The History Discussion Topic

ooh, that was a cool time as well.

1 Like

I probably am one of the biggest history nerds on this site.
Like, really.
People around me keep asking me why I went forward on the human branch of my high-school (aka languages, psychology, logics, philosophy, etc), instead of going for math or something.
My one word answer: history.
And this passion for history was very spontan too. It pop out of nowhere and completely took over all of my systems.
it also spawned my extremely strong political virtues, but we are not talking about those

My favourite political historic entity (aside for like every single Romanian one) was definitely the Roman Empire, and I definitely believe that Trajanus was its best emperor.
No, it’s definitely not because he Latinised us
I also really like the XXth century. Like, the antebellum, the Balkans Wars, the WWs, the interbellum, the Cold War. Perfect story. I could ramble on and on about them and their context.
And it also surprises me how different the western view of the WWs is compared to ours, the easterner view.
also Russia is underrated

3 Likes

Well, that is something I’d be up to debate, considering I am also a history major at the moment. :stuck_out_tongue:

Just make sure it’s not a phase and make sure to not get too caught up on political arguments on history. Historical figures need to be represented by the time of their thinking and culture otherwise they will be misrepresented. It may have a Christian view of history (which not everyone will like) but John Fea’s Why Study History? is an excellent book that explains why historical study is crucial. It’s a good read.

4 Likes

I do!

Another good one is World War II, and how it effects you today. by Richard J Maybury. It really changed my views on the World Wars, (there is one for WW1 as well), and how unnecessary the US’s involvement was in both WW2. America was powerful, but Britain and Russia could have easily handled Germany between them. In general, we in the US have a very skewed view on the WW’s, and one that can be unhealthy.

1 Like

One thing I love about history is the fact that there’s so much to learn. Plus, you almost never get a totally biased view unless you’re reading a very specific book with a very specific viewpoint. But even then, it’s fascinating to discover the different views of a single event.

I myself love learning about the various wars and battles in the world’s past. WWII and WWI are some of my favorites.

1 Like

Indeed! One of the many reasons I love history is that it is constantly evolving. For example, as I think I alluded to above, I’ve been working at a historical museum for over 3 years now. Our focus is the Pilgrims, the English people who settled in Plymouth in 1620. Even in just the three years that I have been working there, new archeological evidence is changing the way we talk about certain aspects of their lives!

Not entirely true. History is, by it’s nat-oh hold on,

But yeah, it’s kinda impossible to be unbiased about history because of worldview. Having said that, the fun of history is that, like you said, you can discover differing views on the same topic.

4 Likes

Fight me. I dare you. I double dare you.

Although yes, in the last few month the line between politics and plain history kinda got blurred, especially in the 20th century (cause
 you know
 in 100 years we were kingdom and anarchy and authoritarian and fascist and communist and democratic, we were basically doing parkour everything, which really messed with our mentality over modern history), when it’s a historic debate I at least try to keep politics out of it.
I also went on the history path, although it isn’t only history, but I like my highschool profile.
Tho the biggest con is that I can’t see a job that would be supported entirely on history: becoming the owner of a museum, of a historic monument, or a historian in general requires a lot of effort, and I don’t want to be a museum guide or history teacher.
I mean the last one could do, but both of my parents are teachers and I see their everyday life.
So getting into politics is a needed evil, as a historian who understands politics, or a politician that understand history, is very valuable.

[details=hhhh long counter-argument]Stating that American involvement was unnecessary towards winning World War Two is blatantly incorrect. American involvement was essential towards a total victory over the Third Reich.

First off, multiple major Western Allied operation could not have succeeded without the Americans. Operations Overlord, Torch, and Avalanche spring to mind. Overlord was a joint operation between British, American, and Commonwealth forces. Overlord’s success was because of this close cooperation between the Western Allies.

The British Army was a very professional and well-trained fighting force, but it was significantly smaller than the US Army. The manpower and equipment needed to make an operation like Overlord succeed wasn’t there. On the topic of equipment, a significant portion of British armor was American. In fact, the vehicle generally regarded as the best British tank of the war, the Sherman Firefly, is an American M4/M4A4 with the 17 pdr.

