Battles and Book Reviews - Latest Comments

Re: Politics and Discourse

Patrick Shrier — Tue, 23 Apr 2013 10:32:19 -0000

What gets me the most is that in general I have the impression that most conservatives don't say anything online they would not be willing to say to someone's face. I know that is my policy. I get the impression that most liberals use the freedom and especially anonymity of the internet to say things they would never say face to face. I cannot count the number of times a liberal has replied to one of my posts with what I would consider fightin' words. Yet I have never had an across the table conversation with one where that has happened They get loud and obnoxious but are too craven to resort to the kinds of insults and spitefulness they spew online.

Lastly, they blame the lack of discourse and political gridlock on conservatives, which I find laughable. It is hard to have a discussion with an unreasonable person.

Re: Politics and Discourse

Bruce Roeder — Tue, 23 Apr 2013 09:29:07 -0000

It is almost as though liberals cannot believe we don’t take the rightness of their positions as self-evident and therefor they have no need to defend their position. I think that statement just about sums it up. Also, as a generalization, most of them like to yell to drown you out. Insults serve the same purpose. It's a type of intimidation.

Re: Book Review: Death in the Baltic by Cathryn J. Prince

Patrick Shrier — Sat, 20 Apr 2013 12:42:57 -0000

Unlike the author, I do not have paid editorial staff. I write my own material while simultaneously having a family and a job. I did not attack the work, I pointed out some factual errors while saying it is a book and a story worth being told. Thanks anyway for the constructive comment. I have went in and fixed the most egregious spelling and grammar errors. you are correct that there were some.

Re: Book Review: Death in the Baltic by Cathryn J. Prince

Jill Swenson — Sat, 20 Apr 2013 12:36:27 -0000

Frightening to read such an arrogant attack, when this review is filled with typos, poorly written and lacks style.

Re: Book Review: Dresden: A Survivor’s Story by Victor Gregg

NarniaNitro — Wed, 03 Apr 2013 00:55:27 -0000

I posted a discussion thread about something you wrote here at WCF - http://www.westerncivforum.com...

Re: SLDN Stay out of my Inbox

Patrick Shrier — Tue, 02 Apr 2013 11:19:07 -0000

I cannot think of any other measure than combat effectiveness to use when evaluating policy changes. Anything that negatively affects combat effectiveness should be actively shunned regardless of the perceived social justice issues involved. If we mess around with social engineering to the point that combat effectiveness is compromised then that fits the category of active-stupid. Not that there are not plenty of idiots in positions of authority and/or influence. One would think that the leadership of both the country and military would attempt to objectively asses any proposed changes instead of continually trying to pound round pegs into square holes. I don't see that changing anytime soon though.
I am perfectly willing to tolerate gays, I just will not affirm them and fervently believe they have no business pushing their supposed "equality" agenda at the expense of the combat effectiveness of the nation's military. They are willingly negligent in their attempts to socially engineer the nation as a whole through imposing their progressive views on the military and society in general. Gays in the military i just one facet of a much larger agenda.

Re: SLDN Stay out of my Inbox

MH — Tue, 02 Apr 2013 07:51:52 -0000

I am not sure that we disagree on gays in the military. I'd need more data. My default position is to permit, but if there is a negative influence on combat effectiveness, then perhaps I could be pursuaded. People will disagree on whether combat effectiveness should be the ultimate arbiter and perhaps on what the various effects might be. I can see reasonable people disagreeing here.

Re: SLDN Stay out of my Inbox

Patrick Shrier — Sat, 30 Mar 2013 14:17:02 -0000

Feel free to disagree. Everybody is entitled to their own opinions. Mine is informed by my experience as a soldier and my personal beliefs. My biggest problem is the simple social engineering aspects of the homosexual's quest for not just tolerance but affirmation and acceptance. A quest I vehemently disagree with.

Re: SLDN Stay out of my Inbox

MH — Sat, 30 Mar 2013 14:02:19 -0000

Your statement that being gay is a choice is imperically false, and I disagree with you 100% about what gay rights mean for marriage, but the issue of gays serving in the military is, of course, a legitimate issue of discussion. It should be a question of effect: Does allowing gays to serve openly in the military have an effect on combat effectiveness? If the effect is negative, then even in my most liberal moments - and I am clearly more liberal than you - I would have a hard time making the case that equal rights trumps that. I could not ask our men and women in uniform to increase their risk to life and limb simply so that some vision of equality could be achieved in the armed forces career path. If there is no measurable effect on combat effectiveness, then I don't see any reason to ban gays from anything that heterosexuals are permitted.

