Lead Adventure Forum
Miniatures Adventure => The Great War => Topic started by: Cubs on 20 January 2014, 10:36:50 AM
-
It's obviously 'chicken in a basket' style learning, very much processed for the lay person, but since that largely describes me I found it interesting. A couple I already knew, but most I didn't.
The bit at the end resonates with me because my brother is adamant that he really enjoyed his service in the Iraq War (Afghanistan not so much). He was quite open about the fact that the adrenaline rush was addictive and everything felt more 'real' and alive. He said a few of the lads had a hard time, but most enjoyed it. "After all," he told me, "if you don't like fighting, you don't become a soldier." Of course, he wasn't conscripted ...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25776836
Lions and donkeys: 10 big myths about World War One debunked
Much of what we think we know about the 1914-18 conflict is wrong, writes historian Dan Snow.
No war in history attracts more controversy and myth than World War One.
For the soldiers who fought it was in some ways better than previous conflicts, and in some ways worse.
By setting it apart as uniquely awful we are blinding ourselves to the reality of not just WW1 but war in general. We are also in danger of belittling the experience of soldiers and civilians caught up in countless other appalling conflicts throughout history and the present day.
1. It was the bloodiest war in history to that point
Fifty years before WW1 broke out, southern China was torn apart by an even bloodier conflict. Conservative estimates of the dead in the 14-year Taiping rebellion start at between 20 and 30 million. Around 17 million soldiers and civilians were killed during WW1.
Although more Britons died in WW1 than any other conflict, the bloodiest war in our history relative to population size is the Civil War which raged in the mid-17th Century. It saw a far higher proportion of the population of the British Isles killed than the less than 2% who died in WW1. By contrast around 4% of the population of England and Wales, and considerably more than that in Scotland and Ireland, are thought to have been killed in the Civil War.
2. Most soldiers died
In the UK around six million men were mobilised, and of those just over 700,000 were killed. That's around 11.5%.
In fact, as a British soldier you were more likely to die during the Crimean War (1853-56) than in WW1.
3. Men lived in the trenches for years on end
Front-line trenches could be a terribly hostile place to live. Often wet, cold and exposed to the enemy, units would quickly lose their morale if they spent too much time in them.
As a result, the British army rotated men in and out continuously. Between battles, a unit spent perhaps 10 days a month in the trench system, and of those, rarely more than three days right up on the front line. It was not unusual to be out of the line for a month.
During moments of crisis, such as big offensives, the British could occasionally spend up to seven days on the front line but were far more often rotated out after just a day or two.
4. The upper class got off lightly
Although the great majority of casualties in WW1 were from the working class, the social and political elite was hit disproportionately hard by WW1. Their sons provided the junior officers whose job it was to lead the way over the top and expose themselves to the greatest danger as an example to their men.
Some 12% of the British army's ordinary soldiers were killed during the war, compared with 17% of its officers. Eton alone lost more than 1,000 former pupils - 20% of those who served. UK wartime Prime Minister Herbert Asquith lost a son, while future Prime Minister Andrew Bonar Law lost two. Anthony Eden lost two brothers, another brother of his was terribly wounded and an uncle was captured.
5. 'Lions led by donkeys'
This saying was supposed to have come from senior German commanders describing brave British soldiers led by incompetent old toffs from their chateaux. In fact it was made up by historian Alan Clark.
During the war more than 200 generals were killed, wounded or captured. Most visited the front lines every day. In battle they were considerably closer to the action than generals are today.
Naturally, some generals were not up to the job, but others were brilliant, such as Arthur Currie, a middle-class Canadian failed insurance broker and property developer.
Rarely in history have commanders had to adapt to a more radically different technological environment.
British commanders had been trained to fight small colonial wars, now they were thrust into a massive industrial struggle unlike anything the British army had ever seen.
Despite this, within three years the British had effectively invented a method of warfare still recognisable today. By the summer of 1918 the British army was probably at its best ever and it inflicted crushing defeats on the Germans.
6. Gallipoli was fought by Australians and New Zealanders
Far more British soldiers fought on the Gallipoli peninsula than Australians and New Zealanders put together.
The UK lost four or five times as many men in the brutal campaign as her imperial Anzac contingents. The French also lost more men than the Australians.
The Aussies and Kiwis commemorate Gallipoli ardently, and understandably so, as their casualties do represent terrible losses both as a proportion of their forces committed and of their small populations.
7. Tactics on the Western Front remained unchanged despite repeated failure
Never have tactics and technology changed so radically in four years of fighting. It was a time of extraordinary innovation. In 1914 generals on horseback galloped across battlefields as men in cloth caps charged the enemy without the necessary covering fire. Both sides were overwhelmingly armed with rifles. Four years later, steel-helmeted combat teams dashed forward protected by a curtain of artillery shells.
They were now armed with flame throwers, portable machine-guns and grenades fired from rifles. Above, planes, that in 1914 would have appeared unimaginably sophisticated, duelled in the skies, some carrying experimental wireless radio sets, reporting real-time reconnaissance.
Huge artillery pieces fired with pinpoint accuracy - using only aerial photos and maths they could score a hit on the first shot. Tanks had gone from the drawing board to the battlefield in just two years, also changing war forever.
8.No-one won
Swathes of Europe lay wasted, millions were dead or wounded. Survivors lived on with severe mental trauma. The UK was broke. It is odd to talk about winning.
However, in a narrow military sense, the UK and her allies convincingly won. Germany's battleships had been bottled up by the Royal Navy until their crews mutinied rather than make a suicidal attack against the British fleet.
Germany's army collapsed as a series of mighty allied blows scythed through supposedly impregnable defences.
By late September 1918 the German emperor and his military mastermind Erich Ludendorff admitted that there was no hope and Germany must beg for peace. The 11 November Armistice was essentially a German surrender.
Unlike Hitler in 1945, the German government did not insist on a hopeless, pointless struggle until the allies were in Berlin - a decision that saved countless lives, but was seized upon later to claim Germany never really lost.
9. The Versailles Treaty was extremely harsh
The treaty of Versailles confiscated 10% of Germany's territory but left it the largest, richest nation in central Europe.
It was largely unoccupied and financial reparations were linked to its ability to pay, which mostly went unenforced anyway.
The treaty was notably less harsh than treaties that ended the 1870-71 Franco-Prussian War and World War Two. The German victors in the former annexed large chunks of two rich French provinces, part of France for around 300 years, and home to most of French iron ore production, as well as presenting France with a massive bill for immediate payment.
