Okay, here's an example of convernitional history, and why

it's wrong. From the Winds of War by Herman Wouk, but published elsewhere in texts referring to the late 19th century boom in industrialization in Germany and their use of railroads to bring the troops to the front.

"It was certainly the Germans who mastered industrial warfare and taught it to other nations: total war, the marshalling of railroads, factories, modern communications, and the entire population on a land into one centrally controlled system for destroying his neighbours, should the need or the impulse arise."

It was not the Germans who pioneered the total mobilization of the country, it was France after its revolution. France found itself surrounded by enemies, Monarchies which did not wish to allow a republic to survive. America didn't count, too small and too far away, though they contributed through the Louisiana Purchase (bet that's the firs time it occurred to you that the Louisiana Purchase was an act of war, and you wondered why the British were hostile). The US was too far away, and besides among the nations in Europe the consensus was that Britain wasn't really a monarchy after all, to much Parliament and democratic talk for the autocrats to tolerate. The Bourbon monarchy continued in Spain, the Italian Monarchy, weak as it was was right on the doorstep of southern France. The multiple segments of the German agglomeration of states had various princes and Margraves and Marquesses and Archbishops and Electors who owed a great deal to their progenitors, Belgium with a king, Holland with a king Denmark with a king, Austria with a Queen, the Hapsburg Empire with a king Prussia with a king, Poland with a king and Russia with a king. Consequently the entire male population of France was put under mobilization. The women took over the munitions factories, the manufacture of muskets became a huge undertaking, the steel industry was increased enormously, as was the making of uniforms. Communications were secured by Cavalry, though moving the armies was a task for Shank's mare or marching.

Napoleon's brilliance beginning in Italy in 1798. and circling around Europe defeating his enemies piecemeal meant only that a brilliant commander had well trained troops, and that they were frequently able to bring superior force to bear. That's why Napoleon lasted 17 years. In the end he squandered his resources,and the Battle of Borodino with its 70,000 dead was the largest single one day slaughter on a battlefield, though it was surpassed not in World War One, but in World War two, by night bombing of German and particularly Japan, specifically Tokyo. I believe one nuclear blast may have exceeded the death toll at Borodino, but the other did not.

And that's how easily misinformation gets embedded in the Historical Record. It takes endless patience to check every piece of information several times and to put them together in a logical interlocking argument. And even then you are up against the slipshod reviewers who don't know the history and accept errors as history. It is sometimes a melancholy and frustrating life working on history which is properly researched but will probably be ignored either because everybody knows the wrong story, or because there is a political agenda which is served by the lie.

Rob

- Collapse -

convernitional?

by Bill Osler Mar 15, 2010 11:15PM PDT

Did you mean conventional? Or is this an exercise in proving your command of arcane vocabulary like 'minatory'? (which, BTW, I'm not sure you used correctly though I'm no expert in these things - it seems to me that your post was neither threatening nor foreshadowing anything though I suppose the developments you referred to could be described as minatory).

As to the substance of the post, I think the point is open to discussion. Certainly France under Napoleon did mobilize a large portion of the civilian population for the war effort but is that related to Hitler's similar effort? Or was the Napoleonic approach something that had passed so far out of the mainstream that it was substantially irrelevant to the Germans as they planned their war effort? (I doubt the latter since Hitler seemed so preoccupied with Napoleon)

Also, I note that actual inventors do not necessarily get all the credit for an idea or process. Henry Ford did not invent the automobile but in terms of popular culture he might as well have. Until somebody made mass production possible the automobile was nothing but an interesting oddity. Similarly for computers. IBM did not invent the personal computer but we can rightly regard them as the pioneers because the predecessors to the IBM PC had virtually no broad appeal.

So, even if the technique of modern industrial warfare came from a French idea, if the idea had not caught on (a question that I admit I am not qualified to answer) then it could be fairly said that German did master the technique and teach it to the rest of the world.

Finally, I don't think it is fair to say that academic historians as a group are scorned by most of us in this forum. People who attempt to reinvent history to suit their political agendas (either liberal or conservative) certainly should be met with scorn but that's not the same as rejection of academic history per se.

- Collapse -

(NT) It's just a made up word

by C1ay Mar 16, 2010 1:56AM PDT

- Collapse -

No it's about clumsy typing skills and poor proof reading

by Ziks511 Mar 17, 2010 3:57PM PDT

I acknowledge that I use a broader than usual vocabulary. It's how I was brought up. My family loved words and word play, and I do too.

It doesn't hurt anyone to strengthen their vocabulary, except maybe me. In grade school I was asked to define or give a synonym for counterfeit, and I said spurious. My school principal marked it as "copied", i.e cheating. My mother stamped up to the school and tore the Principal a new one, and told him where I got it from. Remember Reader's Digest? Remember How to Increase Your Word Power. My Mum and I did it every month. So she told him where I'd learned the word, and he said "Well, it's wrong anyway." so my Mum, all 5 foot 2 of her tore him another one and forced him to get down a dictionary and look up both words. When I got home, she handed me the test re-marked and a kind of sappy apology "Congratulations on using Reader's Digest." I wonder what he would have said about me reading Harper's Magazine and The Atlanic Monthly as it then was, because I read those too at age 12. I had to. Political discussions over the dinner table were mandatory. That's mandatory, not minatory.

