What are you reading?
- Thread starter Mouthwash
- Start date
sophie
Break My Heart
I'll leave the nitty gritty WWI stuff to Dachs if he so decides to answer it. If not, the information is available in Strachan or any number of previous Dachs posts on the subject. The main point to draw away is that a) the mobilization times weren't actually slower than anybody else's; the main focus of the military reforms were about getting an army on the field faster, and they actually did accomplish this in 1914.
As to academic discourse. It's not spoon-fed, as I said before. Historiography, and academia in general is a world of discourse, argument, and refining. There is very little actual consensus in historical academia. No historian asks you to take their word at face value. The idea is that if you read their book and the argument and evidence they present, their conclusions will logically follow. At the end of the book they include endnotes (often stretching for hundreds of pages) detailing where all their information comes from. You're free to do your own research, check their sources and challenge their opinions in a book of your own. Right now Strachan's book offers the most readable, most comprehensive, and most representative account of historical consensus. This is their job.
As to my - admittedly hamfisted - metaphor, it's important to stay current on your historiography if you're seriously interested in researching a topic. It's just like with science. You wouldn't present an article from a 1964 Copy of Science just as surely as you wouldn't cite Darwin's "On the Origin of Species" in a serious debate on evolution. Although his book is important in studying evolution - his theories are dated. Those that are valid (such as the notion of a common ancestor) are maintained in subsequent works, those that aren't are discarded or superceded in subsequent publications. It's the same with history. A historian may propose a conclusion (say, "The Schlieffen Plan was the central tenet of German OHL doctrine in 1914"). A contemporary may counter with "well when you look at the movement of their troops and the allocation of their Korps it's clear that they weren't following Schlieffen to the letter". So the historian goes back to the drawing board, and releases a new conclusion "The Germans employed a variation of the Schlieffen Plan in 1914". Another contemporary may dispute this conclusion as well: "If you look into the tenure of von Schlieffen you find that the "Schlieffen Plan" was not actually a fully-formed plan and was just the proceedings and conclusions of War Games conducted in 1906, and which were applicable only to the possible war scenarios of 1906 and wouldn't have been particularly useful afterwards even if they were utilized" [side note: one of the problems with the 'Schlieffen Plan' is that it assumed the quality of the Russian Military in 1906, which, as I said earlier, was very, very different from the quality of the Russian Military by 1914]. By now the first historian is dead (or retired), so a new historian, having just recently received his PhD and completed Post-doc study, publishes an article synthesizing all three previous historians' work into one "definitive" account of the Schlieffen plan re: 1914 which states "The influence of Schlieffen is visible in the operations of the German Army and the OHL". Then somebody else my dispute elements of this conclusion and it goes on. Eventually the walls fall and Western scholars get access to German wires from the war which might state "Schlieffen's plans re: a 2-front war were overly-ambitious and we're thus discarding entirely in our planning". Now you're operating on a whole new ballgame. Who is the wire from? Is he reliable? How do you reconcile this with what other contemporaries have said?
It's not like academia is some hive mind that just hands down an opiate for the masses to consume and accept without question. These are men at the top of their field engaging in a dialogue with one another to extract meaning from the evidence they have. Much like with evolution, those arguments that are worthwhile stick around, and those that aren't are discarded in favor of those which are.
As to firsthand accounts, as I mentioned before - there are a lot of problems with them. For one thing Tuchman was writing in the 60s - by then the top brass for all the armies had died off; you aren't dealing with firsthand accounts at this point anyway. Secondly, firsthand accounts can be wrong, and they can be biased. Great care needs to be taken with primary sources. This is one of the main things that led to the confusion regarding the Schlieffen Plan. The definitive memoirs on the opening months of the war in Germany were all written by ex-German officers who either wanted to save their reputation or wanted jobs in the new Weimar Republic. It was expedient for them to blame von Moltke because he was a) dead, and b) already largely blamed for the failure at the Marne. Primary source writers have their own respective agendas too. In some cases it's better to get divorced from living memory on a topic because you can better evaluate the longterm effects and divorce yourself from the biases of the time.