After WW2 Germany was occupied, split up, her factory machinery smashed or stolen and millions of prisoners forced to stay with their captors and work as slave labourers. Germany lost all the territory it had gained after WW1 and another giant slice on top of that.
Versailles was not harsh but was portrayed as such by Hitler who sought to create a tidal wave of anti-Versailles sentiment on which he could then ride into power.
10. Everyone hated it
Like any war, it all comes down to luck. You may witness unimaginable horrors that leave you mentally and physically incapacitated for life, or you might get away without a scrape. It could be the best of times, or the worst of times.
Many soldiers enjoyed WW1. If they were lucky they would avoid a big offensive, and much of the time, conditions might be better than at home.
For the British there was meat every day - a rare luxury back home - cigarettes, tea and rum, part of a daily diet of over 4,000 calories.
Absentee rates due to sickness, an important barometer of a unit's morale were, remarkably, hardly above peacetime rates. Many young men enjoyed the guaranteed pay, the intense comradeship, the responsibility and a much greater sexual freedom than in peacetime Britain.
-
Interesting stuff there, I was familiar with some.
Number 9, though, perhaps it wasn't as harsh as Hitler portrayed it, but subsequent British Govts did think it was harsh and that contributed to the failure to enforce it. IIRC the US refused to ratify Versailles.
-
Interesting. So war is essentially enjoyable then? ;-)
-
I don't think I ever subscribed to many of those myths, except possibly the last one. But these kind of articles are still part of a trend I'm not too keen on.
I think each age's attitude to the Great War tells you more about that age than the war itself, and these things go in cycles. Nowadays, for whatever reason (I think I know what the reason is, but to discuss that would mean talking politics so I won't) the wheel has turned again and it is the fashion to have a more positive outlook: To pretend the Great War was not so bad as everyone said, in fact it was rather splendid, and label those who still think it was a terrible catastrophe as "revisionists."
Well, the generation of Britons that actually fought in it seemed determined to do just about anything rather than face another one when the time came in the 1930s. They can't have enjoyed it that much. My own anecdotal connection with the war is memories of the large gang of elderly aunts in the 1970s, not a husband between them. As a small child I couldn't understand why they had never married. And the wreck of a man who was my Great Grandfather, for whom the war never really ended. Don't think they had much fun, either.
I can still think of commanders who fully deserve to be considered Donkeys leading lions. Falkenhayn’s plan to "bleed France white" at Verdun springs to mind. You know, the one that bled Germany white. He seemed to think that the French would suffer massive attrition and somehow the Germans wouldn't. Because you know, they were Germans and they were only fighting mere Frenchmen.
But Dan Snow isn't going to dwell on anything bad, because he likes making war fun for the viewers. I always call those shows he does "Dan Snow plays Army."
-
I saw it more as a leveller article, to dispel popular myths and get a little perspective about WW1 compared to other wars. You've got to use sound judgement to stop the needle before it swings too far in the opposite direction.
And yes, a lot of soldiers I've talked to really do enjoy war. I'm guessing these aren't the ones with crippling injuries, horrible psychological trauma etc.. But for the majority, it's not like they say war's a good thing, but rather the adrenaline is a hell of a buzz and something that can be addictive; and that's aside from the comradeship they find with their mates. Unless you've shared your life with someone in those circumstances I guess it's tough to understand.
-
I think the article was a barbed attack on Mr Gove:
Michael Gove Attacked For 'Blackadder' Comments On 'Left-Wing' Whitewash Of WW1 History
Historians have hit back at Michael Gove's assertions that "left-wing" programmes like Blackadder have whitewashed Germany of blame for World War One, and eradicated national pride in the Great War.
And many on social media have attempted to "fact-check" Gove's interpretation in the Daily Mail on Friday, backing Culture Secretary Maria Miller's plans to ensure the centenary commemorations lack overt jingoism.
In an extraordinary denunciation, Gove said "left wing academics", and series like the satirical Blackadder, sought to damage patriotism and portray the war as a shambolic game played by a bumbling elite.
The Education Secretary wrote: "Our understanding of the war has been overlaid by misunderstandings, and misrepresentations which reflect an, at best, ambiguous attitude to this country and, at worst, an unhappy compulsion on the part of some to denigrate virtues such as patriotism, honour and courage.
"The conflict has, for many, been seen through the fictional prism of dramas such as Oh! What a Lovely War, The Monocled Mutineer and Blackadder, as a misbegotten shambles – a series of catastrophic mistakes perpetrated by an out-of-touch elite.
"Even to this day there are Left-wing academics all too happy to feed those myths."
The conflict was "plainly a just war" aimed at stopping "the ruthless social Darwinism of the German elites, the pitiless approach they took to occupation, their aggressively expansionist war aims and their scorn for the international order".
And it was seen that way by the soldiers who fought, Gove added.
He said Professor Sir Richard Evans, the eminent Cambridge historian, had "attacked the very idea of honouring their sacrifice as an exercise in ‘narrow tub-thumping jingoism’".
On Saturday, Sir Richard said Gove's attack was "ignorant".
“How can you possibly claim that Britain was fighting for democracy and liberal values when the main ally was Tsarist Russia?
"That was a despotism that put Germany in the shade and sponsored pogroms in 1903-6," he told the Independent.
Many on social media also disputed Gove's take on "liberal" Britain fighting an evil enemy.
-
Intersting stuff, although some are very doubtable, especially number 9... :-X
Just to put things into perspective, the last part of the reparations (interest) by Germany inforced by the Treaty of Versailles were paid in 2010! (Notable by a completely different nation, or would for example let's say the USA today pay any outstanding debts owed by the Confederate States?)Not to mention that the vast majority of the federal German gold reserves are still stored in New York, London and Paris and the responsible banks refuse to give an accurate statement on the amount they have in stock and which numbers the gold bars have, etc.
-
I don't think I ever subscribed to many of those myths, except possibly the last one. But these kind of articles are still part of a trend I'm not too keen on.
I think each age's attitude to the Great War tells you more about that age than the war itself, and these things go in cycles. Nowadays, for whatever reason (I think I know what the reason is, but to discuss that would mean talking politics so I won't) the wheel has turned again and it is the fashion to have a more positive outlook: To pretend the Great War was not so bad as everyone said, in fact it was rather splendid, and label those who still think it was a terrible catastrophe as "revisionists."
