|
Typo posted:grant was a good commander and crossing the james and pinning lee's army down at petersburg was war-winning move That reminds me of something I left out previously: Wolfgang Schivelbusch's Culture of Defeat: On National Trauma, Mourning, and Recovery is an excellent read which interprets the Lost Cause as one version of a larger pattern of behavior often indulged in by defeated peoples.
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2019 23:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 09:13 |
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:That reminds me of something I left out previously: Wolfgang Schivelbusch's Culture of Defeat: On National Trauma, Mourning, and Recovery is an excellent read which interprets the Lost Cause as one version of a larger pattern of behavior often indulged in by defeated peoples. I read that book (no kidding) because victoria had an event flag called "national trauma" so I read the book because of it super-interesting book
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2019 23:46
|
|
|
Typo posted:I read that book (no kidding) because victoria had an event flag called "national trauma" so I read the book because of it Schivelbusch is an interesting guy and I got assigned that book for my comps back when. Ended up influencing my own work, down the road.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2019 23:49
|
|
|
mila kunis posted:list some good books stephen kotkin's biography volume 1/2 on stalin https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNmvGTLmg2o
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2019 23:51
|
|
|
Typo posted:when it comes to the lost cause: it's no accident that two of its most revered figures: stonewall jackson and Lee, both during or soon after the war even longer if you include the dunning school but that's reconstruction rather than the civil war
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2019 23:57
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:Franco was an evil poo poo, but at bare minimum he can be credited for seeing fascism generally and the Axis in particular as a losing bet, and something to which he didn't want to shackle his regime too closely. what was the effective difference between his regime and a fascist one though
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2019 23:57
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:even longer if you include the dunning school but that's reconstruction rather than the civil war one of the most forgotten figures of the lost cause was wade hampton, who was apparently on par with lee/jackson at one point but then it turned out he opposed franchise for poor whites as well as blacks in the 1880s-90s so he fell from grace and nobody remembers him anymore
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2019 00:01
|
|
|
Typo posted:stephen kotkin's biography volume 1/2 on stalin dunno about this guy but in that vein this is the best book on stalin ive read: https://www.amazon.ca/Stalins-Team-Living-Dangerously-Politics/dp/0691145334
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2019 00:01
|
|
|
mila kunis posted:dunno about this guy but in that vein this is the best book on stalin ive read: I read filzpatrick as well and as the title implies, it's more about stalin's inner circle than stalin himself it's great and one of the most fascinating chapters was when stalin tried to convince kagnovich (who was jewish) to essentially sign off on a new pogrom right before he died and kagnovich found some excuse to get out of it
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2019 00:03
|
|
|
Typo posted:I read filzpatrick as well and as the title implies, it's more about stalin's inner circle than stalin himself i still think its the best entry point to learning about the period because people (left and right) have a tendency to group everything done in the soviet union from the 30s to his death as 'Stalin' as if he was a great man of history that imposed his sole will on the place and its pretty dumb. the USSR was a complex place with a lot of interest groups (not to mention external pressures) and material realities that could force the government to do things one way or another even over stalin's objections
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2019 00:06
|
|
|
mila kunis posted:i still think its good because people (left and right) have a tendency to group everything done in the soviet union from the 30s to his death as 'Stalin' as if he was a great man of history that imposed his sole will on the place and its pretty dumb. the USSR was a complex place with a lot of interest groups (not to mention external pressures) and material realities that could force the government to do things one way or another even over stalin's objections Stalin -was- kind of a rare great man figure though if trotsky had triumphed over stalin, or if stalin lost out to zinoviev or if he lost out to Bukharin, the USSR, socialism and the world would have being utterly different Collectivization is a great example of this, there were strong political factions in Soviet politics for and against it, and he he dictated the policy be carried out over considerable objections within the party because he was a believer that collective farms were necessary for socialism. It was a more radical and dangerous revolution than Lenin's 1917 revolution in many ways. he made every member of his inner circle, they only rose to power -because- stalin needed loyalists to solidify his power base within the party leadership and eventually to replace the left/right/united oppositions, which in turn was composed of the Bolshevik leadership of 1917. Typo has issued a correction as of 00:15 on Mar 20, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2019 00:11
