WW1: 95 years on. Lessons learnt from history?
Published: 01 August, 2009, 11:42
Edited: 24 January, 2010, 09:44
TAGS: Anniversary, Military, Russia, Europe
It’s 95 years since Russia entered World War One. Memorial services in commemoration of those who died during the four-year conflict are to take place in Moscow.
The war was a great watershed of 20th Century history. Three major empires – Russian, German and Austro-Hungarian – ceased to exist.
When the fighting began, Russia was ruled by Tsar Nicholas II, and ended as a Communist state.
To that time the bloodiest world conflict, which left over 10 million people dead, laid the foundation for the WW2. And today, historians warn that current heads of state haven't learned from the mistakes of the past.
“The world refuses to take heed of the experience accumulated as a result of the First World War, and, in a major way, the Second World War,” said Dmitry Movsyakov, a historian.
“The leaders of many countries – in Asia, Africa, Latin America and the post-Soviet space – are still convinced that a minor local war – a conflict – can solve their existing differences and give them the advantages they strive for,” he added.
The formal cause for the war was the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria-Hungary in Sarajevo by a Serbian activist on June 28, 1914.
A month later, Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia. On July 29, Russia, Serbia's ally, ordered the mobilization of its troops.
On August 1, Germany, an ally of Austria-Hungary, declared war on Russia and demanded the neutrality of Russia's ally France, which the latter refused to give and subsequently mobilized.
01.08.2009, 10:42
1 comment
Soul trader: Latvian loans with devilish interestAt a time of crisis people will sometimes do anything to make ends meet. In Latvia they're ready to sell their immortal souls for a cash loan. The man behind the business has been dubbed a modern Mephistopheles. |
01.08.2009, 15:57
Geeks amassedThree thousand computer geeks have decided to forego their keyboards and screens for the annual System Administrator Camp in central Russia, hosted in celebration of the unofficial “System Administrator Day”. |
To CountCash: Like perhaps yourself, I get mightily annoyed by the shallow, piecemeal “USA Today” approach to either the news or to history. Which, by the way, is one reason I take strong exception to the standard Russian approach to Soviet Baltic history – it is not only shallow and piecemeal, but on top of that it also includes liberal doses of sheer fiction which I, as an Estonian, happen to know is fiction, and which anyone else who wants to take the time and trouble can determine to be fiction by researching the subject from any accepted authoritative historical texts the world over. Any presentation of history has to be organized (since you don’t appear to like the word, “prioritized”). Its scheme of organization has a specific aim in mind – it is either about a specific period, or specific events within a period, or a specific region, or examining a specific principle or dynamic, etc. This means that any one presentation of history must also, of necessity, also be incomplete. A more complete and balanced understanding of events is gained by cross-referencing many accounts and orientations. By doing this methodically, some assertions are seen to be clearly contrived because they are inconsistent with the broad body of verified information. Most Soviet-era assertions about its Baltic adventures fall into that latter category, as do contemporary Russian claims that borrow from them. I’d also like to repeat what I had written previously: while all history is important and has lessons to teach, some aspects of history are more directly relevant to today’s challenges than others. The history of the Ming Dynasty is of little direct relevance to today’s Europe; the history of the Soviet Union is. This is why Russia’s obfuscation of that history is so disruptive to current European affairs.
No Indeed the prioritization of history is the manipulation, that is the whole point, it creates incorrect focus and lacks comparative value. If you remove large tracks of medical training, and focus on a narrow area, then low and behold your diagnosis is narrow and jaundiced. One great value of a superb general doctor is their breadth of knowledge. We know they need to make some comparative analysis, and deduction,before diving into specialty by others. You don't get a body of medical knowledge, just written in an ER. The body of knowledge is the data base from which the doctor can take from. The creation of it is academic work, not political work to suit hospital budgets. History is not a product, produced for the consumer, history is history, there is no marketing plan for history, no key features. there is no end identified customer. There is no prioritization for delivery. To push for prioritization, shows a drive of the historical process from a customer focus. This is perverse and wrong, it is the work of extremists. Can you imagine the perversion of saying, I just need these few pages of history, to get on with my work, please write them quickly. Good history is an academic chore, undertaken without reference to the customer. History is what it is. History of 2000 years ago is just as important as 100 years ago, that is the point of history, to have the whole picture, this is how we as humans gain enlightenment and a total picture. History doesn't exist in convenient bubbles of time and space, product bubbles for instant use. History as an accurate academic study is difficult to grasp for those used to manipulating history. History is a knowledge base for learning, the viewpoint and conclusions often change with time, it is therefore useless as a tool or initiator of action. The consumer of the history is the actor, and they better be sure to use sound judgment as a good general doctor does, with the a vast medical knowledge at their disposal.
A littl late to the party but oh well. You two both make excellent points a provide more insight into a topic then actual artilce does. You are not arguing opposing point but rather tagent possibilities. (spelling sux) History does not exist as we know it. History (as in what is formally taught as history) is myth passed down to the next generation with factual events intersperced.