How does History effect the Present?

omnicorp

Does History have an effect on the Present?
Should Politicians learn from the past?

Shouldn't Hitler have learned from Napolean and Not have invaded Russia?

sceptre

omnicorp wrote:

Does History have an effect on the Present?
Should Politicians learn from the past?

Shouldn't Hitler have learned from Napolean and Not have invaded Russia?

Yes, obviously - if you're travelling down a road your destination is often dependent on your point of origin

Yes - we could all do with a bit of that as long as we look forward as well as over our shoulders

Yes but it's as much a matter of his bad tactics and piss-poor logistics (in other words "how") as much as "not"

pork99

omnicorp wrote:

Does History have an effect on the Present?
Should Politicians learn from the past?

Shouldn't Hitler have learned from Napolean and Not have invaded Russia?

Yes but Napoleon was defeated in Russia by the weather, Hitler was defeated in Russia by the Soviet Army plus the American arms and automotive industries.

Victor

omnicorp wrote:

Shouldn't Hitler have learned from Napolean and Not have invaded Russia?

But Hitler (thought he) was better than Napolean. In 1945 Hitler said is the Germans weren't able to beat the Russians, then the Germans weren't the übermenchen they were meant to be.

omnicorp

Victor wrote:

But Hitler (thought he) was better than Napolean. In 1945 Hitler said is the Germans weren't able to beat the Russians, then the Germans weren't the übermenchen they were meant to be.

It was just an example.
Can't you people look at anything else!?

ykt0di9url7bc3

omnicorp wrote:

It was just an example.
Can't you people look at anything else!?

the western front, where German armour columns, gave attack the edge where in the first world war the trench defense system ruled all.

The fact the Collins resorted to his own idea of warfare where so many previous rebellions failed before him....

The conversion of US battleships and cruisers armament to missles takes a leaf out of the aircraft carrier idea of striking targets with greater and greater ranges.....

1945 soviet bltizkreig tactics developed from Greman ideas yet with the subtle differences that reflected soviet general staff's treatment of men\tanks as a resource\comodity versus the need for victory in a given situation (battle of manchuria is a prime example of this, the all or nothing blitz attacking method)

Polititions have learned from the successes of others, where individuals have made great strides others have tried to emulate

But Hitler (thought he) was better than Napolean. In 1945 Hitler said is the Germans weren't able to beat the Russians, then the Germans weren't the übermenchen they were meant to be.

As regards the invasion of Russia by Germany, the invasion was defeated more by German mistakes rather than the Russian people themselves. The change of operational plans weakened the Wehrmachts thrusts, the unavailability of winter equipment, and the mistreatment (and mass-murder) of initially supportive Russian population. Had those factors been seen to first, there might (I certainly think there would have been) have been a major difference in the result.

Russia could have been defeated. It was just a number of mistakes that could have been prevented, which sucked them down.

On the flip side, ignoring history, showed Hitler that he could invade France by use of the Blitzkrieg, the paratroop attack on Crete, and the Allies were the first to use Seaborne invasions despite it being believed to be impossible.

Does History have an effect on the Present?

yes. Look at every extremist group out there. Check their doctines, and minifesto's and they all point to incidents in the past, as reasons for their present causes. The US points to Sept 11, AQ points to Western Aggressions, the UK points to its colonial interests etc.

Human society tends to look at the past and see what went wrong for justification of their current actions.

Should Politicians learn from the past?

Sure. But they currently have problems learning from the previous party's mistakes, nevermind abt a decade or more ago. Personally I think most politicians are brain-dead, or just not interested in learning. (I say most. Not all. I really like Tony Blair. )

Capt'n Midnight

affect, Vs. effect

To affect is to influence or change.
To effect is to bring about.

http://www.pnl.gov/ag/usage/confuse.html

What exactly was your question ?

omnicorp

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

affect, Vs. effect

To affect is to influence or change.
To effect is to bring about.

http://www.pnl.gov/ag/usage/confuse.html

What exactly was your question ?