|
|
|
Typo posted:Stalin -was- kind of a rare great man figure though i think thats the key part. stalin was a representative of factions of soviet society, not some colossus standing outside it. the fact that he had to play factions against each other in his rise to power kind of cements that, he was stepping on eggshells for a huge part of his reign and there was absolutely nothing stopping someone from Thermidoring him if he didn't have widespread support. saying the USSR would be different if trotsky won is one view; another one is that there's a reason why trotsky lost (trying to export permanent revolution and not coming to an accord with the rest of europe would have been suicide, and most people in soviet society could see it)
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2019 00:16
|
|
|
mila kunis posted:i think thats the key part. stalin was a representative of factions of soviet society, not some colossus standing outside it. the fact that he had to play factions against each other in his rise to power kind of cements that, he was stepping on eggshells for a huge part of his reign and By that point, he has solidified his control to the point where he no longer needed to play factional politics, what Stalin dictated was the policy of the USSR, even before the purges there was no figure or group of people within the party that could stand up to him. quote:there was absolutely nothing stopping someone from Thermidoring him if he didn't have widespread support. But the truth is that his inner circle was not psychologically ready to do away from him, they really did see him as the supreme guide of Socialism and were subservient to him to the point where, without him, they not be able to function. quote:saying the USSR would be different if trotsky won is one view; another one is that there's a reason why trotsky lost (trying to export permanent revolution and not coming to an accord with the rest of europe would have been suicide, and most people in soviet society could see it) Actually a lot of the reason why Trotsky lost is circumstantial, namely that he was the DnD poster of the Communist party. He kept needing to tell people how smart he was and how he was Lenin's equal whereas Stalin portrayed himself as Lenin's student. this one time he corrected lenin and lenin basically went ok trotsky you are right and trotsky never loving stop bringing it up Also Trotsky never went to drinking parties so the rest of the politburo basically trash-talked all the time behind his back over drinks and everybody hated him Even Zinoviev, who headed the Comintern and was basically trying to implement world revolution by staging coups in the Baltics, hated him. Typo has issued a correction as of 00:27 on Mar 20, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2019 00:23
|
|
|
Typo posted:They could have done it in 1941 when Stalin clearly failed by leaving the country vulnerable to Hitler, Stalin became depressed and withdrew to his dacha for a week after the invasion also try imagining rallying the union to make the sacrifices needed to resist the germans after you just summarily executed the personality of the cult of personality Raskolnikov38 has issued a correction as of 00:30 on Mar 20, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2019 00:25
|
|
|
During the purges, he went after and killed: - leading figures of the only political party - leading figures of the intelligence services - leading figures of the drat military, that can coup and revolt against you You can't do that unless you actually actively represent a large base of people that will back you up when you do these things Look what happened to Robespierre in comparison
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2019 00:27
|
|
|
hey everybody we're going to need you to literally throw your bodies at german tanks, btw we killed stalin hope no one minds
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2019 00:27
|
|
|
mila kunis posted:During the purges, he went after and killed: 1) are true believers in socialism 2) willing to equate socialism with what stalin wanted 3) were terrified that if they didn't carry out purging XYZ they themselves were going to end up on a purge list next 4) Genuinely believed that there were enemies of the people/trotskyites/capitalist spies who needs to be purged quote:Look what happened to Robespierre in comparison I mean to conclude read kotkin Typo has issued a correction as of 00:39 on Mar 20, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2019 00:33
|
|
|
