History Channel: Third Reich

[elicross]

Originally Posted by getbent

if we believe it, it is called truth.
if we don't want to believe it, it is called pompousness.

I can't imagine being able to see those as the only two options unless you couldn't conceive of the possibility that the conviction represented by "it" is simply wrong.

Sometimes a belief is incorrect, whether a few people call it "truth" or nearly everyone calls it "truth."

That's one of the many things we can learn from studying history.

[trev333]

the best thing we learned from human history.. is what foods NOT to eat.... ;)

knowing there were wars in the past, won't prevent future wars.... it hasn't sunk in yet through ALL of human history so far....

who's going to be the first to give up their guns/arms manufacturing mega industries?...

[Flakey]

Originally Posted by Mad Kiwi

Sorry, but saying as a history teacher that learning from the past is nonsense IS nonsense.


To say you can't learn from History is simply ridiculous and to me a simple case of academic pompousness!

That is not what is not being said. What is being said is the assumption that by learning past events as inputs will constantly yield same results and therefore if these inputs are avoided or added they will yield desired outcomes is simplistic because it fails to take in consideration the degree of human agency that cause events to unfold and the context in which they occur.

We don't study and research the past to come up with solutions to potential future situations. We study the past to understand on how we came to be where we are today.

To assume that one can formulate human action and reaction based on the past is what is pompous.

[jjkrause84]

Originally Posted by otterhound

This was a reference used by many that took part in it as well as a commonly used phrase that I have heard many times . My maternal grandfather as well as others that I was around as a very young child are my personal source .
Apparently , you don't approve of their views even though they lived it and you did not .
My grandfather was gassed more than once and returned with a metal plate in his head . What have you sacrificed ?

You misunderstood somewhat. The "war to end all wars" was a phrase used by Woodrow Wilson....one of his many improvised wonders (he was famous for not writing 'speeches' but just preparing a few lecture notes, like the good historian he was). The saying arose after years of war when people began to ask, "why are we fighting?" This was a turning point in European ("Western") history. British, American and German politicians* did not have a ready answer to the question. They could not tell people the truth, which was that the First World War was really just another balance of power war, such as Europe had been fighting for centuries. The sacrifices had been so great that a straight-forward answer was not seen as acceptable; politicians themselves often felt uneasy at the thought that such a monumental conflict might not have any sort of ideological under-pinning.


Out of this came a few different slogans. The "war to end all wars" was the American slogan, and frankly the most catchy. It wasn't really deceitful or dishonest: Wilson did genuinely hope to end wars during his Presidency. The Pan-American Act (or Pact) is a great example of this. Wilson was in fact quite close to getting every nation in the Americas to agree that if any of them were attacked, the rest would join in their defence. It would have essentially been a proto-League of Nations. The British had a "home fit for heros"....that is what they were meant to be fighting for. It did not entirely work out, but it did set in motions the beginnings of the welfare state** that Britons now enjoy.


Lastly, I'm really not quite sure how you came to the conclusion that I do not approve of the views of your relatives and ancestors, nor can I understand what my "sacrifices" (not having been gassed?) have to do with any of it. It's probably best just to let all that be.




*The war was an easier sell in France and Belgium for obvious reasons. Balkan nations had been at war in the years leading up to 1914, the Ottomans could rely on resistance to the Infidel (the Sultan Mehmed V was considered both Sultan and Caliph, putting him in a position to call for both a secular and religious war against enemies of the Empire). Russia could state that the war was to protect fellow Slavs and Orthodoxy, although the extent to which this was believed is probably best exemplified by the events 1917.

**This term has no negative connotation in the UK comparable to that which it has in the US. I desperately hope to avoid "politics", I only bring it up because ti is relevant to the time period we are talking about.

[castpolymer]

Originally Posted by getbent

if we believe it, it is called truth.
if we don't want to believe it, it is called pompousness.

I like history because it intrigues me... I can't say as there is much to learn from about it... other than perfectly reasonable people can make informed decisions that are well considered AND completely suck.

and sometimes even stoops get lucky and fall into it.

Hey now, don't bring Coach Stoops into this mess.

[jjkrause84]

Originally Posted by Flakey

+1jjkrause84 We may have trouble getting the people to understand proper historical method and historiography in general.

Unfortunately this discipline is lacking in US schools compared to say the UK.
I'm trying but I'm only one teacher

I'm not sure it's any better here. My civilian under- and postgrads generally have a good understanding of what historiography is, but they can only draw reference fro ma very narrow band of history (typically, that between 1939 and 1945). This is institutionalized in schools. Students no longer get a broad, longue durée overview of history in the years before coming to university. Instead they take VERY specific classes which do a good job of educating them on one aspect of history, but cripples them when they move forward. Trying to cross-reference within the field of history (different times and places), much less outside history into sociology and anthropology, is incredibly difficult for them.

Then again.....I did have an American exchange student (creative writing major) a few years ago ask me after two months in a military history course, "So, what exactly is 'infantry'?"

