So many young men study Warfare but Neglect other History

[Pisces Axxxxx]

Something I noticed about the History community. All so often an overwhelming majority of the male population into History-especially the younger age group (17-25) study so much about Military History (especially Warfare and Tactics) but neglect other branches of History such as People's History and Economics History. In fact if you ask many young men knowledgeable about Military History about subject outside of Military History such as the Political situation in France during WW2 and the non-military factors that lead to the continued following the Maginot Line doctrine, and they can only bring answers that are from (flawed) general History like those in school books or the Military perspective-IE the French were so overconfident from winning WW1 that they foolishly trained for the last war, Chamberlain was stupid and naive to accept Hitler's peace treaty, etc.... Stuff exclusively only seen by Soldiers and Military Historians POV of events.

 

I'll be honest I was once only into Military history and looking back in hindishgt I was so ******* amazed how ignorant I was as I start getting into other Histories like People's History.

 

To use the Chamberlain example, many young men (who almost exclusively read Military) as I mentioned attack Chamberlain for "Naively accepting Hitler's terms" and Chamberlain often gets so much blame for failing to prevent WW2 as do most politicians.I used to believe this too until I started getting into People's History of WW2 and I learned that Chamberlain did the only thing that most people of Britain would have accepted. The British populace was exhausted and tired from the losses of WW1 and did not want to start another World War they were willing to leave a blind eye towards Hitler's real intention. Other politicians in Europe wanted the same thing and even if Chamberlain wanted to start a war (like Churchill did), he wouldn't have been able to do much to use force as much of Parliament did not want to start a war as much as the people of Britain at the time. They would have taken actions to prevent aggressive actions that would risk war. So even if Chamberlain had the Military mentality to fight Hitler like many Military Historians and Soldiers say they would have done, the political situation was such that it would have prevented any action to stop Hitler directly.

 

Another example is the fall of Rome. So many young boys and men criticize the soldiers of the final years of the Roman Empire as being weak and incompetent. A closer look at the Social situation as well as the Economic situation in the final years of Rome shows that the Roman Empire was staggering from financial problems which in turned led to many corrupt actions that angered the Roman populace to refuse to join the Military or even join the Barbarian hordes to fight Rome! Yes the Roman legions consisted of poorly trained troops this time, but a quick study of Rome's economic and social situation at this time brings into question the notion that later Roman generals were weaklings when compared to their great predecessors like Caesar. I doubt even a great general like Scipio would have been able to do much to prevent Rome's fall at this point in History.

 

But so many young boys who neglect Economic History and other branches of History because they think its boring and only study the seemingly "glorious" and "exciting" Military History and thus they are left with a twisted view of outcomes of Wars and other Historical events that are the frequent subject of Military History. They are thus ignorant why seemingly stupid actions in Military terms such as Chamberlain's acceptance of Hitler's treaty were made and why at the time they were made, they would have made PERFECT sense to anyone but the Military community.

 

What do you think?Anyone here agree?That too many men focus exclusively on Military history and neglect other equally importance branches of History such as Political History and Economic History?

 

I was once like this too but the more I study other branches of History, the more I realized I should have gotten into other Histories sooner!

Edited November 6, 2012 by Pisces Adonis

[GhostOfClayton]

Of course, Political history and military history become more and more the same thing the further back in time you go.

[caldrail]

History. In fact if you ask many young men knowledgeable about Military History about subject outside of Military History such as the Political situation in France during WW2 and the non-military factors that lead to the continued following the Maginot Line doctrine, and they can only bring answers that are from (flawed) general History like those in school books or the Military perspective-IE the French were so overconfident from winning WW1 that they foolishly trained for the last war, Chamberlain was stupid and naive to accept Hitler's peace treaty, etc.... Stuff exclusively only seen by Soldiers and Military Historians POV of events.

You will find that a majority of those same young men aren't all that expert at military history either. Some of them are very knowledgable - but that's not the same thing. It's a natural instinct for youngsters to learn endless facts and information, and to readily identify with violence or those forces employing it, but often they lack the maturity or worldliness to appreciate why these conflicts occur and also the more human aspects of them.

 

To use the Chamberlain example, many young men (who almost exclusively read Military) as I mentioned attack Chamberlain for "Naively accepting Hitler's terms" and Chamberlain often gets so much blame for failing to prevent WW2 as do most politicians.I used to believe this too until I started getting into People's History of WW2 and I learned that Chamberlain did the only thing that most people of Britain would have accepted. The British populace was exhausted and tired from the losses of WW1 and did not want to start another World War they were willing to leave a blind eye towards Hitler's real intention.