Do people think that history as a subject should be treated more seriously?

Justice

thats a difficult question to answer without a frame of reference.

in hitlers opinion he was attemting to do the job that Napolean failed to do.
however i doubt that the russian people in say staingrad thought of the war in those terms. so you could say IMO that it was hiltler who was more aware of the historical context than the russians, yet for all his awareness he failed.
history repeating itself?
no i dont think so, but parralells do exist. that is the leason that history teaches. we are doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past in new ways.
should it be given more serious treatment in schools (which im assuming is what u ment). Nah i dont think so.
without a genuine interest in history (which generally only comes as you get older) their is no point forcing more history on the unwilling.

omnicorp

Justice wrote:

thats a difficult question to answer without a frame of reference.

in hitlers opinion he was attemting to do the job that Napolean failed to do.
however i doubt that the russian people in say staingrad thought of the war in those terms. so you could say IMO that it was hiltler who was more aware of the historical context than the russians, yet for all his awareness he failed.
history repeating itself?
no i dont think so, but parralells do exist. that is the leason that history teaches. we are doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past in new ways.
should it be given more serious treatment in schools (which im assuming is what u ment). Nah i dont think so.
without a genuine interest in history (which generally only comes as you get older) their is no point forcing more history on the unwilling.

Well, some people don't learn!

in hitlers opinion he was attemting to do the job that Napolean failed to do.

Everything I've read abt WW2 (Russia Specifically) points that the invasion of Russia was for two main reasons. The capturing of resources, and the ideological war between Nazi germany, and Communist Russia. The nazi Belief that Russians were inferior, and the communist regime was a direct opposite to Nazi belief. Hitler himself said that he wished to wipe out the nation of russia, to wipe out the stain that was communism.

Victor

Deleted User wrote:

As regards the invasion of Russia by Germany, the invasion was defeated more by German mistakes rather than the Russian people themselves.

All wars are lost because of "mistakes".

Manach

The Germans threw away victory on the Eastern front in the early campaign. When German tanks rolled into Western Russia/Ukraine, they were initially hailed as liberators from the Stalinist regime. At least untill the SS showed up.
Also according to the memoirs of General Von Guderin, panzer commander, the Germans could have taken Moscow in the Winter of 1941 and ended the war, had not Hitler overruled High Command and told them to strike towards the Oil fields of the Caucaus.

The other question, does the past effect now. Yes, but the inevitablity of historical destiny is only seen as viewed by a historian drawing the threads of history together and calling it such, IMHO.

Victor

Manach wrote:

Also according to the memoirs of General Von Guderin, panzer commander, the Germans could have taken Moscow in the Winter of 1941 and ended the war, had not Hitler overruled High Command and told them to strike towards the Oil fields of the Caucaus.

Oh they could, but what use would it have been? While it would have been a psychological blow to the Russians, it would have given the Germans nothing useful (read: oil).

The concept is discussed in the book "The Moscow Option".

MG

Napoleon took Moscow and was still defeated. Different times I know, but just a thought.

Manach

Ok, but in 1812 the Csar could count on the support of the Church/Aristocracy to support him as the traditional ruler of Russia. In 1941, the Communists had a sole centalised control structure in the Party that reported to Moscow. If that was distrupted, I believe it would have caused chaos and civil unrest in the regions.

omnicorp

well, maybe politicians should spend less time reading the Prince, and more time reading history books...