[jjkrause84]

Originally Posted by Flakey

That is not what is not being said. What is being said is the assumption that by learning past events as inputs will constantly yield same results and therefore if these inputs are avoided or added they will yield desired outcomes is simplistic because it fails to take in consideration the degree of human agency that cause events to unfold and the context in which they occur.

We don't study and research the past to come up with solutions to potential future situations. We study the past to understand on how we came to be where we are today.

To assume that one can formulate human action and reaction based on the past is what is pompous.[mod edit]

History is the study of human activities. Through it people can gain a much better understanding of how groups of people tend to interact. Over time you get a good feel for humanity, and you are frequently less surprised when people react in certain ways. That said, it is not "predictive" in any way, and there are no formulae, no blueprints to peace and prosperity.

‘Studying the past has a way of introducing humility…because it suggests the continuity of the problems we confront and the unoriginality of most of our solutions for them.’ – John Lewis Gaddis, ‘The United States and the End of the Cold War: Implications, Reconstructions, Provocations’ (1992)


History is hugely beneficial, but largely because of the perspective it gives us.

[Telemarkman]

Originally Posted by jjkrause84

You misunderstood somewhat. The "war to end all wars" was a phrase used by Woodrow Wilson....one of his many improvised wonders (he was famous for not writing 'speeches' but just preparing a few lecture notes, like the good historian he was). The saying arose after years of war when people began to ask, "why are we fighting?" This was a turning point in European ("Western") history. British, American and German politicians* did not have a ready answer to the question. They could not tell people the truth, which was that the First World War was really just another balance of power war, such as Europe had been fighting for centuries. The sacrifices had been so great that a straight-forward answer was not seen as acceptable; politicians themselves often felt uneasy at the thought that such a monumental conflict might not have any sort of ideological under-pinning.


Out of this came a few different slogans. The "war to end all wars" was the American slogan, and frankly the most catchy. It wasn't really deceitful or dishonest: Wilson did genuinely hope to end wars during his Presidency. The Pan-American Act (or Pact) is a great example of this. Wilson was in fact quite close to getting every nation in the Americas to agree that if any of them were attacked, the rest would join in their defence. It would have essentially been a proto-League of Nations. The British had a "home fit for heros"....that is what they were meant to be fighting for. It did not entirely work out, but it did set in motions the beginnings of the welfare state** that Britons now enjoy.


Lastly, I'm really not quite sure how you came to the conclusion that I do not approve of the views of your relatives and ancestors, nor can I understand what my "sacrifices" (not having been gassed?) have to do with any of it. It's probably best just to let all that be.




*The war was an easier sell in France and Belgium for obvious reasons. Balkan nations had been at war in the years leading up to 1914, the Ottomans could rely on resistance to the Infidel (the Sultan Mehmed V was considered both Sultan and Caliph, putting him in a position to call for both a secular and religious war against enemies of the Empire). Russia could state that the war was to protect fellow Slavs and Orthodoxy, although the extent to which this was believed is probably best exemplified by the events 1917.

**This term has no negative connotation in the UK comparable to that which it has in the US. I desperately hope to avoid "politics", I only bring it up because ti is relevant to the time period we are talking about.

Great post, jj! But then I'm a European ...

[ifallalot]

American kids are only taught so they can pass standardized tests now, so the ones going to college are only going to be more and more clueless moving forward.

Even our Civil War gets skipped over sometimes, so I wouldn't be surprised if American kids won't even know that the Great War or WWII even happened

[otterhound]

Originally Posted by jjkrause84

You misunderstood somewhat. The "war to end all wars" was a phrase used by Woodrow Wilson....one of his many improvised wonders (he was famous for not writing 'speeches' but just preparing a few lecture notes, like the good historian he was). The saying arose after years of war when people began to ask, "why are we fighting?" This was a turning point in European ("Western") history. British, American and German politicians* did not have a ready answer to the question. They could not tell people the truth, which was that the First World War was really just another balance of power war, such as Europe had been fighting for centuries. The sacrifices had been so great that a straight-forward answer was not seen as acceptable; politicians themselves often felt uneasy at the thought that such a monumental conflict might not have any sort of ideological under-pinning.


Out of this came a few different slogans. The "war to end all wars" was the American slogan, and frankly the most catchy. It wasn't really deceitful or dishonest: Wilson did genuinely hope to end wars during his Presidency. The Pan-American Act (or Pact) is a great example of this. Wilson was in fact quite close to getting every nation in the Americas to agree that if any of them were attacked, the rest would join in their defence. It would have essentially been a proto-League of Nations. The British had a "home fit for heros"....that is what they were meant to be fighting for. It did not entirely work out, but it did set in motions the beginnings of the welfare state** that Britons now enjoy.


Lastly, I'm really not quite sure how you came to the conclusion that I do not approve of the views of your relatives and ancestors, nor can I understand what my "sacrifices" (not having been gassed?) have to do with any of it. It's probably best just to let all that be.




*The war was an easier sell in France and Belgium for obvious reasons. Balkan nations had been at war in the years leading up to 1914, the Ottomans could rely on resistance to the Infidel (the Sultan Mehmed V was considered both Sultan and Caliph, putting him in a position to call for both a secular and religious war against enemies of the Empire). Russia could state that the war was to protect fellow Slavs and Orthodoxy, although the extent to which this was believed is probably best exemplified by the events 1917.

