10 Myths About WW1 Debunked

[huevans]

As to that aspect - I think that after 100 years and countless controversies historiography agrees on the point that the powers that could have avoided it either did not care or actively pursued it (Germany) as a solution to the national aspirations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritz_Fischer). And I also think that we all can agree that the way the war was fought allows for the thesis that they did not care about the cruelty and pointlessness because they regarded their subjects as cattle. Nor that they fully understood the implications as we can see from the outcome of the war and the dissolution of all the empires that followed more or less swiftly after it's end.

Fascinating reference to Fischer, whom I had not been aware of before.

Apropos, I recently read - well, the first half anyway - Orlando Figes' A People's Tragedy: The Russian Revolution: 1891-1924. The book was far and away the best analysis I have ever encountered re the last 25 years of Tsarist rule. Figes concentrates on domestic political structure issues and barely touches upon Russian foreign policy. But his suggestion is that Russia (like Germany) thought of WW1 as a tool of the internal fight against democracy and a "useful distraction" to entertain the lower classes while building the prestige of the autocracy.

[joroas]

But his suggestion is that Russia (like Germany) thought of WW1 as a tool of the internal fight against democracy and a "useful distraction" to entertain the lower classes while building the prestige of the autocracy.

We all know of wars like this.......  and, for example, how many successful American generals became president?

[maxxon]

While I agree with Fram, your suggestion piqued my interest and I whipped up a quick graph using Excel. Interesting enough, there seems to be less of an issue of "good" vs bad" rather than "weak" vs. "powerful".

Nice graph, thanks.

It seems to show that at least Tiberius, Nero and Domitian did not enjoy shortened rules due to their policies, though Tiberius probably enjoyed at least a bit of smooth sailing due to the idea of deposing emperors not having caught on yet. I don't know enough of the later emperors to really comment on their qualities.

But getting back to the point: Historical evidence shows that invading Russia is generally a bad idea. But it also shows that invading and exploiting technologically inferior peoples is a prime way to set up global empires.

When we talk about learning from history, we include an assumption that the motivation for learning is to make things better for everyone. I don't think that's why Napoleon studied Alexander.

[former user]

I don't think that's why Napoleon studied Alexander.

I believe people would less underestimate Bonaparte if they had a look what he did apart from warfare - and how much of it is still among us today...

[FramFramson]

Nice graph, thanks.

It seems to show that at least Tiberius, Nero and Domitian did not enjoy shortened rules due to their policies, though Tiberius probably enjoyed at least a bit of smooth sailing due to the idea of deposing emperors not having caught on yet. I don't know enough of the later emperors to really comment on their qualities.

But getting back to the point: Historical evidence shows that invading Russia is generally a bad idea. But it also shows that invading and exploiting technologically inferior peoples is a prime way to set up global empires.

When we talk about learning from history, we include an assumption that the motivation for learning is to make things better for everyone. I don't think that's why Napoleon studied Alexander.

Tiberius did well because he was a hands-off sort of fellow as well as being quite thrifty. This led to stable administration and low taxes, which was appreciated by no small number of citizens.

[Maichus]

I believe people would less underestimate Bonaparte if they had a look what he did apart from warfare - and how much of it is still among us today...

Yes, he is indeed responsible for a lot of things that influence us today. For example in the area where I grew up, the French are *not well liked* (to put it civilized) for things he is responsible for until today. The same in the region a friend of mine grew up. The two regions are in two completely different countries and about 1.400 kilometers away from each other... talking about international understanding... 

Btw. I wouldn't take that Fischer chap as a reference. He is very controversal and his work seems very much driven by ideology.

[Cubs]

Historical evidence shows that invading Russia is generally a bad idea. But it also shows that invading and exploiting technologically inferior peoples is a prime way to set up global empires.

When we talk about learning from history, we include an assumption that the motivation for learning is to make things better for everyone. I don't think that's why Napoleon studied Alexander.

Absolutely. History is amoral, and philanthropy is rare. I think if we distance ourselves from 'good' and 'bad' we can then make a dispassionate study of motivation, cause and effect. I cannot abide reading an apparent historical text that cannot resist moralising or imposing the author's own pet preferences on the reader.

 

[carlos marighela]

We all know of wars like this.......  and, for example, how many successful American generals became president?

Well off the top of my head....

Washington, arguably not especially competent as a commander but none the less successful

Zachary Taylor.

Andrew Jackson

The Great Golfer, Dwight Eisenhower

That's a little under ten percent of them.

[former user]

Btw. I wouldn't take that Fischer chap as a reference. He is very controversal and his work seems very much driven by ideology.

no, I don't think so - I recommend following the outcome of the discourse - his initial thesis were founded on pre WW1 documents of the german high command, etc. - these are official and hardly deniable. Only his interpretations were exaggerated and thus controversial. The Fischer debate has brought the understandung of causes for WW1 on a lot, but was highly disputed in Germany for political reasons and by politicians mainly, who even tried to censor the discourse. And this for the simple reason that German politics were about apologetics at that time.

Calling the scholar an ideologist because his thesis are fought by political ideologists does not bring understanding of historical contexts..

That said, I am afraid that our nice little excursion in this thread will come to an end very soon, lest we abstain from political toned contributions and simply agree about how disastrous a trauma WW1 was for everyone (because the victims were the subjects who were led into nationalist arrogance by every party), and otherwise let the participants of this thread reach their own conclusions by offering them sources, not opinions.

so I conclude my participation in this thread right now...

[joroas]

A table of Military ranks is here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Presidents_by_military_rank

There are more senior officers than you might think....

[Plynkes]

let the participants of this thread reach their own conclusions by offering them sources, not oppinions.

Opinions are allowed. Everyone is free to continue to particpate as they choose, provided they keep things civil and don't get too political.


But this does seem like a good time to post a gentle reminder that this is the Great War board. Seeing as the conversation has moved on into general history, Roman Emperors and Bonaparte, it might be a good time to think about winding this up if nobody has anything more to say about Dan Snow and his ideas on the Great War.

[carlos marighela]

Oh, I forgot to put in Grant. Harrison I didn't know about. So somewhere over 10%. At any rate that's a lot more than Britain and a shade under Brazil. Of course the metric changes if 'successful' only relates to their generalship. I think we can assume that becoming the Prez is some measure of success.

[Cubs]

I reckon it's probably run its course, and a fine run it was.

Can we all agree then - long puttees bad, short puttees good?

[carlos marighela]

I do!

Dan Snow is quite handsome in a boyish manner but otherwise comes across as one of those mannequins seen in shop windows. Were I to judge his general erudition from what little I've seen of him striding around battlefields, it wouldn't be overly favourable. I've not read anything by him. Is he otherwise noted as a military or social historian or can one safely assume his prominence on TV had more to do with his father and those boyish looks?

Personally, I'm quite looking forward to Bear Grylls series on Enlightment thinking and Nigella's upcoming doco on quantum physics.

[carlos marighela]

Her recent series on modern Italy and its place in Europe was spellbinding, you have to admit.