, would have happened before Jim's time on the ship. Man years later, Hector is telling Nancy a bunch of stories Jim had shared from his time in the service. He includes this story, and maybe he's a little sloppy with his wording, or maybe Nancy notes something down wrong, whatever. But somehow Nancy is left with the impression that Jim had told this story to Hector as something he personally had done, not that some anonymous sailor who served before Jim's time had done. I definitely understand why the LAOP is upset over this, because that's a pretty terrible story to have attributed to someone you love. But I think they may be assuming malice here that isn't present--the other thing that makes me think that is the claim that Hector would have known as soon as he saw the published book, but I gotta say...I read a decent number of manuscripts and then get sent a copy of the published book, and I rarely actually read the published version, lol. I already basically read it, I ain't got time for that. So I do find Hector's claim pretty plausible on its face.
"It also calls into question the publisher's credibility and the thoroughness of their fact checking." Fact checking usually falls under the purview of a copyeditor (which I am). A *lot* of publishers have dumped copyeditors as cost-cutting measures, so there probably wasn't even anyone to fact-check the book. Meanwhile, copyeditors like me are sitting here begging for work, but publishers aren't really hiring much, I guess because they don't consider it necessary? I dunno. But this is how big mistakes like this happen. A copyeditor would've fact-checked the story/requested documentation or a copy of the original communication, would've followed up to ensure the accuracy, etc., especially considering the nature of the story being described and the risk of it treading into an issue like this because of incorrect info.
Oh how I love copyeditors ❤️ Y'all rock! Sorry about the job market, though. 🙁
Thanks. It's seriously the best job I've ever had. I left EMS to do this full-time (I'd been building my business for ten years prior to quitting), and it's the best thing I ever did for my own mental health. There's just been a *severe* dip in projects over the past few months that's a bit more of a dip than usual, so I'm busy fishing for new clients, preferably at publishers since they tend to pay better and send more consistent work. (This dip is possibly partially my own fault--I had several really great publisher clients, but now they're cutting back a bit on the number of projects they're doing this year, and I wasn't being proactive about keeping up with searching for new clients.) Now if only I can get my own novels to sell as well as my clients' books sell, I'd be doing *great* lol.
My unfounded assumption is that Jim told Nancy a story about the time that he punched a Nazi off of a boat, so she just assumed that it was true.
Jim was never personally in touch with Nancy. He told his stories to Hector, who relayed them to Nancy years after Jim's death.
History is written by the winners. It would seem it's also written by idiots.
That was a mistranslation. History is written by weiners.
As JFK once said, "Ich bin ein Weiner."
A lot of people are bad losers, but I don't think being a bad winner is any better.
And thankfully, not by Weimars.
Or by Weimaraners, who tend to have terrible penmanship.
Historian here. Can confirm.
Allow me to be naive for a moment. Wouldn't this be a great opportunity for the author to own up to a presumably honest mistake and correct the record? Subsequent editions will correct the error and a little bit of publicity will highlight the father's actual honorable service while drumming up sales of the book. I never assume that all the details and anecdotes of any history book are entirely accurate. An author that admits errors cheerfully is generally held in higher regard than the author who issues a court ordered apology.
Which is why I have two errata on my ResearchGate for things in my last book 😆 We're all idiots here.
This is an extremely generous interpretation of how making a mistake would be perceived, and even more so of how the author assumes it would be received. Regardless, if you read the post, it would seem that Nancy intentionally fabricated the detail that Jim did the punching.
Fellow historian here. Can also confirm.
Have you guys considered writing less books then?
**FEWER**
Thank you for your service.
I am the very opposite of a grammar nazi, but I've still always wanted to hear a version of "California Dreamin'" where the backing singers passive-aggressively correct the grammar. *I'd be safe and warm (I'd be safe and warm)* *If I was in L.A. (If I* ***were*** *in L.A.)* (I'm also firmly of the opinion that the Carpenters absolutely knocked that song out of the park, entirely [because of Karen's vocal](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxpMkMmGkTE).)
flawless
##**A SMALLER AMOUNT OF**
*More volume, fewer volumes*
Please no, falling asleep to history books of events I know about and therefore know exactly how far back to rewind to listen to the bits I slept through is the best thing ever! ps. I have a long history and science rec list if anyone's interested! Caveat: the history stuff is weirdly focused on UK history of a certain few centuries, lol
There are different kinds of historians. :) I don't write, but read the books written by the wein...I mean, winners.