Well, the generation of Britons that actually fought in it seemed determined to do just about anything rather than face another one when the time came in the 1930s. They can't have enjoyed it that much. My own anecdotal connection with the war is memories of the large gang of elderly aunts in the 1970s, not a husband between them. As a small child I couldn't understand why they had never married. And the wreck of a man who was my Great Grandfather, for whom the war never really ended. Don't think they had much fun, either.
I can still think of commanders who fully deserve to be considered Donkeys leading lions. Falkenhayn’s plan to "bleed France white" at Verdun springs to mind. You know, the one that bled Germany white. He seemed to think that the French would suffer massive attrition and somehow the Germans wouldn't. Because you know, they were Germans and they were only fighting mere Frenchmen.
But Dan Snow isn't going to dwell on anything bad, because he likes making war fun for the viewers. I always call those shows he does "Dan Snow plays Army."
I agree with most what you are saying but myths work in both directions don't they. It is all a matter of who spins the yarn. Some of what he is claiming in that article is based on statistic, some of the kind of fact which is based on what is sometimes called "qualitative studies". The latter is merely a perspective on opinion, the former is actually based on statistics which is there for anyone to check. The question "how many dies in proportion to the population" is relatively straightforward but still there are many people who believe something contrary to that.
-
And yes, a lot of soldiers I've talked to really do enjoy war.
It is certainly my experience to that some soldiers enjoy some aspects of war.
-
And yes, a lot of soldiers I've talked to really do enjoy war. I'm guessing these aren't the ones with crippling injuries, horrible psychological trauma etc.. But for the majority, it's not like they say war's a good thing, but rather the adrenaline is a hell of a buzz and something that can be addictive; and that's aside from the comradeship they find with their mates. Unless you've shared your life with someone in those circumstances I guess it's tough to understand.
Yes, it has been documented in many wars that many people react this way. But that isn't everyone, and which type of reaction you choose to emphasize reflects your own bias and agenda.
The French decided they could not risk any more major offensives after the 1917 mutinies. Well-led men who are enjoying themselves don't tend to mutiny. That is more the realm of men who have been pushed beyond their limits and cannot take another step. The Russians overthrew their government to get out of the war. Seems to be that the Right Wingers want to whitewash the war just as much as the liberals, and have us all go back to chanting Dulce et Decorum est... If they want us to believe they don't have an agenda of their own in this trend of "setting the record straight" well, I'm sorry but I just don't believe them. This is as much about modern day politics as it is about history.
Well sod that. I'd rather stay rational and sit in the middle. But if they are going to try and force me to take sides by playing politics with it then I'm with Wilfred Owen. He was there. Dan Snow wasn't.
-
There is a quite famous Canadian experimental psychologist, Steven Pinker, who has written a very interesting book called " The Better Angels of Our Nature" which uses *massive* statistical research which shows that there has been a steady decline in war, rape, animal cruelty and general violence in human society. The curve is sloping down even in the times of the 20th century wars.
If Pinker has any agenda it is not towards the left, but rather against the right wing Christian who claim that the signs show that we live in the end of times (a claim as old as the human history).
-
Very true. Attitudes today are very different from 100 or even 50 years ago regarding war and such. I wonder if it really is an evolution or just a social cycle?
Does it ring true across the globe or just in Western civilisations?
All good thinkings.
-
Very true. Attitudes today are very different from 100 or even 50 years ago regarding war and such. I wonder if it really is an evolution or just a social cycle?
Does it ring true across the globe or just in Western civilisations?
All good thinkings.
The darker view on that data is that we're still as prone to violence as ever, only we save it up for big bursts, rather than the plain endemic violence of old. I don't know if I agree with that, but it's sobering to consider the possibility.
Another school of similarly pessimistic though holds that as the species has gained the ability to wage war on an ever-increasing scale, our cycles really major violence have synched up globally, whereas normally they would have been smaller and more localized. In this model, the living veterans of the former instance serve to temper desires for future war and conflict. Once those memories die, the appreciation for what war costs fades. The classic problem of lest we forget.
Under that theory, the World Wars could not have taken place until all the veterans of the Napoleonic and Revolutionary Wars had died off, which in part explains why the US was reluctuant to join WWI, as the memories of the Civil War were still alive and with them.
Going further back, the case gets a little less clear but generally I see the Seven Years War (probably the earliest major war between European powers with a global playing field, even if it wasn't a truly global war) lumped in with the Revolutionary wars, or compared to the Franco-Prussian war, in the sense that it was a major conflict that laid the grounds for a much bigger show a generation later. Prior to those, the major devastating conflict was the Thirty Years War and some arguments try to tack on late medival conflicts.
I'm not sure I agree with that school, and it's not too difficult poke holes in it, but there is something to the idea that wars become easier once the living voices that remind us of the last go-around are all dead. Living through sort of thing seems to change a person's priorities (in the aggregate).
=====
Now as far as that "list of facts" goes, I'm with Plynkes, in that I'll take a documented veteran's word over some modern commentator.
WWI saw veterans decry the very idea of war like nothing ever before and maybe even since. Books like "War on War" (not for those with a weak stomach), endless tracts or poems on death, and the bitter, cynical comments from men who'd heard sings like "Over There" or "Oh, What a Lovely War" one too many times do not seem like the product of men who were generally happy to be there. Perhaps there were wars or conflicts with higher casualty rates or body counts, but WWI does seem like the grimmest bloody conflict ever fought.
-
Your 10 Myths Debunked is a bit Anglocentric. Compare the British experience with that of the French at Verdun who, unlike the British, didn't get leave before 1917 and could stay on the line for weeks - they didn't mutiny because their croissants were cold! It took that, and Petain assuming command, for the stupidity to stop (and that's by 1917). And the experience of the Italians was even worse (and look at the Austro-Hungarian forces surrounded and destroyed at Prezmysl). And your casualty rates are for the Britiish Army overall - which includes a lot of rear echelon/logistics forces; what is the rate for combat units?
-
Your 10 Myths Debunked is a bit Anglocentric.
This is true, but it is a British journalist writing for a British audience, and it is the commonly-held attitudes of the British about the war that are being addressed. So it is somewhat understandable.
-
stuff
one of the best posts on the entire internet ever 8)
Ironic that it's the BEEB that seems on a State mission to show the glory of War, the very same Beeb that Eric Blair worked for and was instrumental in so many aspects of his book.
-
I don't have a dog in this fight so to speak, so I can't help but wonder why this now? Is it just the 100 year anniversary or what?
I mean, just yesterday I read a very similar piece in Miniature Wargames...