Rob

- Collapse -

Chip on shoulder

by Willy Mar 16, 2010 12:41AM PDT

What's all the hoopla about? If any or past warfare where the combatants engaged in and persisted for any length of time would involve the total capabilities either could muster. So, if a country was made-up of rocks, I'll guarantee you, rocks would play an important part. What about Hannibal, moats around castles, England's fleet, Russia's Ural steps, etc. etc.. They all in one way or another become the means to an end or play important parts either as an obstacle or new warfare.

As for the Louisiana Purchase, that's a case in point. Before France got it, Spain had it. It was in Spain's interest not to have America own it as they still had colonies/possessions in America. Spain sold it to France, but wanting France not to sell to America as part of that sale. Once France had Napoleon needing funds to maintain his campaign in Europe, he relented and sold the Louisiana Purchase proper. Spain was peeved as it was also its ally with France at the time. Woooo, you can guess how things heat-up amongst allies. Anyways, America got something w/o war and Spain later had to rethink remaining in America as well. -----Willy

- Collapse -

I regret to disagree with you, but with the exception of

by Ziks511 Mar 17, 2010 5:17PM PDT

Post-Revolutionary France, "total war" was unknown prior to World War One. Even Rome mobilized on a case by case basis before the time of the Emperors, and was still somewhat limited during the Roman Imperium. If it hadn't been the Roman Empire would never have fallen, especially not to the Goths.

For centuries War was the activity of the landed gentry who would gather up some of their peasants and band together under the king to fight a war. Even the One Hundred Years War 1337 to 1453 wasn't continuous. It was spasmodic not least because you couldn't strip the land of peasants at seeding or at harvest time. That surplus of wealth and production is one of the things that industrialization enabled. In the case of Napoleonic France the there were squads of Police Militaire who scoured the country for "refractaires" or deserters. They weren't necessarily deserters, they were usually men who hadn't been caught up in previous sweeps, but some actually were deserters or were British Prisoners of War who had escaped. Women, the young, the elderly and the disabled were expected to "man" the factories and the farms.

Oh, and an interesting fact of the Napoleonic era. Napoleon's army marched on Russia wrapped in English Wool Great Coats. Even though the British were at war with France wool cloth was being traded via US carriers, or via other countries in Europe.

Rob

- Collapse -

Winds of War by Herman Wouk

by Mike_Hanks Mar 16, 2010 1:21AM PDT

Winds of War by Herman Wouk

Is there a different "Winds of War" by a different "Herman Wouk" beside the NOVEL "Winds of War by Herman Wouk"?

I may laugh my self silly for a month!!!!!

From your quote:
"It was certainly the Germans who mastered industrial warfare and taught it to other nations: total war, the marshalling of railroads, factories, modern communications, and the entire population on a land into one centrally controlled system for destroying his neighbours, should the need or the impulse arise."

You think that France had "railroads, factories, modern communications," in Napoleonic times more than Germany in WWI or WWII ??????

- Collapse -

I'll spare you a disquisition on the iron and steel works

by Ziks511 Mar 17, 2010 4:31PM PDT

of Le Creusot and Schneider both of which pioneered industrial steel production, though by WW1 Germany had surpassed them. But think for a moment what the mobilization of the entire country of France meant. Huge efforts put into weapons, both muskets and cannon. French cannon were very good. The British were happy to capture them.

What France had was an extensive transportation system of rivers and canals which were used for mobilization at least of materiel if not of men. Oh, and under Napoleon there was a national and even international semaphore telegraph system which took messages from Portugal Italy and Spain to Paris in a day or so instead of weeks. So there was technology available which has subsequently been supplanted by that of Morse and Stephenson. France was the birthplace the "Manufactory" which gives us the word factory for the purpose of the weaving industry, particularly the silk industry. Jacqard looms were programmable, self operating, 18th and 19th century weaving machines. The machines which turned out musket stocks was a pattern-following lathe pioneered in France. Explosives, why do you think du Pont de Nemours established a branch plant in Delaware and became Dupont Chemicals eventually. They were world leaders in the production (that's the industrialized production) of gunpowder at the beginning of the 19th Century.

And why do you think Napoleon was so successful, besides his ability as a commander. He fought the entirety of Europe from 1798 to 1814, and damn' near won. They never ran out of weapons or gunpowder, they ran out of men, because Napoleon threw away nearly 500,000 in wars with Austria and Russia. I'm deliberately leaving out The 100 Days leading up to Waterloo.

Oh, and when you cite a book even a NOVEL, you cite the author. It's a reflex. But if I have brought a little laughter into your life, I'm pleased.

In the interest of full disclosure, I misspelt the word "too" in my first post as well. I spelt it "to". And yes, in the US the past tense of "to spell" is usually spelt "spelled", but I like the archaic spelling better. Personal choice unlike the two mistakes in spelling I made in the first post.

Rob

CNET Forums

Other Forums

Forum Info