And the approach to history has certainly changed. It's visible every time two historians interact with one another, or a historian reads the work of an older historian. Look at opinions on Pyotr I. In a Russian history class I took the Professor felt that Pyotr I was a fundamentally good Thing for Russia because the Westernization worked out for Russia in the long run, whereas his TA through Pyotr was the worst thing to happen to the country (aside from Stalin) due to the abject misery he brought his subjects during his reign. That's different approaches to history - generational differences. One views things in the economic, in the long-term trend, and the other views history in the more immediate, and more human side of things.
ParkCungHee
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2006
- Messages
- 12,921
So if historical research hasn't changed since Hegel, I presume this means Marxist History and Working Class History (never mind stuff like Oral History) are basically non-existent.
Cheezy the Wiz
Socialist In A Hurry
How very dialectical of them.
caketastydelish
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2008
- Messages
- 9,718
I'm going to read my required history books for my history class before it starts. Which should I read first?
The books:
1) Rubicon: Last years of the Roman Republic by Holland
2) Terry Jones' Barbarians by Terry Jones
3) Battle of Salamis by Strauss
4) Egypt, Greece + Rome by Freeman
The books:
1) Rubicon: Last years of the Roman Republic by Holland
2) Terry Jones' Barbarians by Terry Jones
3) Battle of Salamis by Strauss
4) Egypt, Greece + Rome by Freeman
sophie
Break My Heart
Well it's rarely so easy, clear or clean-cut, as I'm sure you're well-aware. But this was a rhetorical example, of course.
I don't. Not because of the subject matter - which I'm obviously very interested in - but because I don't believe that my argument would have any effect. He'd rather change facts to suit opinions, instead of opinions to suit facts.
All of those books are kind of bad, but the Freeman book and the Holland book are less bad than the others. Holland, for all his historical faults - his books are written in a vaguely pop-history fashion broadly similar to Tuchman's - does manage to craft an engaging narrative. And Freeman can't be trusted on anything involving the terms "science", "philosophy", or "religion", and of course reducing the history of the Eastern Med to "Egypt, Greece, and Rome" is ridiculous, but within the context of the task he set himself in his book he does a decent job of giving an overview.
caketastydelish
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2008
- Messages
- 9,718
thanks.
ReindeerThistle
Zimmerwald Left
@Owen: given your explanation as to the science of history, to which I agree, btw, that there is no singular account of history, why then,the superlatives in regards to Tuchman's Guns of August. Which of the things you criticize she left out happened in August 1914?
Part of my problem with the study of history is when it is as "thing-in-itself." I don't have time to read thousands of words a week to try and find and compare, etc. People I trust recommend books and I read them For instance, I recently read the book "Blockade" about the fifty-year US blockade of Cuba, referred to me by members of the Cuban permanent mission to the UN. They want to get the truth out that the US has been pursuing a wartime tactic in an undeclared war situation and they want people to know the human cost -- such as the inavailability of drugs for treating illnesses, and the life toll. I suspect the US AID and NED have a different take on it. I trust the folks who recommended the book, you know, over some schlub who's paid somemof that $54 million a year the USAID shells out to destabilze Cuba (USAID's own stated purpose, btw).
NB: my GF referred Stehen Brouwer's Revolutionary Doctors 'cause she met the author. But we use it, too, as a demonstration of how health care can be provided.
I study history in order to change it, and whether the Russians could "match" any western army in 1914is immaterial -- they didn't, and Lenin and his Bolshevik's took advantage of that situation to overthrow the PRG, who themselves took advantage of the losing war to overthrow the Tsar. Can anyone deny that?
Whether or not von Schlieffen's plan was sound or not, or not complete, or whether von Moltke ( the younger) lost his stones and pulled back too soon doesn't change the fact that Germany did NOT succeed in that campaign.
Knowwutimean?
Thank you, though. You're a smart guy. Must be the ocean breeze and that mountain air -- that view from the field house was the reason I chose UCSC.
Keeping with the thread theme, I did embed two book referrals.
I said the PROCESS of history, not the study thereof. Most historical figures do not know the historical impact of their actions -- Hegel gave te example of Napoleon at Jena: Napoleon did not cognate on the fact that he turned history on its had by defeating the Austrians.
Marxist theory is totally relevant... I 'm a Red, after all.