That said, this reminds me of the Finnish casualty statistics for WWII I saw a little while ago. When you take the numbers as a relation to the entire population they never seem too bad, do they? (Especially compared to the wholesale slaughter often present on our gaming tables)
But the problem is it's not evenly distributed. When you take a closer look at the numbers you see they are extremely skewed as to who's actually doing the dying. Taking 5% or whatever odds may sound reasonable but what it really boils down to is that if you were born in the wrong year, your odds of making it through the war alive and without permanent injuries was pretty much slim to none.
Basically the society is sacrificing entire generations to survive as a whole.
-
I don't have a dog in this fight so to speak, so I can't help but wonder why this now? Is it just the 100 year anniversary or what?
I mean, just yesterday I read a very similar piece in Miniature Wargames...
That said, this reminds me of the Finnish casualty statistics for WWII I saw a little while ago. When you take the numbers as a relation to the entire population they never seem too bad, do they? (Especially compared to the wholesale slaughter often present on our gaming tables)
But the problem is it's not evenly distributed. When you take a closer look at the numbers you see they are extremely skewed as to who's actually doing the dying. Taking 5% or whatever odds may sound reasonable but what it really boils down to is that if you were born in the wrong year, your odds of making it through the war alive and without permanent injuries was pretty much slim to none.
Basically the society is sacrificing entire generations to survive as a whole.
1 in 20 Is very, very bad.
-
In the UK the 100th anniversary is big, but it has been hi-jacked by the minister for Education who wants it taught in a particular way. Out goes Blackadder, used by History teachers regularly and in comes the idea of a justified war.
There has been a huge backlash from all sorts of folk, largely as a result of his factual inaccuracies. The Germans, for instance did not START the war and as for justified, well it was basically a competition by the leaders to show who could spit the furthest. The comment in All Quiet on the Western Front has the gist of what ordinary soldiers wanted:
“Why do they never tell us that you are poor devils like us, that your mothers are just as anxious as ours, and that we have the same fear of death, and the same dying and the same agony—Forgive me, comrade; how could you be my enemy?”
-
Polititians are always the people who start wars they have spent the last twenty years failing to plan for.
I think the powder keg of WW1 was a long time in filling and it just needed something to spark it off. Germany's violation of Belgium's neutrality was its big blunder and probably cost them the chance for ultimate victory. It caused such outrage it undoubtably slewed international sympathy away from them.
How many people after 1914 gave a toss about the Balkan issues that were prime causes for conflict? They weren't to be resolved for another 80yrs (and some would say they still aren't).
-
1 in 20 Is very, very bad.
I don't recall what the exact total casualty rate was, but it was in the low single digits. Definitely it seemed like good odds if the roll had to be made...
...until you figured what the odds were if you were a man born in 1920.
-
The main misconception about the Great War seems to be that it was soldiers walking towards machine guns and being mowed down as per some sectors of the first day of the Somme. The vast majority of casualties were caused by artillery however.
As early as 1915 with the introduction of the Lewis gun, the British restructured their tactics based around the platoon with separate sections for rifles, close assault grenades, lewis gun and rifle grenades enabling it to be semi-self supporting. The French also did the same.
I was aware of most of those 1 -10 points and would recommend the book "Mud, Blood and Poppycock: Britain and the Great War" by Gordon Corrigan for more on this.
-
"War is what happens when people are too fucking stupid to sort their shit out in a reasonable fashion. No amount of massaged stats are ever going to change that. "
While that sounds good, Scurv, I suspect there are more than a few cases where a nation or group with in a nation feels they have no other option (and they may not) than to use force to achieve what they see as a vital goal. Whether that goal is truly vital is often, unfortunately, misjudged by decision makers.
And while no government of fallen mankind is pure from political/cultural blindness, unnecessary stubbornness, sheer stupidity, and/or bad judgment there are principles worth fighting for.
Most wars happen because two or more nations think they can achieve their goals by a "short, clean, minimal casualty" military operation where the reality is that both nations are wrong about everything I have in quotes.
Unfortunately governments can't make decisions with 20/20 hindsight or there would have been less wars.
Garcias,
Glenn
-
In the UK the 100th anniversary is big, but it has been hi-jacked by the minister for Education who wants it taught in a particular way. Out goes Blackadder, used by History teachers regularly and in comes the idea of a justified war.
I think this might be the interesting point. History is about the interpretation of past events and I wonder what the interest of the current 100 years anniversary discourse may be....
as a side note, I also wondered how comes that in the anglophone countries, WW1 is so much more present than in Germany, where noone talks about it. On rememberence day for instance, while everyone weary poppies, the rhineland starts the carnival season and gets beastly drunk starting 8 o'clock in the morning.... :-[ ::)
-
as a side note, I also wondered how comes that in the anglophone countries, WW1 is so much more present than in Germany, where noone talks about it. On rememberence day for instance, while everyone weary poppies, the rhineland starts the carnival season and gets beastly drunk starting 8 o'clock in the morning.... :-[ ::)
I think there is an slight lean towards not talking about the wars to in theory discourage militarism and nationalism. I am just going off of my time in Germany and talking to my German friends. Also lots of the surviving great war gen was killed off or just tired of it all by the end of world war 2.
My old bosses great grandfather was sabered by a French Calvary men in the closeing of the war in 1918 and had been fighting since 1916.
After that he went home to Berlin, fought in the friekorp.
Then he worked as a court stenographer, until I believe 34-35 were he and his brother were arrested and held for 6 months. Were he was beaten every day and called communists. Then he was just let go with out an expliation, His brother was never seen again.
3 week later he was drafted. Marched all over Europe, was captured in 44 some where in Russia and walked home from Siberia in 48. And rebuilt his famly home in the US sector of Berlin.
-
I think there is an slight lean towards not talking about the wars to in theory discourage militarism and nationalism.
and in practice then enabling it, because people forget about the horrible effects, exactly like the one story You just shared....
because, if we are honest, the whole issue about remembering a war that started 100 years ago are the horrible consequences it had for the following years after, and even still today......
or not?
-
Agreed, former user.
I was a solder, I fought in Iraq and Afghanistan. I still miss the rush of action and my comrades. Do I want to do it again? No.
I am perfectly happy getting my jolly's off at the shooting range and playing with little lead or plastic figures.
-
I think there is an slight lean towards not talking about the wars to in theory discourage militarism and nationalism. I am just going off of my time in Germany and talking to my German friends. Also lots of the surviving great war gen was killed off or just tired of it all by the end of world war 2.
My old bosses great grandfather was sabered by a French Calvary men in the closeing of the war in 1918 and had been fighting since 1916.
After that he went home to Berlin, fought in the friekorp.