Now, if the reason that combat effectiveness is lower - if it is lower - is because of the attitudes of the heterosexual members of the military, then there is a conundrum. A comparison to the race issue is potentially informative here. People were probably arguing that a desegregated military would be less effective because of attitudes in the military. Was that problem ever overcome? I have the impression it was, but I am not 100% sure. My impression is that there is racial harmony on task in the miltiary (black officers are completely respected, for example), but that there is an informal, voluntary segregation socially, reflecting the semi-permeable social separation in society in general (students in my classes on base sit sorted by race, for example, and I've been told the same thing happens in the mess hall). Something similar might happen with gays in the military.

Re: Women in Combat

MH — Sat, 30 Mar 2013 13:44:29 -0000

I am unfamiliar with this discussion, but it seems to me that there are other and better arguments that could be made. I hope this post doesn't summarize all the thinking that has been done here. These arguments - the ones purportedly for women serving in combat - seem like polemics.

For one thing, the argument that "men can't handle fighting next to women" doesn't sound like something a liberal would say. A liberal might say that "old fashioned men don't want to be shown up by women" or "the armed forces want to stay a macho in group" or something like that. However you cut it, this argument is absurd, of course.

The core question should be need: Do the U.S. armed forces need more combat personnel and, if they do, do they need them enough, and are physical standards irrelevant enough for current-era combat, that physical standards should be lowered to let women in? If that need is there and only women can fill the gap at a reasonable cost (at some level of pay, you could always find enough men, but that pay might be too high), then all the other arguments will disappear - the armed forces will adjust.

Women are clearly less physically capable than men. The issue is whether the difference matters enough. Are the tasks one can reasonably be expected to perform in combat such that women in general could not perform them? If physical prowess still plays a significant role in combat - and I assume it does - then there should be absolute standards with regard to both body weight (things like pull ups and push ups) and with regard to external reality: weight lifting, distance/time running, etc. Then anyone who passes - male or female - can go into combat. Anyone who can't, can't.

A potentially interesting factor comes to mind: I can well imagine that a physical task considered likely in combat would be carrying a wounded comrade to safety. One could require all combat soldiers to be able to demonstrate that they can carry X kilos + equipment, X being the body weight of a comrade. OR one could lower the maximum allowed weight of combatants to the point where the vast majority of combatants could carry them (!). Thus, if women were in combat, then the maximum permitted body weight of their comrades, male and female, would have to come down. That might result in the absurd situation of some large, strong, Tilman-type infantryman being sent to a desk job because the female members of his platoon could not carry him off the field!

Re: Similarities Between the 1920′s and Today?

Patrick Shrier — Fri, 22 Mar 2013 03:25:53 -0000

It does not make a difference which Party sits in the White House. There has been a deliberately inflationary monetary policy by both parties stretching back to at least 1964 and the institution of true fiat currency. We could probably even have an argument that it started with the Post-WWII Bretton-Woods agreement.

Re: Similarities Between the 1920′s and Today?

CS — Thu, 21 Mar 2013 23:15:47 -0000

The United States may be doing the same to its currency under the current regime. Possibly a way of paying off (or holding steady) the massive debt to the Chinese, at a discounted price. Better to devalue the currency than to spend less. The American media is making a huge fuss over the sequestrations that automatically went into effect this month. I, personally, hope that Americans see that there is really no downfall to the government not being allowed to spend so much of our money. Not that the politicians will learn anything though.

Re: Similarities Between the 1920′s and Today?

Patrick Shrier — Wed, 20 Mar 2013 11:36:33 -0000

There is nothing like societal dissolution to usher in whatever whacked out plan seems to offer hope of better things. The Russians got the Bolsheviks from the war, the Germans got the Nazis from the 20's and the US got FDR and the New Deal from the 30's. All things that are ultimately destructive, it is just a matter of how long it takes to wreak said destruction.

Re: Similarities Between the 1920′s and Today?

Bruce Roeder — Wed, 20 Mar 2013 08:57:47 -0000

I think you are on to something. The Soviet behemoth emerged from the Great War as well.

Re: Why Blog?

Eddie Clay — Tue, 19 Mar 2013 18:57:44 -0000

My name is Eddie Thompkins, author of the novel Mogadishu Diaries Bloodlines. Mogadishu Diaries is based on my personal experience as a US Marine peacekeeper during Operation Restore Hope from 9 December 1992 until 21 March 1993. Mogadishu Diaries is a novel which captures: the pursuit of a beloved and revered warlord, the disarming an entire community and its unintended consequences, my conscience vs. the Rules of Engagement, and my courtship of a beautiful Somali interpreter named Ayan.