Justice

i dunno omnicorp,

ive no doubt that any serious leader makes it a point to know the history of whatever is relevent.
to take a current example use the iraq situation and the previous vietnam situation. many people pointed out that invading iraq would produce similiar results as invading vietnam. which can be argured that this is bourne out by the facts in iraq. the bush administration was well aware of this, enuf people told em.
was it a mistake to invade iraq then? that question can only be answered by knowing what the motives were. since we dont know that is then its pretty hard to say that iraq was a mistake. even though to us it appears if iraq is gone to hell.

klaz, i wasnt trying to claim that hitler was motivated by attempting to do what Napolean did. however i would consider it likely that hitler made his plans to invade and conquer russia for the reasons yyou describe, but in his meglomaniac mind, he compared himself to napolean, and he tried to achive that which napolean failed to do. thus in hitlers mind he would be better than napolean.

tho i am going a little off topic, id suggest that you cant look at the question of "How does History effect the Present" with out looking at Propaganda as well.

omnicorp

Justice wrote:

i dunno omnicorp,

ive no doubt that any serious leader makes it a point to know the history of whatever is relevent.
to take a current example use the iraq situation and the previous vietnam situation. many people pointed out that invading iraq would produce similiar results as invading vietnam. which can be argured that this is bourne out by the facts in iraq. the bush administration was well aware of this, enuf people told em.
was it a mistake to invade iraq then? that question can only be answered by knowing what the motives were. since we dont know that is then its pretty hard to say that iraq was a mistake. even though to us it appears if iraq is gone to hell.

klaz, i wasnt trying to claim that hitler was motivated by attempting to do what Napolean did. however i would consider it likely that hitler made his plans to invade and conquer russia for the reasons yyou describe, but in his meglomaniac mind, he compared himself to napolean, and he tried to achive that which napolean failed to do. thus in hitlers mind he would be better than napolean.

tho i am going a little off topic, id suggest that you cant look at the question of "How does History effect the Present" with out looking at Propaganda as well.

Well, the winners write history so isn't history little more than propaganda at times?

pork99

omnicorp wrote:

Well, the winners write history so isn't history little more than propaganda at times?

Sometimes. But beware of the "it's all Anglo-American Imperialist Propaganda" theories which are so emotionaly satisfying and good for pissing off your parents when you're about 19 or 20 years old.

omnicorp

True

Doyoublong

omnicorp wrote:

Does History have an effect on the Present?
Should Politicians learn from the past?

Shouldn't Hitler have learned from Napolean and Not have invaded Russia?

[As Joyce has Daedalus say in Ullyses: History is a nightmare I`m trying to awake from. Meaning that history affects us all. The tentacles of the past permeate every nook & cranny of the 21st century. And true Democracy has been highjacked by the military/industrial powers which Eisenhower warned in 1960 in his farewell speech.
Politicians generally speaking rarely learn from the past and are mainly interested in sustaining their power base.

Big Ears

How does History effect the present well = the first world war helped start the second , which helped start the cold war which helped start several wars .

Infact a couple of terminally-ill serbians have affected this planet more than anyone could even dream of , and to think that the main assasination plans failed and the austria-hungary emperor guy was only killed because a driver took a wrong tern and someone decided to go have a sandwich after failing to kill someone .

Question: has anything shaped this earth more than wars have ? , because I don't think anything has , so who knows what changes to the world could happen because of Iraq .

I better stop now or id bable on for ages .

omnicorp

well... according to the Bible, one of the signs of the apocalypse is the reforming of the State of Israel... the effects would be far reaching..

Justice

Question: has anything shaped this earth more than wars have ? , because I don't think anything has , so who knows what changes to the world could happen because of Iraq

ehh plenty things.
anything that can be described as acts of god. im thinking here of asteroids striking earth (wiping out dionosaurs, global rising of sea levels after the last glacial maximum, super volcano's, (last super volcano to erupt was in south pacific 75000 yrs ago, genetic records indicate that human population was reduced to just 5000)

also things like diease, the black plague had massive effects in the middle ages, more so than most of the wars of that period.

omnicorp

True, the Black Plague left a shortage of peasants, which in turn toppled the Fuedal system which was one of the factors leading to the Rennaisance

DadaKopf

There's a book called Guns, Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond that tries to answer why Europe came to dominate the world instead of anywhere else. Interesting.

Well, the winners write history so isn't history little more than propaganda at times?