Sent via mobile; apologies for any mistakes.
Part of my problem with the study of history is when it is as "thing-in-itself." I don't have time to read thousands of words a week to try and find and compare, etc. People I trust recommend books and I read them For instance, I recently read the book "Blockade" about the fifty-year US blockade of Cuba, referred to me by members of the Cuban permanent mission to the UN. They want to get the truth out that the US has been pursuing a wartime tactic in an undeclared war situation and they want people to know the human cost -- such as the inavailability of drugs for treating illnesses, and the life toll. I suspect the US AID and NED have a different take on it. I trust the folks who recommended the book, you know, over some schlub who's paid somemof that $54 million a year the USAID shells out to destabilze Cuba (USAID's own stated purpose, btw).
NB: my GF referred Stehen Brouwer's Revolutionary Doctors 'cause she met the author. But we use it, too, as a demonstration of how health care can be provided.
I study history in order to change it, and whether the Russians could "match" any western army in 1914is immaterial -- they didn't, and Lenin and his Bolshevik's took advantage of that situation to overthrow the PRG, who themselves took advantage of the losing war to overthrow the Tsar. Can anyone deny that?
Whether or not von Schlieffen's plan was sound or not, or not complete, or whether von Moltke ( the younger) lost his stones and pulled back too soon doesn't change the fact that Germany did NOT succeed in that campaign.
Knowwutimean?
Thank you, though. You're a smart guy. Must be the ocean breeze and that mountain air -- that view from the field house was the reason I chose UCSC.
Keeping with the thread theme, I did embed two book referrals.
I said the PROCESS of history, not the study thereof. Most historical figures do not know the historical impact of their actions -- Hegel gave te example of Napoleon at Jena: Napoleon did not cognate on the fact that he turned history on its had by defeating the Austrians.
Marxist theory is totally relevant... I 'm a Red, after all.
Sent via mobile; apologies for any mistakes.
sophie
Break My Heart
*Sigh*. Frankly I don't know how many other ways I can say this. All history is subjective, yes, but that does not mean that all history is created equal. Opinions and consensus on history change. Arguments and conclusions can be faulty, inconclusive, dated, or outright invalid. I'm superlative about Tuchman because of the points I outlined above:
1) The evidence she works on is faulty and biased, and she doesn't appear to take any kind of care in accounting for the bias.
2) Her arguments are rooted in conclusions that have since been debunked
3) She doesn't take context into account: her view is too narrow to allow for a comprehensive conclusion
4) She rests all authority in the hands of singular men (mostly royalty) who had little to no actual control over the running of their respective states.
5) She characterizes the Germans under a racist stereotype
6) Evidence since "rediscovered" has disproved the validity of a lot of her arguments
7) She operates with a healthy helping of hindsight. The best example of this is when she explains Foch's "Le Cran" and essentially points fun at it, rather than actually looking at what the doctrine is about and looking at the players through the lenses of their time.
That is why I don't like The Guns of August. In the light of Strachan's excellent book, which doesn't fall into these pitfalls, I don't really see much of a reason to read The Guns of August aside from enjoying a well-written book (with little useful information about the period in question) or from understanding the general trend in histories of WWI.
To give a comparable example: recently I've really gotten into the history of Baseball, and in particular its early history. The first definitive history of the game was published in 1907 by the infamous Mills Commission, a collection of "baseball men" assembled by A.G. Spalding to lay down, once and for all, the history of Baseball as a uniquely American sport (that wasn't in any way derived from that crappy British rounders). The Mills Commission found that Baseball was invented in 1839 or 1840 by future Union Officer Abner Doubleday on a field outside of Cooperstown, New York. It's an interesting story, and useful to the history of the first decade of the Modern Major Leagues (that is, the Union of the American and National Leagues), but recent scholarship has found this story to be, not only patently false, but absolutely ridiculous. For one, Doubleday wasn't even in Cooperstown during the years in question. The truth of the matter is that Baseball is a much older game, dating back to a number of ball and bat games played almost since the beginning of British Colonization, including Town Ball, Three-o-Cat, and, yes, Rounders, and that elements of the modern "Base ball" probably originated in New York, with various notable rule changes arriving starting in the 1820s, rising to prominence during the 1850s, and culminating around the turn of the century with the introduction of the foul-strike rule. This is historical scholarship at work. Once man (or group of people) publishes a work. It is subject to the scrutiny of academia, found wanting, and the conclusion is revised. Now I wouldn't read the Mills Report if I was looking into the origins of Baseball. It has little basis on reality. However if I was looking, say, at the historiography of Baseball, then I almost certainly would as it was the first concerted effort to draw up the history of the game.
