Thread: Dreadnoughts thread on military history

Originally Posted by Buff

I heard an interview with a historian about this on NPR the other day... Sounds like it was a real cluster**** of epic proportions!

The cluster that was the area of south east Europe was twice as messy as today's Middle East

I think Ernest Hemingway summed WW1 up well: “(World War I) was the most colossal, murderous, mismanaged butchery that has ever taken place on earth."

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

, a 19 year old Serbian Anarchist nutjob

I know what you mean but i kind of resent this statement - if the British had not lost their hold on the colonies - Washington would be a rogue terrorist, Adams the evil mastermind, Jefferson a philanderer and anarchist and Franklin a dreaming drunkard whore monger, all of whom selfishly sacrificed thousands of lives in their desire to control the tobacco fields and the subsequent profit.

I tend to avoid slating any historical figure - purely because the past becomes so distorted by the victors

Originally Posted by daveaitken18

I know what you mean but i kind of resent this statement - if the British had not lost their hold on the colonies - Washington would be a rogue terrorist, Adams the evil mastermind, Jefferson a philanderer and anarchist and Franklin a dreaming drunkard whore monger, all of whom selfishly sacrificed thousands of lives in their desire to control the tobacco fields and the subsequent profit.

I tend to avoid slating any historical figure - purely because the past becomes so distorted by the victors

I stand by my characterization of Gavrilo Princep, and all the rest of those late 19th - early 20th Century Anarchist/Revolutionary "Propaganda of the deed" douchebags, Leon Czolgosz, Lucheni, Galleani, Sacco, Vanzetti, every stinking one of them. They were qualitatively different, no comparison. Our founding fathers were landed gentry, not ******* violent sociopaths. I also don't think it (the American Revolution) was actually about money. Surprisingly few important things are IMO.

Plus, I think the "History is written by the Victors" truism is @ 53% horse shit. The truth is the truth, and is objective, and will out eventually.

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

I stand by my characterization of Gavrilo Princep, and all the rest of those late 19th - early 20th Century Anarchist/Revolutionary "Propaganda of the deed" douchebags, Leon Czolgosz, Lucheni, Galleani, Sacco, Vanzetti, every stinking one of them. They were qualitatively different, no comparison. Our founding fathers were landed gentry, not ******* violent sociopaths. I also don't think it (the American Revolution) was actually about money. Surprisingly few important things are IMO.

Plus, I think the "History is written by the Victors" truism is @ 53% horse shit. The truth is the truth, and is objective, and will out eventually.

I dont agree with what i wrote about your founding fathters either - i am actually a big fan, that was just my point to highlight how the Brits would have viewed them if we had won!

I also agree that most of those people were sociopathic loonies, but i massively disagree with on the truth thing - in my mind, all truth is subjective based on perspective and understanding and of course motivation to believe

Originally Posted by daveaitken18

...I massively disagree with on the truth thing - in my mind, all truth is subjective based on perspective and understanding and of course motivation to believe

Note that I only said 53% Horse shit. The Soviets and Red Chinese got an awful lot of far more favorable press than they deserved because of who they fought for and against in WW2, which supports your thesis. The Nazis were vile. Ditto the Communists, yet the Hammer and Sickle is still not held in the same revulsion as the Swastika.

Ultimately, though, History is about "What Happened", and that is and will and must always be an objective thing IMO. The Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor on December 7th, 1941. They used six aircraft carriers. Their declaration of war arrived late, and so after the attack. Those are hard cold pieces of info, not subject to interpretation.

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

Ultimately, though, History is about "What Happened", and that is and will and must always be an objective thing IMO. The Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor on December 7th, 1941. They used six aircraft carriers. Their declaration of war arrived late, and so after the attack. Those are hard cold pieces of info, not subject to interpretation.

Agreed but things dont happen in isolation and the causal factors are certainly not black or white - they are hugely grey

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

Ultimately, though, History is about "What Happened", and that is and will and must always be an objective thing IMO. The Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor on December 7th, 1941. They used six aircraft carriers. Their declaration of war arrived late, and so after the attack. Those are hard cold pieces of info, not subject to interpretation.

I actually disagree with this. I think history is mostly about the interpretation. Why did the Japs bomb Pearl Harbor, did they meet their objective in doing so, etc. Anybody can learn the facts of what happened, but the important part of history is interpreting the facts and analyzing them and drawing conclusions. I think a big problem in our public schools regarding history is that they teach it as if it's only learning facts, and that's why so many people think it's boring. While learning the facts is part of it, applying those facts is the important thing. A test question asking when the US entered the Vietnam War might be an important fact to know, but history should be an application of facts. A test question asking if the Vietnam War was a necessary war would be a better example of what history is about, IMO. "What happened" is just part of it, interpreting the facts and forming coherent opinion based on them is the most important part. Students are too busy memorizing useless years and dates that they will forget in a couple days.