Then he worked as a court stenographer, until I believe 34-35 were he and his brother were arrested and held for 6 months. Were he was beaten every day and called communists. Then he was just let go with out an expliation, His brother was never seen again.
3 week later he was drafted. Marched all over Europe, was captured in 44 some where in Russia and walked home from Siberia in 48. And rebuilt his famly home in the US sector of Berlin.
My friend's dad, a Colonel who served in Germany in the 1980's, had many stories of serving in Germany at the time. Some of them his son can't share with me, but I think this one's okay for distribution.
This Colonel would tell a story to his son about "The only German who served on the Western Front".
So while serving there, the Colonel would occasionally run into veterans of WWII and if the subject ever came up, they would quickly avoid talking about it, making a point of saying "Oh well you see I served on the Eastern Front". Of course on the surface this made sense, since a much greater proportion of Germans did fight in the East, but the idea that NONE of the veterans he spoke to or met had ever served in the West at all was a bit suspect. It was more or less obvious that this was something of a dodge used by folks who honestly didn't want to talk about it. And how could you blame them?
One day this Colonel was having a beer with his adjutant, both still in uniform. Now, in Germany, as I understand it, the veterans often have (had?) a special room in pubs to serve as their association or meeting hall, whereas in English-speaking countries we tended to have separate buildings for this. So there were a couple of veterans in the room, drinking the afternoon away. Finally one of them comes out and walks right up to the Colonel, very obviously drunk, and says "You! You are Canadian!". The Colonel replied, that yes, he's Canadian. The veteran was on the boil, angry, and went on: "I was in Normandy! The last time I saw a Canadian, he was dead! Killed by my own hands." with that, everybody in the bar just sort of froze.
Now the Colonel wasn't about to punch a sixty-odd-year old man, so he had to try and defuse the situation. He just sort of replied neutrally "Many good young men died in Normandy." the old veteran didn't really know how to reply to this so he just replied "Yes... many good young men dead in Normandy." then he sort of shuffled back towards the vets room, lost in his own painful memories. Minor diplomatic crisis averted.
Once the moment had passed, the Colonel's adjutant turned to him and said "You did it Colonel. You found him. You found the only German who ever fought on the Western Front."
-
Best thread on a wargaming forum in many a year.
Cubs, thanks for getting this rolling.
and in practice then enabling it, because people forget about the horrible effects, exactly like the one story You just shared....
because, if we are honest, the whole issue about remembering a war that started 100 years ago are the horrible consequences it had for the following years after, and even still today......
It's painful to think that as time passes the Veteran's memories of the two World Wars are becoming less a part of official history. Were we lucky or just an extension of the collateral damage because we knew (or still know!) those who the wars wrecked and traumatised; our relatives, friends and neighbours, to bring home the truth of it all.
I was a solder, I fought in Iraq and Afghanistan. I still miss the rush of action and my comrades. Do I want to do it again? No.
I am perfectly happy getting my jolly's off at the shooting range and playing with little lead or plastic figures.
Cheers for that. 8)
-
@fram, this must have been a long time ago, when the official policy was that german soldiers had only done their duty, so that they could join the NATO in the cold war. If at all, they could talk about the eastern front, because the official policy allowed them to feel like victims of nazis and soviets alike.
times have changed and after the 80ies the attitude got far more reflected. But the memory has not been passed on to the next generation, sadly.
-
Not to derail the topic but to speak about changing attitudes. I too served in Berlin, arriving 4 months or so after the Wall came down. When I arrived we had unlimited access into East Berlin but weren't allowed to venture into East Germany. This restriction was soon lifted and I visited Oranienburg Concentration Camp. For a very small fee you could hire a tape recorder (remember them?) which gave a commentary as you walked around the camp. Western influence hadn't invaded East Germany at that time, there were no neon signs, no chain stores of any kind, even the majority of the roads were still cobbled. The tone of the tape was very much anti-Nazi, the Nazis did this, the Nazis did that etc.
I spent just over two years in Berlin and visited Oranienburg again not long before I was posted elsewhere. The cassette machines were still there but this time the tone had changed, now it was the Nazis did this but the Soviets did that.
Interesting times.
-
Let's try and keep this reasonably on topic, chaps. We seem to have wandered off the point somewhat. This is the Great War Board, remember. :)
-
Ok let's morph this into Ten Myths about Wargaming The Great War by someone who once watched a program featuring Dan Snow and came away thinking Dan was a complete prat about five minutes into the program.
1. Wargaming the Great War really started about five years ago, when Brigade, Musketeer etc released popular ranges in 28mm
No, actually people have been gaming it for years. Minifigs had a nice and fairly extensive range in 15mm at least 25-30 years ago. Before that, there were the Wille, Tradition and Suren figures in 30mm. There were some really good rule sets available too. My favourite was Over the Top by the late Greg Novak, a sort of bastard child of Frank Chadwick's Command Decision WW2 rules. Excellent rules, with great sections on organisation and some really interesting and unusual scenarios.
Ok someone else's turn. Better than refighting the history wars after all.
-
Back to the questions on whether or not a given type of puttees were correct for a given unit then. ;)
-
... the rhineland starts the carnival season and gets beastly drunk starting 8 o'clock in the morning.... :-[ ::)
A very worthwhile occupation. Life goes on, after all.
-
Ok let's morph this into Ten Myths about Wargaming The Great War by someone who once watched a program featuring Dan Snow and came away thinking Dan was a complete prat about five minutes into the program.
1. Wargaming the Great War really started about five years ago, when Brigade, Musketeer etc released popular ranges in 28mm
No, actually people have been gaming it for years. Minifigs had a nice and fairly extensive range in 15mm at least 25-30 years ago. Before that, there were the Wille, Tradition and Suren figures in 30mm. There were some really good rule sets available too. My favourite was Over the Top by the late Greg Novak, a sort of bastard child of Frank Chadwick's Command Decision WW2 rules. Excellent rules, with great sections on organisation and some really interesting and unusual scenarios.
Ok someone else's turn. Better than refighting the history wars after all.
Now THAT is one of the best posts on a wargames forum ever :)
Nice one Carlos, in every respect.
-
Back to the questions on whether or not a given type of puttees were correct for a given unit then. ;)
there are "types" of puttees?
-
Fat or thin?
Muddy or clean?
Your pick of colour?
What will the fashionable man of the trenches choose?
-
uniforms neat or weathered?
Weathered, always weathered.
A nice big myth is that it was all about the trenches on the Western Front. There are some fascinating theatres of operation to read about and I discover a new one from time to time.