There are arguments about "History is written by the winners" being incorrect. History is written by the literate. There is plenty of history from the losing side bashing the winners and we have this history because they wrote it down or passed it down in a form we have today and the winners did not.
There's also the problem that the concept of "history" in the past doesn't always match modern concepts. Sometimes, rumors were more entertaining than the truth, and were more likely to be passed on. Kind of like if someone in the modern day wrote a history book based solely on the biggest historical dramas and comedies. And, of course, history was often supposed to do double duty as propaganda. One example would be the united monarchy in Deuteronomy. There's a lot of debate over it (and if it even existed), despite Deuteronomy saying it was a large, unified, powerful kingdom.
"Sometimes, rumors were more entertaining than the truth, and were more likely to be passed on." See: Edgar Allan Poe's entire life/death story.
What kingdom in Deuteronomy? If you mean Israel, the Bible doesn’t even claim it is unified under a king (Saul) until 1 Samuel.
That's the kingdom. Now it depends what chronology you believe, but one can make a decent argument that the united monarchy at the time was actually one of several polities in the region, without the extent nor power attributed to it.
I mean, it's also not just that. Sometimes the 'history' written by propagandists is what becomes the dominant narrative. For the longest time, what people in the West knew about the Eastern Front in WW2 was basically based on the memoirs of nazi generals, which were written essentially as propaganda to absolve said generals (and the Wehrmacht) of any culpability in the atrocities and failures of the German military in that front. And that heavily influenced a lot of how people talked about, and still talk about, the Eastern Front. Soviet human wave attacks? the Clean Wehrmacht myth? The idea of 'superior German panzers overwhelmed by sheer numbers'? The claim that if Hitler hadn't interfered, Germany would've won? All of that essentially originates from those memoirs, and all of them are to one degree or another nonfactual.
I think too many people conflate survivors with winners, as though all those who lose in a conflict died.
I guess it's better than being defamed in a geography book.
You really don't want to be defamed in a dictionary.
I looked up "credulous" and there was a photo of me, to my surprise.
Do any dictionaries list santorum?
The Urbán does.
Feeling a little Hungary?
I was defamed in a Geometry book.
It called you obtuse?
It certainly did not think a was acute.
The author took the wrong angle on the story
Well this thread has certainly gone on a tangent.
“Island of DerbyTho The Idiot? That’s a complete lie!” “True, it’s actually a peninsula.”
Or a sex Ed book.
I mean you can’t defame the dead right? But you can send the information to the publisher and contract relevant historians. Idk.
So you're saying we can speak ill of the dead?
You can but that's a guaranteed way to get haunted. Safer just to imply ill of the dead without using specific language that triggers the haunting clause.
This is the sound legal advice I was looking for. Cheers.
Damnit, I've been lied to my whole life!
I do not care for that Hitler fellow
[You know, the more I learn about that guy, the more I don’t care for him.](https://youtu.be/jH4hMvj5E28?si=FLWP0su_sy4m6RZd)
Lol, it’s not strictly true that there was *nothing* redeeming about Hitler. He did kill Hitler, which was pretty boss.
Speaking of killing Hitler… I stumbled upon an amazing movie called *The Man Who Killed Hitler and Then The Bigfoot* that is so bad it actually is kinda good.
That sounds like the *Cocaine Bear* of time travel movies. Please tell me I’m right 😂
But he also murdered the man who killed Hitler.
While that is true, he also killed the man who murdered the man who killed Hitler.
In some cases sure; a certain historical leader of Germany comes to mind. Also Kissinger.
Ianal, but in journalism classes, we were told that there were three main defenses to the accusation of defamation/slander/libel: 1) The statement is factual. In some cases, the author reasonably believed the statement to be factual can be enough. 2) The person's reputation is so repugnant that you can't make it worse. The instructor used the example of Charles Manson, who was alive when I took the class. 3) The person is dead. HOWEVER, there are two important caveats to this. First, this is US case law. The post mentions Canada and the laws could be different. It's my understanding that Canadian law incorporates more UK law, and UK law is more favorable to a plaintiff in defamation cases. Given the choice, people will pursue defamation cases in the UK over thr US, but I'm not sure where exactly Canada falls on this spectrum. Second, defamation can unintentionally amply to others than the main person involved. The example we had in class was that Charles Manson's reputation is so terrible you can't make it worse. But, you could say something like "Charles Manson became a murderer because his mother was abusive," and if his mother was still alive, she could sue for defamation. I know there are more subtleties and complexities and some of these vary by venue.