Why study history at all then? For that matter, why study science or linguistics or literature, or, well anything really? Does your knowing or not knowing the theory of evolution matter? Does it matter what Pride and Prejudice looks like from a feminist perspective, or that the English-speaking penchant for alliteration is a commonality for all Germanic Languages? Why do you write down your opinions on movies on this website? Does it really change somebody's life? Would I be worse for the wear if I never knew who Karl Marx was? Or how electricity works? Just so long as it does, right?
We study these things because that is our job. It is interesting to us. To return to baseball: baseball would be an exceedingly boring sport if all you did was look at the scores at the end of the day, or better yet, the result of the world series at the end of the year. It's about the individual games, the stories behind them. I could look at any date - 1908 - The Cubs beat the Tigers, but that doesn't tell me anything. It doesn't tell me that it was the most exciting pennant race ever. That the Cubs, Giants, and Pirates in the NL, and Naps, White Sox and Tigers in the AL were all in contention for their respective pennants down to the last 3 days of the season, that the Cubs and Giants actually had a 1-game playoff to decide the pennant, that this was the year of the infamous Merkle game, perhaps the most controversial baseball game ever, that this was the first year where game-fixing as a Thing really began to rear its ugly head. That this was the last time the Cubs would win a World Series ever. I mean sure this doesn't matter. Knowing or not knowing any of this stuff doesn't change the fact that the Cubs defeated the Tigers to win the 1908 world series. But it's still interesting. It's still important (to me and many others) how and why the Cubs were so good from 1906-1918ish.
Does it matter that Derek Jeter is a defensively overrated shortstop? Does it matter that the Giants seriously underrate Brandon Belt, and he should certainly be a starter for the team? Does it matter that Wins is a terrible metric for evaluating pitcher talent, and that the best pitcher in the world at this moment is Adam Wainwright? Maybe not to you, certainly not to Dachs, but it matters to me, and it matters to a great many other people, who spend thousands, if not millions of hours a day reading, writing, and participating in fantasy leagues over it. That's the basis for all history. It's interesting to someone.
This stuff is important because it is interesting. It gives us a more complete picture of WWI and what it meant. We now know that Von Moltke really wasn't entirely to blame for the failings of the War. We know that Russia was certainly mischaracterized throughout the war. I mean that's what history is all about - it's all about looking into the events of recorded humanity and applying meaning to them. Sifting through the rubble of past societies, straining the interesting and useful from the irrelevant and extracting impact, meaning, import, influence, cause and effect, change over time, comparing, contrasting, and playing what-if?
I have those two on my shelf. My dad bought me Charles Freeman's book and I picked up a somewhat battered edition of Tom Holland's book from a local charity shop.
ReindeerThistle
Zimmerwald Left
@Owen: I did not mean to continue this debate. This is the Chamber... If you look at recent history, I was referring books I had read, and Dachs, bless his soul, poked me when I suggested why I should read Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs and Steel.
I am , of course, interested in history, and in the nuances of which you speak -- especially your discourse on baseball, only the greatest sport there is (because, if I miss a game, the box scores tell me what happened -- it's very gratifying in a way football or American footbal or tennis, or whatever is not.
My point about studying history to change it is summed up by a very good friend of mine, God rest his soul, who said "The rabbit who is run over by a car is less interested in the workings of an internal combustion engine once it has made critical contact with the car..."
I mostly work with the victims of history, the lowest income, the "losers," by ruling class standards, and while history IS interesting, if it does not stop the car, we are dead rabbits....
It's as simple as I can put it. "Money talks, BS walks" in my business.
Don't get me wrong, I am not discounting history, historians, and the like, I was pointing out what you said about "no history is objective," but all history is useful, even in the negative. I am glad you have such a passionate interest in it and I wish you well.