I would be honored for you to review my book.

My book is free of charge on Smashwords.

https://www.smashwords.com/boo...

Book Trailer
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

Kind Regards,

Eddie Thompkins
GySgt USMC (ret)

Re: The Debt Limit and a Typical Family

NarniaNitro — Thu, 07 Mar 2013 15:16:03 -0000

That is actually pretty good. They should have almost had a Chinese guy play the role of the banker.

Re: Truth in Education and the Vietnam War

Patrick Shrier — Fri, 01 Mar 2013 12:28:49 -0000

The fact remains that people, my son in particular, are being taught outright falsehoods in school about this picture. If something so easy to find the facts out about is being taught incorrectly what else are they lying about? That second is my bigger concern.

Re: What is Military History?

Patrick Shrier — Fri, 01 Mar 2013 12:25:45 -0000

I don't think the a slight broadening of the field is necessarily a bad thing. i think we have to be careful about making it so broad that the term "Military history" becomes meaningless however. That is the main thing I am railing against in my post.

Re: Historical Resources on the Web

Patrick Shrier — Fri, 01 Mar 2013 12:17:10 -0000

I will add it to my links list on the front page. I will also add it to this page.

Re: Historical Resources on the Web

Mark Hatlie — Fri, 01 Mar 2013 11:12:10 -0000

Hey, don't forget http://sites-of-memory.de! I'm just putting that out there in shameless self-promotion, of course!

Re: Truth in Education and the Vietnam War

Mark Hatlie — Fri, 01 Mar 2013 10:34:20 -0000

She was featured in a newspaper story over here a year or two ago as having forgiven those who bombed her village.

Re: What is Military History?

Mark Hatlie — Fri, 01 Mar 2013 10:10:00 -0000

I'll cede the point on Marshall's book. It would be another disagreement on labels. I'll look up your blog story on the hoax.

I think we agree in substance. The field is very broad and I can see being against that or wanting the label to be narrower, at least. I'm not, and given how the term is used by people in the field, I think what I do counts (hence my bafflement at it not counting). But if that changed and my book were no longer "military history," I wouldn't lose any sleep. I would then be a "military historian" only in the sense that I have taught a few classes in that field and read a bunch of books on it. I also put a bit more emphasis on it in my non-military-history classes than most of my fellows, just like I do with religion. Institutionally, I think the battle is in fact long lost, as the JMH shows. In the popular imagination, however, I think battle or campaign narratives are what most people think of when they hear the term "military history."

Even given your interests, however, there will be a gray area, I think. That is completely normal, however. No field of study or endeavor is ever completely delineated and isolated from neighboring fields.

What is of further interest, and where we might disagree more substantively - or at least we would have, say, five or six years ago when I was a bit further "left" than I am today - would be the issue of whether this has harmed the field as such. I have the impression that the expansion of the field into cultural and societal niches has improved both the usefulness and the reputation of military history. For a long time, there were fewer and fewer chairs, fewer academic research projects, etc. of military and diplomatic history. They counted as rather shallow fields of research and writing - more like writing about a chess game than about people. That trend has been reversed and new journals and conferences have arisen.

This has:

- ...raised the status of the label.

- ...and it has done so by making the field explain more and cover more, attracting more people.

- ...not reduced the amount of research being done in your more narrow definition. On the contrary, I wager that the production of that kind of book has grown. I don't know this for a fact, however.

- Indirectly, it has also raised the status of talking about the kinds of things that fit your narrower definition. When I was studying history in a German university in the 1990s, few of my fellows knew the difference between a division and squadron. That information was of no interest. Today, you can know that stuff and not be considered odd or somehow "militaristic."

Both military and religion share the odd attribute in the popular imagination that if you know about it, you must somehow be involved in it or somehow vaguely "in favor" of it. I recall giving a talk about the separation of church and state a couple of years ago. Before the talk, someone asked me "So where do you preach?" He assumed that anyone who knows about religion must be seriously religious. Similarly, when we used to play military simulation games at the university in Konstanz (Germany), almost everyone interested was a reservist.

Re: What is Military History?

Patrick Shrier — Fri, 01 Mar 2013 08:52:24 -0000

You are absolutely right that I/we are arguing about labels. I have not claimed that other "war" related areas are not worthy of study, they certainly are. I am simply arguing that Military History should be defined narrowly. I also recognize that this is a battle I am going to lose. I am not attempting to denigrate anyone’s contribution to historical knowledge, only determine the proper niche for different topics and subjects.