I used to be all about the Middle East and Lawrence (a big bag of myths in itself) and then recently read about ops in East Africa against Von Lettow-Vorbeck.
-
Interesting article, Cubs.
I think the problem about this article is its format. It is very much the kind of 'what you thought you knew was wrong' type article that gives the misleading idea that history can be boiled down to 'facts' or truths and untruths.
I do not see the phrases 'It could be argued' or 'whilst some people think this, others have theorised that... I think the statistics for the Civil War are estimated to be higher by 'proper' historians as well. I thought the BBCs remit was to educate.
The BBC is fast turning itself into a public disservice!!
-
Oh hell, I've long ago abandoned the BBC as anything but a hint as to information. Their 'title' vs 'content' comparisons are often very amusing as are their editting protocols when they want to skew a story in a certain direction, so they spin it to maximise their favoured information and bury that which contradicts it.
I just like to collate lots of opinion (every historian has their own viewpoint) to try to get some perspective on events and attitudes. I don't know if it's even worth trying to formulate a solid opinion of my own a lot of the time because it's too easy to find some new text that makes me rethink things all over again. Try reading about Wingate and the Chindits and you will run into a lot of strong and conflicting opinion!
-
I just like to collate lots of opinion (every historian has their own viewpoint) to try to get some perspective on events and attitudes.
Quite right, that is the way to approach history I think. Have your own opinion by all means but read the others opinions too. I think the use of the word 'Myths' in the title of the article is the problem really, oh and Dan Snow's obvious arrogance...
-
except they all agree he had far too much interest in his stools.
(http://mashable.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/cadbury-eyes.gif)
-
Myths busted or not The Great War left very deep scars and a massive sense of loss in the minds of the majority of the UK public. I do not trust any politician (of whatever ilk) who would try and use any past war for political gain. I trust and place greater faith in the writings of those who were there and that each man is affected in different ways by war both during and after.
-
Adding my contribution to the discussion, from a French side.
I don't like that 10 myths debunked. I believe it is easy to speak about how we were wrong about WW1, 100 years later and without having fought it. Mostly the war was the first industrial trench warfare were men had been spent headlessly between 1915 to 1917, when (in France at least), to gain 1 kilometer you have lost 1 regiment. Statistics will show that it may be only 1% of whatever overall picture, but for an offensive, it was common to see 50% or more casualties, light wounded would be sent back to the front.
The first and the last year were more movement base and less difficult to support as the soldier do not station at the same place and more news come to give a larger sense than just his hole in the middle of hell.
In France we still have the memorials to the deads for ww1. In small villages you can read the names of 10 to 20 men deads during the 4 years of the war. That 10 to 20 people from the 20 to 40 year old population who died. Not sure saying these casualties are peanuts when looking at the big picture would make sense.
Wargaming wise, I believe the morale effects of ww1 are difficult to represent and I have not found a good and easy ruleset that give the feeling of what soldiers (of all ranks) may have experienced.
Talking about Lions and Donkeys, many high ranks generals never experienced trench warfare and new only about glorious offensive and cunning tactics. It took many failed attacks to find out they were useless. Most men fought and died bravely, even if for some reluctantly. My great grand father (the only one I knew) fought in Verdun, was wounded twice and lost a lung and almost died of bleeding out, but even so, he was always send back until the war ends.
20% of the French soldiers aged between 19 to 27 in 1914 died.
65% of all mobilized French forces during the war had been killed or wounded.
-
I still hear a virtual sigh of relief when people mention 1914 and 1918 as being "better" because there was movement as if that alone justifies the same appalling casualty rates. Troop losses on the Eastern Front where movements of hundreds of miles were not at all uncommon were just as bad. Yet for some reason one likes to think that a war is far better run if the battle is fought over a 100km, losing 150,000 men than say 100,000 over 1km ...
There is one good reason why the fighting continued for so long. One there was the trench deadlock as three nations poured as many troops into a relatively narrow gap. The problem was that a breakthrough was almost impossible to achieve as troops could not advance fast enough to avoid being counterattacked by the reserves.
And there is a very important point that is overlooked. For most of the war, nobody was actually losing (nobody was really winning either) ... The French and Belgians had lost parts (or most) of their country and Britain was there to make sure they got it back. Germany had nabbed it and could afford to let the enemy bleed themselves trying to retake it (Verdun was a failed attempt to force the end of the war based on too many assumptions). The Germans would not sign a peace treaty until the Allies agreed to sign a German version of the Versailles Treaty and give Germany her due part of the global cake, while the Allies had lost vital land, but were not at all defeated and would not stop until they got it back from Germany ...
-
Hows about the 11th myth - that the war ended in Nov 1918!
The ripple effect caused by the chaos of the conflict continued to spill over into conflict for years afterwards. Try telling that to the lads posted to the Baltic fleet, Archangel, Vladivostock, Persia and the Middle East and the Ukraine, or occupying Germany. For them the war didn't effectively end until 1921-22.
It would be interesting to hear if anyone has seen data compiled on British & Commonwealth servicemen who died in combat in the few years AFTER the Armistice.
-
there actually is a theoretical construct of historiography that deals with exactly this concept
here the light version
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Civil_War
-
A fascinating concept that I had not thought of before...... :o
-
there actually is a theoretical construct of historiography that deals with exactly this concept
here the light version
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Civil_War
Some even go as far back as the 30 Years war and call it the Great European War.
-
it is simply a different way of constructing history and defining periods
cutting edge analysis does not fit here as perspective
just think WW1 and WW2 from the perspective of a chinese person in Mandschuria - the day Nazi soldiers crossed the polish border is simply irrelevant
-
Yes, I understand.
What is innovative and sensational then?
History used to be a chain of wars, today it is the dynamic of sociological events.
I prefer to see it as a combination of many rivulets into a stream. For me the question is which part of the stream one regards, 2 m or 2 km - every perspective has it's logic and it's analysis
when someone asks me about the near east conflict, I tend to start with the Sykes Picot agreement and with anti jewish pogroms in tsarist russia. The starting point of causality is deliberate
-
History will mash together wars in the manner they find easy to teach or remember. Many conflicts which may have been viewed as separate in the past were later grouped together once several centuries added some perspective. Just look at the Hundred Years War.
Because we have not yet moved to the next great human conflict, the story of the last one (or last ones) is still in flux. Even then you can get some reinterpretation later. I think after a few centuries, the World Wars may find themselves lumped together, but that really depends on what follows. Will we have smaller wars, or larger ones?