**This term has no negative connotation in the UK comparable to that which it has in the US. I desperately hope to avoid "politics", I only bring it up because ti is relevant to the time period we are talking about.

You could have simply posted this to begin with and I would have had no issues .
Regardless of where the term began , there are many that used the term throughout their lives .
The term of World War I has always made me wonder . It was a European war started by Europeans and fought in Europe and Eurasia . There is much more to the world than that .

[DADGAD]

A really informative show on the History Channel was "Saddam and the Third Reich". It was about the Middle East connection in WWII. I think it may be on YouTube.

[emu!]

You know, I learned alot of the missing pieces of WWII by watching The Pianist a few years ago. The movie is probably fiction, but parts of it make alot of sense to history that I couldn't. Such as...how the SS knew who was Jewish and who wasn't. Or, how halocaust victims where "guided" into areas of the city not knowing what was in store for them.

[sneakyjapan]

I really like watching HQ Military Docs on line...they have great shows.

[Rufus]

Originally Posted by jjkrause84

History is the study of human activities.

History is hugely beneficial, but largely because of the perspective it gives us.

If we can't learn from History, then why is it so beneficial?
What good is "perspective" if not to try to learn from it?

You have spent a number of years studying and wrote a thesis on the Chemin des Dames of WWI. You have instructed in a military academy. Certainly, you took whatever tactical and strategic mistakes you discovered thru your analysis and used them to instruct the upcoming subalterns of an institution.

If there's no truth to Santayana's quote, then it would appear that all your hard work was simply a waste of time.

[tele salivas]

Originally Posted by jjkrause84

WWII was probably WWIV. The Seven Years' War and the Napoleonic Wars were both global. Heck, even the American rebellion spawned a global conflict!

Sadly, world wars are more common than most people admit....

Our present understanding is that we are in a new "globalized economy", but if we examine history, it has been a globalized economy for quite some time, and you're right, that means many more world wars that are at work. War isn't just played on battlefields. A well placed coup is a specialty that I find fascinating. Who knows how many civilizations and their capabilities in technology, medicine, or other signposts we consider to be of an advanced culture have been lost to war, not to mention disease, climate shifts, cultural dispersment, or a bad marriage.

I don't feel that most of us are simplistic enough to feel that history is a predictive tool, as much as an assessment tool, but that assessment is also determined by how our perceptions are being informed. Does our access to more information mean that our view and understanding will be more homogenized, or more elastic?
If we can't agree on what components make for a great sounding telecaster, what hope is there that we will agree upon something as complex as what role history fullfills, and the benefits of that assessment. At the end, it is how we as individuals work with what we are provided. That is what I find the most fascinating, and interesting about war. How people work with what they have, at all socio-economic levels.

[Colt W. Knight]

[QUOTE=Mad Kiwi;4126264]Sorry, but saying as a history teacher that learning from the past is nonsense IS nonsense.
QUOTE]

+1

[Colt W. Knight]

Originally Posted by Rufus

If we can't learn from History, then why is it so beneficial?
What good is "perspective" if not to try to learn from it?

You have spent a number of years studying and wrote a thesis on the Chemin des Dames of WWI. You have instructed in a military academy. Certainly, you took whatever tactical and strategic mistakes you discovered thru your analysis and used them to instruct the upcoming subalterns of an institution.

If there's no truth to Santayana's quote, then it would appear that all your hard work was simply a waste of time.

+ 2

[otterhound]

Never doubt an authoritarian teacher/prof. because they can simply ruin your lifetime of plans with a spiteful stroke of their pen just because you dared to question them or call them out .
Sadly , it does and has happened .
The good part is that they will only need to be tolerated for a small part of a lifetime while the student moves on in their life and the teacher stays inside of " The Box " .
Mr Krause has previously posted about how he does not want to live outside of academia . I suspect that he is not able to for any of a number of possible reasons .
There were many individual acts of humanity and compassion during WWII that are simply overshadowed by the atrocities that did happen .
Colt and Rufus . Well done .
+3 on Colt's +1 & +2 .
Common sense rules .

[Mike Eskimo]

WWII is like "The Beatles" of wars.

Let's go over it again and again and again and again...

We've been beaten over the head endlessly w/ both for decades now.

Even after the GG and Boomer die-off there's been so much groundwork laid up to this point, neither is going away any time soon...

WWII was probably WWIV. The Seven Years' War and the Napoleonic Wars were both global. Heck, even the American rebellion spawned a global conflict!

That would be a "revolution" - not "rebellion" - for all the reasons you're already aware of...

[elicross]

I'm starting to wonder how many people understand that the famous Santayana quotation about remembering the past or being doomed to repeat it is just a pretty way of saying that we need to learn from our mistakes so we don't make them again. It seems very simple to me -- but I can't imagine how there could be so much arguing and back-and-forthing about it in this thread unless some people think it means something else....