mila kunis posted:what was the effective difference between his regime and a fascist one though Had he been a genuinely believing fascist then at a minimum he'd have gotten more engaged with the Axis or joined it outright during the war, or launched wars of his own against whomever The Enemy happened to be in his particular ideological view. Franco's viewpoint was fundamentally that of classic reactionary conservatism, which views fascism with suspicion at best because it too was something new and the new was virtually always suspect. As such what he wanted, beyond being in and staying in power, was to stop the clocks and roll back the dangerous modernism the Second Spanish Republic has instituted during its short existence. Or, to put it another way, he wanted to restore the old class order of premodern Spain, whereas a fascist would be about instituting a new national/racial order to replace class considerations.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2019 00:45
|
|
|
Typo posted:the large base of people you are talking about are people stalin appointed to positions of power within the Communist Party apparatus who seems like 1, 2, and 4 here are just weird ways to rephrase the idea that stalin had a lot of support within the communist party. the nkvd are still looking for 3, and until they find it school is closed
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2019 00:54
|
|
|
mila kunis posted:what was the effective difference between his regime and a fascist one though I don't think that there's any real 'generic' fascist state that can be used as a comparative example for any other state, but Francoist Spain is probably best thought of as broad political alliance between different reactionary groups, each with their own agendas and tolerances, but unified under the centralizing influence of Franco. So there's a broad Francoist "center" of traditional nationalists, a distinct clerical group including Opus Dei (which actually became dissatisfied with the regime in the 70s and was one of the major sources of conflict within the coalition), Fascists/Falangists, anti-communist militant groups (who often got out of hand and killed communists and basques in the 70s against government wishes), etc. From Paul Preston's Triumph Of Democracy in Spain: quote:
These internal differences were recognized and exploited by contemporary opponents of the regime, for example basque militants who assassinated Franco's successor luis carrero blanco specifically because they saw him as a figure who could manage the disputes between these factions and extend the lifespan of the regime. In that sense they were successful, as the transition to democracy in the 70s would not have been possible without some of these factions breaking away from the coalition and backing major reforms. Francoist Spain isn't unique in having internal factions (see Neumann's Behemoth or Tooze's Wages of Destruction for classic studies about how fascism turns into an internal and improvised turf war over ever-changing personal fiefdoms), but its longevity gives a unique example of fascism (or something very close to it) aging out of existence naturally as opposed to violently
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2019 01:47
|
|
|
anybody else super bored of military history after loving it as a kid lol
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2019 01:54
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:seems like 1, 2, and 4 here are just weird ways to rephrase the idea that stalin had a lot of support within the communist party. the nkvd are still looking for 3, and until they find it school is closed Stalin in his role as general secretary and poliburo member in the orgburo (the party HR department) built the communist party. The party went from membership in the tens of thousand in 1917 to hundreds of thousands and eventually millions. Stalin was the person who led the implementation of the expansion and in the process dispensed patronage and appoint loyalists. So its understandable they have iron loyalty to him. That and the terror ofc. Typo has issued a correction as of 02:10 on Mar 20, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2019 02:02
|
|
|
tatankatonk posted:I don't think that there's any real 'generic' fascist state that can be used as a comparative example for any other state, but Francoist Spain is probably best thought of as broad political alliance between different reactionary groups, each with their own agendas and tolerances, but unified under the centralizing influence of Franco. So there's a broad Francoist "center" of traditional nationalists, a distinct clerical group including Opus Dei (which actually became dissatisfied with the regime in the 70s and was one of the major sources of conflict within the coalition), Fascists/Falangists, anti-communist militant groups (who often got out of hand and killed communists and basques in the 70s against government wishes), etc. is it fair then to see fascism as capital's last ultraviolent stand against socialism/trade union militancy/wealth redistribution? i guess it sort of makes sense that it would fade away after capital's security has been assured
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2019 02:19
|
|
|
mila kunis posted:is it fair then to see fascism as capital's last ultraviolent stand against socialism/trade union militancy/wealth redistribution? i guess it sort of makes sense that it would fade away after capital's security has been assured I don't know how useful it would be to speculate whether fascism is, like, the final form of reaction at the end of a historical sequence, there's plenty of examples of non-fascist right-wing repression working fine in recent history. I think its more useful just to say that fascism is fundamentally anti-communist and its ascendance is contingent on a weakened/de-legitimized liberalism or nationalism looking to collaborate against left-wing revolutionaries (real or imagined) tatankatonk has issued a correction as of 02:46 on Mar 20, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2019 02:31