The trend is to open up fields of study in the social sciences such that just about anything is fair game. I am simply saying that doing so defeats the purpose of military history in particular as I see it. It is a deconstruction of military history. To dilute the field so much lessens the importance of the specialty of military history. If we can write about anything and have a war going on somewhere that might affect the narrative secondarily and call it military history then why not just get rid of the military all the way and just call it history. The vast majority of world events have been shaped by or shaped war, so therefor is not just about everything “military history?”

I am an SMH member myself and yes, I think some of what makes it in there is not strictly military history as I would call it. An article appeared in last April’s issue that is what actually got me started on this train of thought in the first place. It is: Nate Probasco, “The Role of Commoners and Print in Elizabethan England’s Acceptance of Firearms,” The Journal of Military History 76 (April 2012). It actually won an award for being one of the best articles of the year. I think it was a good article, but not military history, unless you automatically equate firearms with the military and thus voila, military history because it was about guns and the past.

I think I defined what I consider a reasonable definition for military history quite well. You can agree or disagree, that is your right. I realize that many, if not most, military historians would disagree with my definition. To me that just reflects the current state of the discipline, not whether I am right or wrong. Consensus does not make truth, it only makes for agreement.

My definition stands: I believe that good military history examines and analyzes battles and campaigns to determine both what the victor did right and what the loser did wrong.

Lastly, whether Marshall lied or not is certainly germane to whether what he wrote is military history or not. How can anything not based on facts be considered history in the first place, much less military history? Maybe we should call such works pseudo-history since they claim to paint a picture of the past that did not happen.

Re: What is Military History?

Mark Hatlie — Fri, 01 Mar 2013 05:04:06 -0000

My point on Marshal is not whether it is true. That is another issue. The point is whether it is military history.

I think your position here is more normative than descriptive. It is about how you would like the field defined, and comes close to what one might find in the "military history" section of a popular book store or perhaps close to what is taught at war colleges (interestingly not called "military colleges," perhaps because of the broader meaning of "military." Here, however, I am reminded of the work of Mark Moyar, who teaches at one of those colleges and whose work probably doesn't fit your definition.). Your definition does not reflect what "is", what it is as generally understood by those who spend their lives "doing" it, but rather your dismay with where the field's center of gravity has moved over recent decades. That is a legitimate concern if you don't like what you see.

The German Militärgeschichtliches Forschungsamt publishes stuff that would fit your definition, but also lots of stuff that wouldn't. For the U.S., when I browse through the titles of articles in the "Journal of Military History," my guess is that about half of what is there isn't, by your definition, "military history." I don't have my old copies with me, but I'd wager that most of the books reviewed there wouldn't either. But there it is in the leading professional journal on the subject of military history. That is also my impression when I read the calls for papers at the SMH webpage (for example "We view military history broadly across time and encourage material, social and cultural approaches, as well as military themes informed by other social sciences like archaeology and political science"). In both these examples we have highly trained, competent, dedicated professionals calling what they do "military history," but not writing about battles or focusing on explaining who won.

(Browsing further, I just saw that even the Australian Army Journal is calling for papers on "culture and the army.")

Regarding my work on Riga, I find it a bit absurd to consider the war "secondary," as you imply. As I said, nothing I tell about in the book makes sense without the war. You can decide that this isn't "military" history as you envision it. I don't need that label and don't generally call myself a "military historian." But it is most certainly about the war(s) and, going back to my first point here, many people in the field would recognize it as military history or at least as being of interest to those who call themselves military historians. If Chickering's book on Freiburg in the First World War - and unlike Riga changing hands several times, Freiburg wasn't even taken during the war - was reviewed in military history journals, then "Riga at War" would be, for many in the field, "military history." I haven't checked, but I wager it was.

My take in this follow-up boils down to an argument from authority, of course. As I said, I think the conflict is between your normative vision of what the field should be vs. what the field, in practice, under that label, is or has become.

Re: What is Military History?

Mark Hatlie — Fri, 01 Mar 2013 04:25:40 -0000

I have the impression that your response here doesn't really engage my whole point. See at least my last paragraph as well as the second paragraph. I concede that we might just be arguing about labels. That is of interest to people who want to delineate the competencies of university chairs or decide which articles to publish in which journals. But beyond the institutional matters (which are ultimately about money), when looking at the "thing" itself, the field, I see lots of gray area and no universally recognizable core to the field beyond the idea that it should have something to do with collective violence.

Importantly, you agree that there are other purposes beyond just determining which side won. To me, that opens up the field to a very wide range of subjects.