10 Myths About WW1 Debunked

[Old Goat]

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.

[FramFramson]

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.

[joroas]

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.

[Cubs]

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. 

[Cubs]

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!

[Cubs]

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.

[Gary Peach]

There's no such thing as progress - Thomas Hardy...

[Cubs]

yes!

Phew!

We got there, we got there, time for a breather.



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.

[former user]

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.

[Cubs]

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.

[joroas]

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.

[maxxon]

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.

[FramFramson]

"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.

[Westfalia Chris]

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".

[huevans]

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.