While Royal Navy was exceptionally strong in the Atlantic, and would have blocked any German attempt at Seelöwe, it couldn’t exactly do anything on the continent. The Royal Air Force was skilled, yes, but British aircraft alone couldn’t do nearly as much damage to the Germans. The combined might of the RAF and USAAF was what broke the Luftwaffe’s back, not the RAF alone.[/details]

2 Likes

You forget one thing.

Russia.

As soon as Russia was involved, in 1942, all they needed to do was wait for winter, and the war was pretty much over at that point.

Maybe before Operation Barbarossa, Britain would have required help, but with the British Navy, and the Russan army, the war was pretty much a slam dunk.

In addition, the German military had a habit of shooting itself in the foot on numerous occasion, (mostly because a certain politician believed himself tactician and engineer).

Though, I suggest you read the book, he makes the arguments much better than I can, especially without my numbers in front of me.

Yes but
 Winter ends.
I mean granted: the battle of Stalingrad took place in the spring or summer, a the German lost, but wasn’t it because they had to also spread their forces to help Italy, and the newly formed front created by D Day?

One winter is all it takes.

The Russian army specializes in equipment and strategies that use the winter in their advantage. Combine that with the fact that they shot themselves in the foot again by not giving the necessary equipment to keep the war going, and the necessary clothing to survive the winter.

The Russians, did not have this problem.

As for Stalingrad, the Russian army had picked itself up at that point, so they most likely would have easily taken the town back.

They had one winter, which yes, pushed Barbarossa a little, but if the US wouldn’t have joined in, Hitler would have easily got to the Urals.

Yes, but it was just temporary. They could have not resisted the combined forces of Germany, Finland and Romania.
Not to mention that if Japan actually listened to Hitler and attacked from Siberia, they would have had to fight a war on two fronts.
And if somehow they would have also convinced other countries to join in the fight, like Afghanistan or Persia, or rebel separatist groups in the USSR itself, the fight would have been lost before the next winter.

[details=i forgot russia] In regards to the USSR, the American Lend-Lease program provided for a significant amount of Soviet production. When Operation Barbarossa commenced, the Soviets lost access to vast amounts of natural resources. The Americans picked up the slack in this regard, providing the USSR with vast quantities of steel, aluminum, railway, and food. Every single T-34/85 had a bit of American steel in it.

That’s not even mentioning the equipment the Soviets received. According to Weeks, around 30% of Soviet soviet aircraft production was lend leased. A major example of this would be the P-39 fighter, which saw significant use on the Eastern Front, and was loved by Soviet airmen. Let’s also not forget the significant amount of tanks the Soviets received, such the M4A2 76w, which was also loved by the Soviet tankers. The Americans also provided a significant amount of the often overlooked truck - about 33% of Soviet truck production was American. The Soviets rolled into Berlin on Studebakers, not ZIS-5s.

Overall, the Allied victory cannot be pinned on just one party. It was a symbiotic relationship of sorts: all of the Allies needed each other to achieve a total victory over the Nazi regime. Stating that America’s involvement in the war was unnecessary completely misrepresents the actual events of World War Two.

If you’d like to do some more reading on the effects of lend-lease on the Soviets, I’d recommend picking up Albert Weeks’ Russia’s Life-Saver: Lend-Lease Aid to the U.S.S.R. in World War II It’s a fairly short read, all things considered - my copy is only about 170 pages - but it accurately describes the impact of the program.[/details]

also the germans lost stalingrad because german tactics were not suited to urban warfare
at all
the more buildings reduced to rubble by artillery barrages and stuka raids, the more bunkers the soviets could lurk in, conducting asymmetric warfare (under vasily chuikov’s school of street fighting)
combine that with the fact that the besieging german 6th army became the besieged come november
iirc the party headquarters in stalingrad changed hands dozens of time within the span of a week or so

Edited for Double Post- Prentice1215
Edit: bruh

Ah, yes.
Hitler wanted to take the Caucasus and all of their oil before Stalingrad.
I mean, if you think of it, if he didn’t ordered the split of the army, then they would have probably won the battle, and nothing would have stopped them from swooping down into the Caucasus.
Maybe except for the Caucasus mountains themselves, but I don’t think that was too big of an effort.

he did kind of have to take moscow too considering that was were soviet railroads were concentrated (rail was very important for the maneuverability of the heer)
in a vacuum germany would’ve most likely achieved a pyrrhic victory against the ussr

Yes, but he also needed all the oil from the Caucasus to actually fuel all of his armies. I might be wrong, but the biggest oil importer of Germany was Romania, but then compare Romania with Azerbaijan, which is literally covered in oil.
Not to mention that Romania was kinda going through an internal crisis of sorts.