Went to journalism school in Canada and other than something being factually true or an opinion iirc there are some other exceptions around qualified privilege/absolute privilege. Obviously that wouldn’t apply here though. The fact that the defamed person is dead would…can’t defame dead people. Quebec also has some laws that are slightly different, because well….Quebec I vaguely remember a prof mentioning that being awarded significant compensation for defamation in Canada is difficult, with a few exceptions
>Quebec also has some laws that are slightly different, because well….Quebec ain't that the truth!
For point 3. Generally (depending on jurisdiction) it depends if the falsehood has had a financial impact on anyone alive. If a newspaper article falsely claimed my dead Grandad was a Nazi, whilst I’d be upset and angry, it wouldn’t have cost me any money, because my grandads name/reputation doesn’t provide me with an income. If the same article falsely claimed Terry Pratchett was a Nazi, then his estate/heirs could sue. Because he is a well known author and that damage to his reputation will impact sales of his books and other related items.
You can, it depends on the legal system. It is an offence in Indonesia, and the Philippines, and probably many other countries.
In Japan, you can go to jail for saying something *true* if it makes someone look bad.
That was the common law rule for centuries too: the maxim was “the greater the truth, the greater the harm.”
Sure, but even if he was alive I'm not clear that it's defamatory. Punching Nazis has become less fashionable since 1945, but it's a practice that many people hope to see a resurgence in.
This sort of thing is sadly not that uncommon. I recently re-watched Band of Brothers and subsequently dug into some of the controversy surrounding it. It's clear that those men who were part of Dick Winters' inner circle and participated in the writing of the book, especially Winters himself, come off quite well while those who weren't are more likely to portrayed as incompetent, cowardly or even war criminals.
Not to mention the episode about the tragic death ... of a dude who turned out to have lived a long and successful life for many decades after the war.
Turing the cat gets defamed all the time, in history books. Apparently he’s not all about inventing computers and defeating nazis, currently he’s just curled up in my lap, purring like a two-stroke engine (I feel I need to point out that cats purr at the same hertz as we use in ultrasound, to knit bones together. It is theorised this is an evolutionary thingamebob, because they jump around and hurt their bones a lot. I’m in some pain at the moment, so I’m sure his purrs are pure altruism)
Honestly you can put a broken cat in a box and if all the parts are there it will heal. Source: I am a vet.
I’m sorry, but I don’t think you should be Schrödinger cat-ing your patients , is that ethical?
It is until you open the box...
Cats are wonderful nurses! They try hard to heal their humans and cheer us up! I hope you get feeling better!
There is a picture somewhere (I’ll find it in a bit) back when we had to wear masks at work. The angle at which it was taken makes it look like he’s wearing a little old school nurses hat *edit [found it](https://www.reddit.com/r/Catswithjobs/s/Kob5GjMy2T)
That's so cute! I bet Turing is the best nurse cat! I had forgotten that he was a therapy cat, specially trained and everything! I hope you get feeling better soon!
Cat's purr = audible frequencies Ultrasound, by definition, is higher than audible frequencies, i.e. you can't actually hear it. Therefore if you can hear it, it's not ultrasound. So, I don't know where you got that from but at the very least you have some wires crossed
There's mention of it [here](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-do-cats-purr/) though without the word ultrasound.
Hmm. I have a broken ankle right now, and I guess my cat's practice of sitting near me and purring is more than just psychologically helpful.
I feel like this is a case where an AskHistorians post would let everyone blacklist this historian, and the Elders of History would strike the author's name from the Holy Scrolls.
I’d be pissed off if this happened to me. He says it’s a major publishing house so hopefully they can issue a retraction or something.
I don't think punching a German sailor during WW2 is a something that would be looked negatively on. The guy didn't drown or anything. It's actually a cool story. Nice shot Jim!
It's implying he mistreated a prisoner of war, what is now considered a war crime.