|
|
|
military historians aren't real historians
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2019 02:51
|
|
|
R. Mute posted:military historians aren't real historians gently caress you too, buddy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2019 03:38
|
|
|
tatankatonk posted:anybody else super bored of military history after loving it as a kid lol no? political power grows out of a barrel of a gun, and a good understanding of military history, the tactics and strategy of armies and guerrillas and ways they have changed with material conditions, is crucial to anyone who wants to be a good ally to a revolutionary wave.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2019 04:54
|
|
|
Ardent Communist posted:no? political power grows out of a barrel of a gun, and a good understanding of military history, the tactics and strategy of armies and guerrillas and ways they have changed with material conditions, is crucial to anyone who wants to be a good ally to a revolutionary wave. oh I'm not disputing its value or anything I was just curious about people's shifting interests in topics of research
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2019 05:20
|
|
|
i mean i guess it depends on how you define military history. i still read big picture stuff but the "so and so unit was at x location with 3 tanks at 14:46 hours" never really gripped me except for naval battles because i was raised on horatio hornblower
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2019 05:26
|
|
|
tatankatonk posted:anybody else super bored of military history after loving it as a kid lol It's was probably overemphasized but honestly it matters to know why the germans lost WWII or how wars sap the strength of nations
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2019 13:19
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:i mean i guess it depends on how you define military history. i still read big picture stuff but the "so and so unit was at x location with 3 tanks at 14:46 hours" never really gripped me Positions and tactical situations actually matters in naval battles though lmao if you don't like botes
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2019 13:22
|
|
|
tatankatonk posted:I don't know how useful it would be to speculate whether fascism is, like, the final form of reaction at the end of a historical sequence, there's plenty of examples of non-fascist right-wing repression working fine in recent history. I think its more useful just to say that fascism is fundamentally anti-communist and its ascendance is contingent on a weakened/de-legitimized liberalism or nationalism looking to collaborate against left-wing revolutionaries (real or imagined) A fair take
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2019 13:23
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:i mean i guess it depends on how you define military history. i still read big picture stuff but the "so and so unit was at x location with 3 tanks at 14:46 hours" never really gripped me That's the old "battleflags and battalions" school, which used to make up the bulk of military history prior to the social history revolution of the 60s which more or less killed it (and a few others) in academia. These days, you generally see those sort of books coming from non-academics, like retired officers and journalists and the like. Modern military historians usually tend to be from the War and Society end of the pool, or at least that's what I say when I'm trying to convince myself I have a shot at tenure some day. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2019 13:52
|
|
|
actually all military history is bad
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2019 14:39
|
|
|
youre just mad the military history of Belgium is getting owned and committing genocide
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2019 14:43
|
|
|
military history will never die because it's pretty much the only history that is commercially viable on its own and has very obvious practical applications
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2019 16:43
|
|
|
Typo posted:military history will never die because it's pretty much the only history that is commercially viable on its own and has very obvious practical applications I'd be lying if I didn't admit that a lot of our work does end up feeding the lucrative Dad Market.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2019 17:29
|
|
|
No shame in being a history dad as long as you bring your kids along for cool museum trips
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2019 17:36
|
|
|
military museums are worthless. drive all tigers and shermans and whatevers into a lake
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2019 00:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 09:13 |
|
|
R. Mute posted:military museums are worthless. drive all tigers and shermans and whatevers into a lake Thread starting off strong
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2019 01:25
|
|