How does it feel knowing that your sub-branch of history is looked down upon by other historians? I minored in History and specifically chose classes run by one particular lecturer, who focused on twentieth century history. One class was called 'The Experience of Modern War,' which looked at the human cost of conflicts such as WWI, WWII and Vietnam. He spent an entire lecture saying that military history is seen as a joke by actual scholars.
I wouldn't say that other professional historians look down on military historians its just that recently other sub branches of history have been more-emphasized and a sort of over-correction has occurred. You will always have the tumblr-type who don't want to talk about any war. I will say though that people who ONLY do Military History, while not a joke, are often hurting for employment and credibility, so if you want to do Military History it should be in an interdisciplinary context. I personally specialize in the economics and logistics of war (I double majored in Economics and History before I want to graduate school)
My specialty lies in the economics and state organizations behind war. My greatest areas of expertise are the 20th century from 1905 onwards and the late (Western and Eastern) Roman Empires from the Crisis of the Third Century until the Muslim Invasions.
Already answered. As for actual proof I don't have anything I could timestamp but I guess you faggots can just keep asking questions and if I give retarded answers, argue the point. Only the unqualified try to make a special claim of irrefutable knowledge based on academic qualifications.
>>11906 And those other historians are so completely ignorant of actual military matters it's embarrassing. Seriously, looking at published histories outside of specialized works, when they ever try to describe a battle or a military operation in anything but the vaguest terms it's hilarious.
To add on to what I have said before, I think it's an oversimplification to blame the decline of military studies based solely on tumblr-type political correctness. In a somewhat zero sum game that is academic publishing military history has declined in real terms because other areas have risen. IE Political Economy in a Historical context is, despite being a blatantly obvious field, fairly new in historical (and economics) studies because it is such an uncommon economic hybrid, and certainly not the realm of tumblr types (since it involves math and facts).
Wars present a clearly defined change to a status quo with somewhat concrete courses of action, causes, and effects. Academic history has gotten more nuanced, and I think on balance that is a good thing even if you get charlatans washing in.
Whatever you do, tie it in with something else. IE do Military History AND a regional study, or another field like economics or social history. It makes you more employable and a better historian overall.
-Poor army doctrine and lower echelon military doctrine. French tanks actually slightly outnumbered and outperformed (minus the lack of a radio) German tanks. The problem was that said tanks were distributed widely as infantry support mechanisms rather than self-actualized units.
-Political willingness is often overblown and became a scapegoat after the war. "If only X political actor didn't back down we could have won". It's a more shameful and obvious version of what happened in Germany after WWI; many things went wrong before Petain and Vichy came about.
Chalons and the Wars of the late Western Roman Empire.
Usually pitches battles where for strategic reasons one side or another can't retreat, both have ample manpower reserves (and thus see a battle of position rather than attrition as more important) and thus in result throw more into the meat grinder.
This is true to an extent in that they lack specialized knowledge, but having worked on the editing side of things as a type of consultant its often because, for the purposes of same paper, the explanation needs to be simplistic.
Absolutely. Not only did we see this in the enlightenment era with the mass centralization in France, Britain, Russia, etc... but we actually saw this before (to a lesser extent but still on the same trajectory) in the ancient world. IE the wars of the Diadochi, the various Greek city states, and on local levels as the military responsibilities for the various subdivisions of the Roman Republic / Empire changes (ie Praetorian Prefects, Princeps, etc...)
This isn't to say its the only reason bureaucracies ever grow, or that the desire to wage war necessarily results in this, but it is a very solid paradigm with few outliers.
The Zimmerman telegram wasn't pre-emptive, it was worded so that in the event Germany and the USA were ALREADY at war, THEN Mexico would hop in.
As for why The USA was involved in WW1 :
The Zimmerman Telegram was a public relations disaster. Not only that, but it made the educated members of the foreign policy establishment livid because Germany actually used Western Union, made available despite British insistence, on the condition that Germany used it to put out peace offers. Instead Germany used this American offered service to engage in conspiracy and espionage, which made Germany look like it wasn't acting in good faith.
The (renewal) of unrestricted Submarine Warfare was a big issue. Lusitania itself was one of many incidents and its unfortunate it has become the dominant footnote in our history because...
1- Lusitania was carrying guns, the Germans told many this, and actually had consul officers at the ship's entrance when it was leaving harbor telling the passengers it was carrying guns, and it would likely be sunk. The dominant attitude in the USA after the Lusitania (which happened in 1915, not right before we went to war) was far more level and divided than high school textbooks make it out to be.
Lastly the fact there was legitimate feelings that the world did need to be made "safe for democracy", and not just democracy, but free trade. One can look at the American Open Door Policy in China for example to see American views. Plus going to war for a "progressive" cause by joining the Entente (which was far easier after Tsarist Russia peaced out at Brest-Litosk) helped various activists and political actors at home.
This is rather simplistic. There has never been an "era" where one type of war prevailed over another in a universal context. You might have localized situations like within the Holy Roman Empire, or amongst the Greek City States, which makes the choice for one type of war more rational, but it is by no means certain. Insofar as there is any relationship it is that the stronger the state, the easier it is to digest new conquests and thus engage in wars of conquest. However that is such a loose rule with tons of exceptions its almost not a rule at all.
>>13034 Very interesting words. Maybe things have changed, but when when I was in school, I learned about the zimmerman telegraph and the lusitania and all that. And we did indeed learn that it actually was carrying guns and they knew an attack was likely.
So do you think we sent the ship in to get sunk knowing full well that it would give us excuse to enter the war?
>>13034 Actually there was a second telegram that was pre-emptive: it dropped the line about waiting for the US to actually declare war on Germany before the ambassador started making deals with Mexico.
This telegram was never made public until years later because there wasn't a convenient made up explanation of how exactly the British had acquired it, but the American government was shown it.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from them. If you need IP information for a Poster - you need to contact them. This website shows only archived content.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content you can contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with that post and thread number and it will be removed as soon as possible.