-
I actually prefer the small ones, in 28mm ;)
-
Arf.
Even the most learned historian can't be expected to know and understand all of history's conflicts, so when we do try to look at a particular war or period it's helpful to get an understanding of what came before and what came after. This then helps us to place events in history and, crucially, know why they happened and what they caused.
Of course it's over-simpified and misses important information, because we're only human and can only process a certain amount. I guess how deep we go into it depends on our capacity for learning (minimal in my case), our patience (ditto), motivation to learn (hmm) and ability to access and process the information in question. Ideally we'd all be able to take a God's eye view of events from the beginning of existence and understand how the pattern fits together, but anything more complicated than Risk and I'm out (this is how I learned geography ... what do you mean it isn't called Siam any more?).
With Dan Snow's article, I'm guessing he hasn't impressed too many here, but it has sparked a debate and maybe inspired some to learn more. It's important to remember the audience the article is aimed at as well, being on the main BBC site. It seems he has got the tone wrong and if people on here read it as him trying to trivialise WW1 then others will have as well. That's not how I read it, but it seems I'm in the minority.
-
You've answered your own question there. If we don't understand why, we can't predict the likely effects of our actions and make informed judgements. The persistent failure to understand only underlines its importance.
-
I tend to agree with that.
as @FramFramson said before, the mechanics of history become apparent only in the larger context.
with that perspective, we can claim that realpolitik is indeed detached from history, simply by the resolution we regard it with
-
I actually prefer the small ones, in 28mm ;)
Yes! Absolutely!
-
recently I encountered the term "nano-aquariums"
not a clue what it is meant to be
-
I believe Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar were Napoleon's areas of study and they affected his strategies a great deal. Military colleges still use such texts as Sun Tzu's 'Art of War' and Clausewitz's 'On War'. The Battle of Cannae as well, I recall, is one example that sticks in my head but not for the same reasons that many believe.
I do welcome the debate, yet I am stunned that anyone would think trying to understand history is not a prerequisite of studying it. The history that affects us goes back to the dawn of time, in fact our very existence, our birth, is reliant on a chain of circumstances that lead to our parents meeting and having a child.
To look at my own example, I live in Wales. Had the Romans, Saxons and Normans not invaded Britain my life would be very different. In all likelihood there would be no Wales as a nation because it has been defined by the encroachment of other nations to the east.
Had the industiral revolution not happened then Cardiff would not have become an important shipping town, transporting coal all round the world and being renowned for the university which specialised in engineering. Thus I would not have attended Cardiff University to study engineering, I wouldn't have met my wife, my daughter would not have been born etc.. etc..
Now, without understanding the 'why' of anything, we acquire no wisdom. Intelligence is about knowing, wisdom is about knowing why. The entire basis of when and why polititians make decisions lies on their ability to understand the circumstances and apply relevant prior experience to find a solution. How to act, whether to act, when to act.
Sadly the site rules forbid any delving into actual politics (probably best), but for influences on recent conflicts there are any number of past wars that should have been studied and understood. Just about any attempt to militarily occupy Afghanistan ends up with the same result. I think Vizzini in 'The Princess Bride' put it best when he said the best known of the classic blunders is to 'never get involved in a land war in Asia'!
The Spanish Civil War is a great example of how some governments failed to become involved when they possibly should have. Vietnam is a great example of the opposite.
WW1 and WW2 ... very difficult. Were they inevitable? Could different decisions by certain powers have made things better? Worse?
No, you have your opinion of course and it's great to hear some variety, but I repeat that simply pointing out someone's failure to understand history only underlines the its importance.
-
Regarding Dan Snow and the BBC coverage thus far all I can say is Richard Holmes come back your people need you...While I'm on the subject he first part of Paxmans doco has done nothing to change my view that I would never get bored of smacking him in the face with a house brick. Re run the Redgrave narrated Great War documentary from 1964 now that is truly something else as a document about the first world war.
Anyway...
Sorry Bezzo, while I agree Pragmatism Vs. Historical Precedent is generally no contest I can't agree that History doesn't inform what we are living through today. Sorry mate no. The crux of what I understand to be your argument is that history doesn't inform what happens today as people don't learn from history. Therefore History is Bunk.
I disagree I do think people learn from history but I also think that most people don't give too much of a shit about what they've learned if the level of self interest is high enough or they are stupid/mad/bad enough (please delete as appropriate). So to use your example about the Balkans, there was a lack of understanding that genocide is a bad thing? Nonsense, they simply didn't give a shit. They saw it as a way of reclaiming their nationhood and building a bit of 'don't fuck with me rep' in the power vortex that the fall of Russian communism left. After all with all the internal squabbling going on in the Wild East after the break down of the USSR who was going to bother with the Balkans and well, the 'west' won't really care as we don't have any oil right (see Rwanda, Sudan, Congo etc.)? So let's get the cattle trucks moving. Simplistic argument and does the situation little justice but in this context logically copper bottomed. They knew it was wrong they did it anyway, but they thought they could get away with it and it would do more good than harm.
Not caring is not the same as not knowing. Whether it's a bloke down the pub or a nation/state if someone is going to start a duffy then they will kick off, knowing full well a night in the cells may end up being the least of it. Why do they still wade in? Well they either don't care, think that they may be able to get away with it, or believe that it's going to give them something they don't have now. They do understand what the consequences CAN and have been, if not in their past than in the past of someone they know, but that will not stop them, it may make them go about in a different way i.e. choosing an arbitrary reason to justify the punch up "He grabbed my birds bum/called my mum a nasty name" etc. (Weapons of Mass destruction anyone?) which they will cling to as a valid reason for the behaviour ("the victim called the mother of the Accused a slag your honour, ah well in that case, case dismissed" not a legal defence I'm aware of that has ever really helped anyone). They have learned but have chosen not to deploy that knowledge in a immediately logical way, and in some cases they deploy that knowledge in a completely illogical way but there you go.
If you don't want to mix it up with mad bastards, you avoid certain pubs/nations/religions (once again please delete as you see fit) and if you can't, well then you whack 'em as hard as you can with your first punch to put them on their arse and have it away on your toes. try and have a set of keys in your hand and always have your escape route mapped out (Dear Commandant of Sandhurst military college in case you're reading I am available for consultation, and childrens parties, which having seen the inside of your mess works on both counts).
I'm with Fram, 28mm all the way.
God save all here, Goat.
-
I look at history as our collective memory, as a species. To me the importance seems obvious, because what would happen if you could remember nothing? What if you only remembered the last year of your life and only then in hazy, un-focused terms? The whole notion of "doomed to repeat it" is part and parcel of this.