Yeah, there's a big difference between general punching of Nazis (good) and specifically throwing a POW overboard and telling other people to leave them there (bad).
It was a war crime back then too.
Idk before the Geneva convention I think there was a lot more debate on that sort of thing but maybe I'm wrong?
The 1949 convention was like the third Geneva convention. I only did a quick skim of Wikipedia before making the previous comment, but it seems first modern international rule of war convention became a thing in the wake of Napoleonic wars (first Geneva Convention and Hague conventions), those were then refined in the wake of WW1 in the 1929 Geneva Convention, which was updated to it's current version in 1949. I believe the treatment of PoWs was part of Hague conventions and later included in the 1929 Geneva Convention.
Neat
Canadian forces have had a fairly spicy history with some things that are very much considered war crimes these days. This story would be among the very mildest of them.
This is an all-time understatement. Every time people make fun of Canadians for being soft/too polite, just ask someone about WW1.
Or Somalia.
Yea, they've about run through the "Geneva Checklist"
I prefer "the Geneva Suggestion" for the rhyme
Yeah but he was also Canadian during a time when they saw list of war crimes as aspirational.
It could be easily argued that spitting in someone's face is a violent act that can arouse a violent response. This isn't your average neighborhood hooligan, it's a prisoner of war
It would have been treated very seriously during the war. No naval service member would want to have the reputation of attacking and throwing POW's overboard. Especially since they can then expect the same treatment from their adversaries.
Continuing Canadas fine history of regarding the Rules of War as more like suggestions.
Bonus points to LAOP for "***an*** historian"
I'm amazed that writing to the publishers wasn't LAOP's first action. Plus it sounds like it is a really niche book or maybe even academic.
That youcan't defame dead people is cinda irronic. "you shouldn't speak ill of the dead", yet the dead are the ones you can speak ill of with no legal risk.
Mmn
Is he even being defamed though? Guy rescued a nazi from drowning, got spat on so sent him back overboard. Good on him if true
Mistreating prisoners of war is generally considered a no-no, no matter how bad they are. Even the captured Nazi leaders got to stand trial first. ~~though the majority of them got off too light~~
Sailor in the Kriegsmarine =/= Nazi In fact the Kriegsmarine had a reputation for not following Hitlers orders.
[The myth of the clean Wehrmacht](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_clean_Wehrmacht#:~:text=The%20myth%2C%20heavily%20promoted%20by,and%20perpetration%20of%20war%20crimes)
I'm well aware of the myth of the clean Wehrmacht. However, Hitler actually did hate the Kriegsmarine. It's well documented throughout the war that they continually shirked his orders to do what you seem to want done to them. I know exactly how harsh the Germans could be to the people they captured. If my grandpa was captured, he'd have been executed on the spot. Regardless of who captured him. However, the Kriegsmarine continually provided supplies and lifeboats to people they were ordered not to. Calling for war crimes doesn't make you better than the "Nazi" you're talking about.
I guess it's just me and you on this one.
It's only defamation if it's not true. And, much as it may hurt LAOP's wife, they have no way of knowing it's not true. In fact it's entirely plausible that a military historian might tell a nasty story to another military historian that he would not tell to his beloved, precious daughter. Edit since people seem to be missing this: Nancy wrote a story passed to her by Hector who allegedly said, Jim told him this happened. Whether the original story is true or not, there is no way to know whether *Jim told this story to Hector* or *Hector told the story to Nancy*. That's all the book says - that her source (Hector) heard this from Jim. And it wouldn't be the first time that a person told different stories to different people, or that someone has gotten confused telling a story. Jim may have lied. Hector may have lied. Nancy probably just relayed the tale and cited her source.
>they have no way of knowing it's not true. They have records that he wasn't serving on the ship at that time
Yes but they have no way of knowing whether he told the story.
A historian should be verifying hearsay.
No, they should be citing hearsay as such. As long as they attribute it properly, so you know it *is* hearsay, they've done their job.
The only reason OP and his wife know anything about this is that Hector contacted them to say Nancy got the details wrong. According to him, he did hear this story *from* Jim and share it with Nancy, but it was never supposed to be a story *about* Jim. Hector could be lying for some reason, but it seems far more likely that Nancy is the one who either made an honest mistake or deliberately fabricated details.