Everyone writes histories. The problem is the only accounts paid any attention to were the winners'. There are many reasons for this. Since the 1950s, due in large part to the processes of decolonisation, and subsequent theoretical shifts in Western academia, saw an increased focus on telling the stories of the marginalized. For a philosophical turn that gets an incredibly bad rap, postmodernism directed people's attention to the narratives of the oppressed and dispossessed, claiming that their accounts of the world are just as valid as anyone else's.

Historiography is an interesting subject. When history became an 'objective science', rather than a personal account told from a particular perspective as was once the case, historians made the mistake of using as their objective resources the internal memos and documents of the world's greatest states. The problem was, they ignored everything else and presented these highly blinkered accounts as 'fact'. This was nonsense.

Then you got historians like Eric Hobsbawm writing social histories, focusing on class relations and that lark.

Historical accounts shouldn't be considered fact, they should be considered interpretation.

Does history have a bearing on present day events? Of course, although not in any directly causal sense. What's important is how people of today make particular accounts of the past useful tools in the present.

A prime example is the war in Kosovo. Serbia lost the war in the Field of Blackbirds, it wasn't a triumph, it was a defeat. Although little actually changed and Turkey was eventually ousted by other European powers in the 1700s. But Serbians never let the events of history pass by, they kept reviving them, reworking them, reshaping them to fit whatever political agenda of the day. When the moment suited, Milosevic siezed this episode in the Serbian narrative and transformed it into a moral victory which rode the country into rivers of blood.

That, and more subtle accounts, is how history feeds into the present.

omnicorp

yeah, but many people think too much about making history than thinking about past-history that they make mistakes.
eg) Hitler in Russia.

ykt0di9url7bc3

omnicorp wrote:

yeah, but many people think too much about making history than thinking about past-history that they make mistakes.
eg) Hitler in Russia.

History can give an insight into your opponents mind set, without knowing your enemy you have little chance for victory, from history the planners of war may predict enemy actions\reactions based on enemy despositions\preperations. Where Guedarian (sp?) developed armoured vehicle warfare, in a situation against WW1 tactics\despositions, the idea of blitzkrieg duely followed... Had the French developed similar Tank\FighterBomber strategies we may have seen a different battle...

Again Hitlers mistakes in Russia were not based on historical blunders but on successive strategic blunders, had Hitler left the task to his general staff then we again may see a different outcome\course of the war....

A countries History can give you a lot of insight to a countries culture\attitudes with respect to current policies that this country promotes\implements, Americas Splendid Isolationist period....

omnicorp

well, we could learn from history and maybe predict that if Bush gets reelected it will be a worse term because as they say... Power corrupts

Capt'n Midnight

omnicorp wrote:

well, we could learn from history and maybe predict that if Bush gets reelected it will be a worse term because as they say... Power corrupts

Are you implying that Bush et al. could be corrupted ?
If so this would imply that they aren't already corrupt.

Also worse for whom, certainly not Bush. People will voulantarily give up many things, love, money, eggs but as a general rule people do not give up power. Knowing this explains a lot of politics. Also the unwritten rule is that you can do ANYTHING within your own borders but acting externally does not go with the international community.

Our government used to recognise Democratick Kampuchea instead of the Vietnamese puppet government. The puppet government was not free or fair but unlike the people we dealt with they didn't try to return 3/4 of the population into the stone age (the other 1/4 didn't survive.)

Oh yeah we've learnt a lot about preventing genocide..
Armenia, China, The Holocaust (About half Jews), Cambodia, Brundi etc.
No to mention the 10 million civilians killed by the US military since WWII
And yet once it's over it's back to business as usual, sometimes not even waiting. Look at all the companies that used slave labour in Germany and how badly they were affected (not).

The lesson seems to be that you can get away with a lot of stuff that people once got away, despite all the promises of "never again" since no one recognises the signs or acts on them until it's too late .

omnicorp

it's because of the other classic line "It was a good idea at the time"