Can you live without history as a man might live without his memory? Of course you can. But there are some pretty significant differences. A world with a proper knowledge of its history might resemble the life of a man in his prime who, having been stung by a few of youth's harsher lessons, works gainfully to improve his lot. A world without any knowledge of history might resemble the life of a homeless, drug-addled old man, lurching from dumpster to dumpster in a haze of the moment to rummage for his next meal.
I think we might lie somewhere in between. A man still on the rails, but one who drinks to forget a bit too often and suffers for his tendency to re-offend. It could go either way for us, really.
-
Sadly, history is forgotten by many people in society, because they live in the short-term, ie there is only now!
Do people know smoking may kill them, of course they do, do they care? Not at the moment.
Do women know that if you have sex you get pregnant, etc, etc.
If you punch a bigger bloke or attack a bigger country you are likely to get a pasting.
Do governments behave with any more rationale than some of their people? Often, no! They are just as fickle, spiteful, jealous and proud as any person can be.
World War I was a childish family squabble over which cousin got to sleep in the biggest bedroom in the house.
-
This is back to front? You study it first then decide if it is understandable surely? It may not yield to normal ratiocination and may require analysis using some 'fuzzy logic' or soft system methodology.
No, the purpose of all study is understanding, otherwise you have a bland succession of data. Simply repeating data is not evidence of understanding, it is evidence of knowledge.
You said decisions are made based on the last 5-10 years tops, yes? And what were those events 5-10 years based on? And the ones before that, and the ones before that? We are still dealing with the repurcussions of history every day as I have already explained.
I'm pretty sure you understand, but choose only to oppose without actually explaining a reason why. I can't think of any way of dumbing this down any further without becoming insulting, which isn't what I want. And I'm pretty sure you don't actual want a debate, I think you just want to say 'No it isn't'.
This isn't something I'm trying to sell, it's a basic concept that you either understand or you don't. I think I've gone as far as I'm happy with it. I'm not in the market for a slanging match, so it's probably best I walk away from it.
-
Cheers Bezzo, it's just that I think we've exchanged the views already. I don't think you've done anything except disagree, without actually engaging in the points you don't agree with.
You think differently of course, which is healthy and all, I wish you joy of it, but it is frustrating me that I am not articulate enough or persuasive enough to put across what I am trying to put across. I don't want it to get me all heated up and take it all too seriously - you might say my past experience has taught me more control!
Henry Ford's quote was given in the context of not being tied to what has come before. It is a statement of innovation over tradition. His engineering achievements were still based on centuries of the development of mathematics, chemistry and engineering. This quite neatly highlights the importance of understanding events, rather than just being able to recall them and a more in depth look at WHY he said what he said would have revealed this.
Of course given that his point is as valid today as it was a century ago lands us with a bit of a quandary if its message is to ignore history!
History is only a succession of cause and effect. By understanding the relationship between them we can manufacture a cause in order to get the effect we desire. As one isolated example, this is how medicine works. Medicine today is constantly pushing backs the boundaries of death itself by understanding history and is underpinned by all that has come before.
The decisions we make are only ever judgement based on experience. You quote the disasters of ignoring history's lessons as examples of why why don't need to understand the past. I would quote them for the opposite reason!
-
Aah, then is your argument history's lessons are not being learned?
I would agree with that. My argument is that they aren't ... but that they should be.
The scenery changes, but our basic drives and nature remains remarkably unchanged. I remember reading a wonderful quote - “Our youth now love luxury. They have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for their elders and love chatter in place of exercise; they no longer rise when elders enter the room; they contradict their parents, chatter before company; gobble up their food and tyrannize their teachers.” That was Socrates. I find it oddly comforting that when I think the world is going down the toilet because of our youth, they thought the same millennia ago.
-
There's no such thing as progress - Thomas Hardy...
-
yes!
Phew!
We got there, we got there, time for a breather.
(http://behostels.com/wp-content/uploads/beertoast.jpg)
As regards WW1 specifically I think the major powers were on a collision course that obviousy could have been avoided, but it would have taken an uncharacteristic amount of diplomacy and understanding. The older I get the less appetite I have for warfare and the more I respect a statesman who is willing to appear weak in order to find a diplomatic solution that saves lives.
-
As regards WW1 specifically I think the major powers were on a collision course that obviousy could have been avoided, but it would have taken an uncharacteristic amount of diplomacy and understanding.
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.
-
There's a saying that the only thing harder than getting a new idea into the Army is getting an old one out. They did adapt, but it was all reactive rather than proactive. I don't think there was enough effort put in to anticipating developments and the nature of war in the pre-war and early war periods (and there was plenty of warning what was about to happen).
The horrors of frontal assaults against dug-in infantry were ably demonstrated for half a century before 1914.
Sadly the same is true of WW2. Again, lessons not learned.
-
Again, lessons not learned.
No, the wrong lessons were learned by the allies, esp GB, which reacted defensively: the build up of the RAF, RADAR and the mass issuing of gas masks, shelters and cardboard coffins....., the French with a Maginot Line, etc.
On the other hand, Germany prepared for a short quick war, that did not require, for example, a long range bomber fleet or large stocks of resources and, of course, learned nothing from 1812.
-
This sent me wondering...
What does one really learn from history? Especially if you are in a position to make nationwide decisions?
Do we remember the rulers from peaceful times? Mostly not, we remember the great conquerors.
What is the fate of kind and gentle rulers? To be assasinated by those with more ambition than scruples in many cases, unless they fall to an external invader.
It would be interesting to see a comparison of average rule span of "good" and "evil" Roman Emperors.
-
"good" and "evil" Roman Emperors.
I think it might be a bit problematic to categorize things quite as simply as that. And that's without even getting into things like the Romans' own opinion of their leaders.
-
It would be interesting to see a comparison of average rule span of "good" and "evil" Roman Emperors.
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".
-
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".
Interesting. Commodus reigned longer than Marcus Aurelius. And - predictably - Caligula was offed pretty quickly. OTOH, Nero - equally crazy and evil - reigned quite a while.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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...
-
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.
-
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... ;D
Btw. I wouldn't take that Fischer chap as a reference. He is very controversal and his work seems very much driven by ideology.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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...
-
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....
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
Her recent series on modern Italy and its place in Europe was spellbinding, you have to admit.
-
I saw Dan's Dad do a talk on the Burning of the white House in November. He was quite interesting, especially as I had been there in the summer.