1 Like

[details=also may i add (there’s a lot to unpack)] [quote=“ProfSrlojohn, post:255, topic:4244”]
As soon as Russia was involved, in 1942,
[/quote]

Operation Barbarossa started in early summer of 1941, not 1942. The goal was to reach the Arkhangelsk-Astrakhan Line by December, which obviously wasn’t achieved.

The Russian winter being the reason the Germans were pushed back is a common myth. Both nations were equally affected by the winter, especially after considering Soviet equipment losses in 1941-1942. The winter stopped both armies dead in their tracks in 1941, except for an incredibly costly Soviet winter offensive near Moscow.

In fact, the only major German winter offensive was Operation Winter Storm, the attempt to break the Sixth Army out of Stalingrad. The Germans “attacking in winter,” as many like to put it, basically never happened. The Soviets attacked during winter more often, securing victories, yes, but those victories came at an incredible cost of life.

You’ve completely ignored my point that even by 1944, Britain alone would not have the military or industrial capability to launch an operation like Overlord. The Royal Navy can only do so much to support offensive, land-based operations by the British Army.

Another common myth. This whole “Hitler micromanaged everything” idea comes from postwar writing by German generals, who shifted the blame from themselves onto Hitler. While Hitler did have his hands in things, being the leader of the nation, the majority of German operations and ideas were drawn up and executed by the military leaders. The generals weren’t always right, not by any means.

Even still, it should be noted that people like Manstein can and should be considered military geniuses, despite some of their failures. The Wehrmacht performed admirably for what they went up against. Taking a look at just Barbarossa, we can clearly see how the Wehrmacht completely annihilated the frontline units of the Red Army and Soviet Air Forces, pushing them back to Moscow within six months. This is no easy feat.

See, a close friend of mine is very involved in military history circles, and neither he’s nor I’ve once heard this book or author mentioned. After looking into it, I can see why.

Richard Maybury is not a military historian, he’s an economist. His other major writings are entry level books on economics. While several economists have written fantastic novels on the economics of World War Two, such as Tooze and his work, Maybury perpetuates incredibly outdated myths, and does not focus on the area where he might be able to make meaningful contributions to the history.

From what I can tell, he blatantly lies, misrepresents, and misunderstands strategic and military interests. Perhaps the most egregious of this is how he seems to conflate the Allied Strategic Bombings of Germany and Japan with the Holocaust as equal in levels of evil. This is disgusting, and blatantly dishonest. The Allied Strategic bombing campaigns had the strategic interest of destroying German and Japanese military capability, which they were very successful in doing. Without the extensive bombing campaigns, Germany and Japan would have fought on for far longer due to an increased ability to produce equipment, supply troops, and defend against the Allies.

This book seems to get such an incredible amount of basic information wrong that it should never be taken as a legitimate academic source. Even if it didn’t blatantly misinform people, a war which has been continuously discussed for 75 years cannot be accurately in a 350 page book. There are books that go over a single tank model which last over one hundred pages.
[/details]

2 Likes

I mean
 a lot of people still died, but I obviously can see where you are coming from

AKA not everything that happened in WWII was Hitler’s fault.
Or at least not directly Hitler’s fault.
TBH, this modern stereotype that every single bad thing that happened in this 6 years long war was directly Hitler’s fault is annoying me. Yes, Hitler was a monster. Yes, Hitler did a hell of a lot of bad things in this war, but he was not the only one committing war atrocities from the Axis. Or from the entire war. At the end of the day, the Allies were not angels either.
looking at you, Stalin. I really wish you never existed

1 Like

John Fea’s book addresses this. Short answer: history majors actually have good chances at jobs aquiring jobs with analytics and research because of how historical study works. You just need to apply it.

1 Like

This is getting off-topic. Please move to either PM or another topic.

1 Like