I would point out that after the economy had recovered from the stockmarket crashes of the late twenties the mood was more bouyant. Nations were deveopling again and a sense that things were possibkle had returned, not just in Germany. By the time of Chamberlains visit to Germany many people had woken up to the possibility that Hitler was not going to stop. Although some, especially in America, had lauded Hitler for bringing Germany out of the mud and restoring it to a vibrant and confident nation, there were plenty who recognised that all was not well, particularly since jews were being forced to emigrate at that time and brought with them stories of what was actually going on. There was clearly a general preparation for possible German aggression by 1938.

 

Other politicians in Europe wanted the same thing and even if Chamberlain wanted to start a war (like Churchill did), he wouldn't have been able to do much to use force as much of Parliament did not want to start a war as much as the people of Britain at the time. They would have taken actions to prevent aggressive actions that would risk war. So even if Chamberlain had the Military mentality to fight Hitler like many Military Historians and Soldiers say they would have done, the political situation was such that it would have prevented any action to stop Hitler directly.

War requires leadership. Even in situations when another nation is hated, nothing much beyond angry demonstrations will occur, as populations do not go to war without someone to tell them to (the phenomenon of the 'terrorist' has developed from victorian times but evven them represents a minority of of individuals who desire a form of unofficial action). Churchill was not well liked in British circles - he was biewed (correctly) as something of a loose cannon, an adventurer, whose schemes had already cost Britain heavily. He was however a figure that was able to lead a nation in war, and Chamberlain was not

 

Another example is the fall of Rome. So many young boys and men criticize the soldiers of the final years of the Roman Empire as being weak and incompetent.

The Romans tell us that too. Vegetius sighs and says the 'strength and substance of the legions has gone'. Zosimus accuses them of effeminancy and homosexual practises. At face value this would agree with your young men's views although I accept the situation is more complex, as for instance Sebastianus selected a corps of keen recruits to lead his crack raiding formations ahead of Valen's column. Successfully too.

 

A closer look at the Social situation as well as the Economic situation in the final years of Rome shows that the Roman Empire was staggering from financial problems which in turned led to many corrupt actions that angered the Roman populace to refuse to join the Military or even join the Barbarian hordes to fight Rome!

Yet it was Roman prosperity that attracted the Germans across the frontier in the first place. It's well known that in some aspects the empire was doing okay in terms of agriculture and so forth. The financial problems were due to increasing bureaucracy and inefficiency, and a desire from common people to avoid tax and military service.

 

Yes the Roman legions consisted of poorly trained troops this time, but a quick study of Rome's economic and social situation at this time brings into question the notion that later Roman generals were weaklings when compared to their great predecessors like Caesar. I doubt even a great general like Scipio would have been able to do much to prevent Rome's fall at this point in History.

I would point out that Caesar was a rarity as an individual, combining charisma and adventurous spirit, who took initiaitive for himself. The Roman state preferred safe and cautious commanders to avoid military disaster and offset the possibility that these generals would rebel and mount a coup, which I would also point out was what Caesar did.

Edited November 7, 2012 by caldrail

[Melvadius]

War requires leadership. Even in situations when another nation is hated, nothing much beyond angry demonstrations will occur, as populations do not go to war without someone to tell them to (the phenomenon of the 'terrorist' has developed from victorian times but evven them represents a minority of of individuals who desire a form of unofficial action). Churchill was not well liked in British circles - he was biewed (correctly) as something of a loose cannon, an adventurer, whose schemes had already cost Britain heavily. He was however a figure that was able to lead a nation in war, and Chamberlain was not

 

Agreed. however what most people, even 'expert' historians, usually do not consider in discussing the events leading up to the outbreak of WW2 is the fact that Chamberlain's 'appeasement' of Hitler bought Britain badly needed time for us to start the process of preparing to fight a modern war. If Churchill been in charge and had rushed in to start the war with Germany before we had 'ramped up' our weapons production we would have lost in very short order. Hitler could then have turned on the rest of the world one by one with relative impunity and probably with even worse consequences for those not his 'willing' allies.

 

Personally I have long suspected that Chamberlain did know what he was doing and that although he was not the man to lead Britain in war he could buy us time to get ready for the inevitable conflict. The relevant records are probably under a 100 year seal if so then 'watch this space' and see how many deeply held opinions have to be rewritten.