I also have nothing against "Academia," since it is the single largest source of revolutionary fighters in my organizations -- 5 out of 8 organizers in one office alone are students. 2 out fo 5 in another were college professors. Again, we study history to change its course, more aptly put.
You have given me food for thought about other works on WWI, but I doubt I will have time to read them until after the insurrection.
Thank you for taking the time to explain all of this.
I am , of course, interested in history, and in the nuances of which you speak -- especially your discourse on baseball, only the greatest sport there is (because, if I miss a game, the box scores tell me what happened -- it's very gratifying in a way football or American footbal or tennis, or whatever is not.
My point about studying history to change it is summed up by a very good friend of mine, God rest his soul, who said "The rabbit who is run over by a car is less interested in the workings of an internal combustion engine once it has made critical contact with the car..."
I mostly work with the victims of history, the lowest income, the "losers," by ruling class standards, and while history IS interesting, if it does not stop the car, we are dead rabbits....
It's as simple as I can put it. "Money talks, BS walks" in my business.
Don't get me wrong, I am not discounting history, historians, and the like, I was pointing out what you said about "no history is objective," but all history is useful, even in the negative. I am glad you have such a passionate interest in it and I wish you well.
I also have nothing against "Academia," since it is the single largest source of revolutionary fighters in my organizations -- 5 out of 8 organizers in one office alone are students. 2 out fo 5 in another were college professors. Again, we study history to change its course, more aptly put.
You have given me food for thought about other works on WWI, but I doubt I will have time to read them until after the insurrection.
Thank you for taking the time to explain all of this.
Gary Childress
Student for and of life
Well this is not a post about what I'm reading (actually nothing but the Internet at this moment). Rather I'm curious if anyone out there has some good recommendations for contemporary reading in philosophy? I've been a bit "out of the loop" for the past 10 years on the "latest greatest" developments in philosophy. Fortunately philosophy generally seems to progress very slowly. Does anyone have a recommendation for any "essential readings" in philosophy no more than say 10 years old? I feel like I have catching up to do. Preferably something in the fields of ethics, politics, religion, or if there have been any significant "breakthroughs" in any other field.
Thanks.
Thanks.
Till
Adventurer
Just finished Railsea by China Mevielle. The guy has great imagination, but boy is his prose ever pretentious. Still a good read, if you are into steampunk.
Started The Origins of Politcal Order by Francis Fukuyama, but haven't gotten very far yet. Can't make a judgement on his arguments, but he has a very readable style.
Started The Origins of Politcal Order by Francis Fukuyama, but haven't gotten very far yet. Can't make a judgement on his arguments, but he has a very readable style.
Zealot: the Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth - Reza "That Muslim Dude" Aslan
How Asia Works: Success and Failure in the World's Most Dynamic Region - Joe Studwell
The Making of Global Capitalism "that Jacobin book" - Sam Gindin and Leo Panitch
Reconstruction: America's Unfinished Revolution - Eric Foner
How Asia Works: Success and Failure in the World's Most Dynamic Region - Joe Studwell
The Making of Global Capitalism "that Jacobin book" - Sam Gindin and Leo Panitch
Reconstruction: America's Unfinished Revolution - Eric Foner
Cheezy the Wiz
Socialist In A Hurry
Haha, they really gave him the Streisand Effect with that interview, eh?
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
Finished Matter by Iain M. Banks. Honestly a bit disappointed with it. There's some great ideas in there, but 80% of the actual book is taken up by palace intrigues on Generic Euro-Fantasy World #67834, so most of the actual science fiction is pushed to the margins until the ending, and that just barges in out of nowhere. It's not a bad book, y'know, I wasn't actually bored, but for a guy who's work is usually as intelligently structured as Banks, it felt like kind of a mess. Makes me think I'm missing something, but I can't for the life of me see what.
Finished In Defence of History by Richard J. Evans and started On History by Eric Hobsbawm. Taking a class on historiography in the upcoming semester, so, um, yeah.
Finished In Defence of History by Richard J. Evans and started On History by Eric Hobsbawm. Taking a class on historiography in the upcoming semester, so, um, yeah.