Originally Posted by aberdien

I actually disagree with this. I think history is mostly about the interpretation. Why did the Japs bomb Pearl Harbor, did they meet their objective in doing so, etc. Anybody can learn the facts of what happened, but the important part of history is interpreting the facts and analyzing them and drawing conclusions. I think a big problem in our public schools regarding history is that they teach it as if it's only learning facts, and that's why so many people think it's boring. While learning the facts is part of it, applying those facts is the important thing. A test question asking when the US entered the Vietnam War might be an important fact to know, but history should be an application of facts. A test question asking if the Vietnam War was a necessary war would be a better example of what history is about, IMO. "What happened" is just part of it, interpreting the facts and forming coherent opinion based on them is the most important part. Students are too busy memorizing useless years and dates that they will forget in a couple days.

You just said what i was trying to say.

Originally Posted by aberdien

I actually disagree with this. I think history is mostly about the interpretation. Why did the Japs bomb Pearl Harbor, did they meet their objective in doing so, etc. Anybody can learn the facts of what happened, but the important part of history is interpreting the facts and analyzing them and drawing conclusions. I think a big problem in our public schools regarding history is that they teach it as if it's only learning facts, and that's why so many people think it's boring. While learning the facts is part of it, applying those facts is the important thing. A test question asking when the US entered the Vietnam War might be an important fact to know, but history should be an application of facts. A test question asking if the Vietnam War was a necessary war would be a better example of what history is about, IMO. "What happened" is just part of it, interpreting the facts and forming coherent opinion based on them is the most important part. Students are too busy memorizing useless years and dates that they will forget in a couple days.

You cannot analyze the Facts if you don't first know the facts. Analyzing them comes much later. Of course its important to know that the Japs bombed PH because they were at war with the Chinese and we had slapped a potentially crippling oil and steel. embargo on them. Its important to know that Imperial japan did it because they thought it would work, and they thought it would work because Imperial Japan had a belief in their own racial and cultural superiority that even a Victorian Englishman would find hard to swallow. If you don't first know what was happening, and what actually happened you will be at a complete loss as to why though. So it has to start with names, places events, dates - memorized painfully - and then you learn to put all of it into context .

Originally Posted by aberdien

I actually disagree with this. I think history is mostly about the interpretation. Why did the Japs bomb Pearl Harbor, did they meet their objective in doing so, etc. Anybody can learn the facts of what happened, but the important part of history is interpreting the facts and analyzing them and drawing conclusions. I think a big problem in our public schools regarding history is that they teach it as if it's only learning facts, and that's why so many people think it's boring. While learning the facts is part of it, applying those facts is the important thing. A test question asking when the US entered the Vietnam War might be an important fact to know, but history should be an application of facts. A test question asking if the Vietnam War was a necessary war would be a better example of what history is about, IMO. "What happened" is just part of it, interpreting the facts and forming coherent opinion based on them is the most important part. Students are too busy memorizing useless years and dates that they will forget in a couple days.

In the only history class I took in college, my professor would make you take a position as a "praiser or a critic" with any given event. It was a really effective way to always try to give multiple perspectives.

Inventories of War: Soldier's Kit from 1066-2014

One of the captions reads “The similarities between the kits are as startling as the differences. Notepads become iPads, 18th-century bowls mirror modern mess tins; games such as chess or cards appear regularly.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/w...?frame=2994148

Originally Posted by tripleoption

Inventories of War: Soldier's Kit from 1066-2014

One of the captions reads “The similarities between the kits are as startling as the differences. Notepads become iPads, 18th-century bowls mirror modern mess tins; games such as chess or cards appear regularly.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/w...?frame=2994148

if you went back further you would see Roman Legionnaire kit would contain the same type of items and weigh the same.

Originally Posted by elsid13

if you went back further you would see Roman Legionnaire kit would contain the same type of items and weigh the same.

Yup, you're right. It doesn't look like there were a lot of changes from the time of the collapse of the Roman Empire until the 1400's. Just looking at the pics from 1066 until about 1500 there seems to be no big leap in military technology or in what a soldier carried. A lot of that time corresponds to the Dark Ages in Europe.

I mentioned these guys in the Guns of August thread, but didn't want to get further into their amazing History without derailing things.

The Czech Legion was made up of @ 50,000 mostly Czech ex-pats and former POWs from the Austro-Hungarian Army taken in 1914. They hated the Austro-Hungarians and Germans with a fiery passion, and formed an all volunteer force to fight on the Allied side in WW1, mostly on the Russian Front. Their situation became very precarious with the Russian Revolution, however. Russia wanted out of the War, but the Czech Legion had plenty of fight left in them and yearned for the trench warfare of the Western Front where they could continue to fight Germans. Part of the treaty of Brest Litovsk granted them the right to use the Trans-Siberian Railroad to travel to Vladivostock on the Pacific coast, where they could travel to American, cross the continent, then sail from NYC to France and take up arms again. These were dedicated hard core Mofos. Anyways, the Bolsheviks doublecrossed the Czech Legion (like Communists usually do), and tried to disarm them by surprise. This was unsuccessful, and the Legion fought a number of battles with the Communists. They ended up having to seize most of the Trans Siberian Railway and fight their way from Europe all the way across thousands of miles of Siberia to Vladivostock. There they seized Eastern Siberia and linked up with American troops landed to keep the Commies from taking the port and helping the Czechs get to France. Somebody needs to do a screeplay.

The future President of Czechoslavakia was one of their senior Officers.