In the Great War, Mobilization meant war, and Russia and France attacked Germany first.
Read the book. It has up to date research, not 50 year old stuff. Sure Tuchman is the better writer, but her book is now outdated.
Yes. they have one drum, and they beat it constantly. Oddly slavery existed elsewhere, and sometimes for longer, but is their very being nothing but slavery too?
That’s an absurdly ignorant viewpoint. The economies of the North and South were not completely disconnected from one another, as you seem to imagine. The South exported a great deal of raw materials to the industrial North, and received finished products in return. There were no slaves at all in the UK at that point, but they were still importing cotton from the southern US.
And to claim that “racism was irrelevant in the North”? I would recommend you consult a good history book, but apparently you already have and decided to ignore it because it didn’t fit your preconceived notions.
I could ask you to rephrase this post in grammatically comprehensible English, but I doubt it would make any more sense.
I mean, the fact that both sides worshiped (or at least recognized) the same gods is a good hint that they were basically the same culture. But having similar cultures doesn’t necessarily mean that it was a “civil war.” Historically speaking, most wars have been between countries with similar cultures, for the simple reason that they’re usually the ones next door.
Athens and Sparta didn’t even consider themselves to be the “same nation”, and in fact warred against each other several times. Some place across the sea? Fugettaboutit.
Well… I think that probably up through the 1960s, there was a lot more parity than we realized; both countries relied on largely conscript peacetime forces, and were pouring tons of money into weapons development.
But sometime in the 1970s/early 1980s, the US military went from being a conscript force to an all-volunteer force. Concurrent with that was an organizational transformation into a professional force- everyone was there willingly, and soldiering was treated as a profession, not as a required or necessary stop on the way into civilian life. Leadership was emphasized, and all that sort of thing.
This made a HUGE difference in how US forces have performed in subsequent wars. Desert Storm or Iraq 2003 wouldn’t have played out like they did without a highly competent professional military.
The Soviets and subsequently the Russians remained mired in their early 1950s style of military- a small cadre of professionals, a number of shorter-term junior officers, and a whole sea of conscripted enlisted personnel, without effective NCOs. They can get them up and moving in a general direction, but they’re not trained or competent enough to engage in the sort of warfare that the West typically does with professional soldiers and officers.
Over time, they have historically managed to promote enough competent officers high enough, and to produce an NCO corps during wartime, but it takes a while and a lot of casualties in the meantime. I wouldn’t be surprised if the Russian military comes out of this better than they started in that sense, but they’ll take tens of thousands of casualties in the process.
The South wasn’t a market for Northern agricultural and industrial products? Northern banks and insurers didn’t finance the slave trade? Northern mills didn’t process Southern cotton?
If you are referring to the D-day landings then US troops made up less than half of those involved.
You know, I have to differ with you here. A “professional army” isn’t the be all and end all. A conscript military can be just as effective as a professional one; each format has its advantages and disadvantages. It’s all a matter of training, doctrine and motivation. There are times where I’d take a hungry young conscript over a career soldier who’s just there for the paycheck.
The Longest Day focuses on Omaha Beach and the parachute landings. Several Brit soldiers are indeed showcased.
All I was getting at is that the Russians don’t seem to have really progressed past the WWII/Cold War large conscript army model, and all the disadvantages that has as far as training, motivation and doctrine are concerned. Eventually they’ll figure a lot of it out through combat, just like the US forces did in WWII as well, but the goal is to flatten out that learning curve during wars, and having a professional military goes a long way toward that.
The bigger problem is that they have regressed from the Cold War conscript army. They went from a three year term to two in 1967 (to accommodate a growing population and maintain universal conscription for ideological reasons) and from two years to one in 2007-2008 (to accommodate a severe lack of money). That, more than anything else, really hit the effectiveness of the non-contract part of the Russian army in the gut. And not incidentally hampered the contract side as well.
Sorry my post was taking is off track. I did not mean to suggest slavery was 100% irrelevant in the north. It just wasn’t the pressing social issue it was in the south, because it was extremely less prevalent and eventually banned in most Northern states. Nobody (I hope) is suggesting that our human history of racism and xenophobia did not exist then and now everywhere.
I wasn’t suggesting the North did zero business with the south - however, they were both able to get by without the other for 4 or more years (or at least one side was), so the integration was not that great.
Doing business with odious jurisdictions with questionable human rights is nothing new. Good thing we don’t do that today, eh?
My point was that slavery was basically no longer a major issue in the north, most states had already abolished it starting with half-measures as early as the 1780’s, their social issues - when not impacted by national politics - was concerned with other factors. Whereas in the south, it was far different - it was central to how the elite maintained their fortunes, it was a major political issue. They could see the handwriting on the wall that the disapproving national majority would soon steamroll their social order. Their preemptive military action failed to stop this. Indeed,
Britain did a huge business with the South, to the point where they were absorbing whatever Confederate cotton exports they could get - so the North was not the overwhelming consumer of the south’s agricultural product. Even back then, economies all over the world were interconnected to a certain extent.
They have been trying to move away from a conscript based military for a while now and in 2007 they weren’t short of cash thank to high commodity prices.
And has the US really moved to a professional force? They have an all- volunteer one. But the US military is (almost unique in the world) a short service all volunteer one. Everyone else who has aa all volunteer military has long service ones.
Short service has some…issues. The US seems to manage, but by putting in an eye watering amount of resources into solving them. No one else besides the maybe the Chinese can do that (and the PLA has always been a long service force).
Sorry for the intemperate tone of my post.
You know, you are absolutely correct - I was being too facile there based on a flawed memory. The serious Russian recession started in late 2008 with the big decline in commodity prices, too late to be the driving force in the down-sizing of the conscript terms. It seems it was more strategic/political.
But my basic point remains. Russia remains heavily dependent on conscripts (who are much cheaper than contract troops - like ~one thirtieth the salary to start with) and the steady reduction in service terms has eroded the Russian military’s effectiveness in terms of any large-scale conflict. One estimate was that after training, the conscript effective deployment period was basically reduced to a five month window.
I agree with you.Other people will say, no, slavery was THE major issue.
The problem with discussing slavery is that us modern folk simply cannot comprehend it , so WE make it into a bigger issue that it was back then. It is obvious (to us, but was not obvious to our great grandparents) that slavery is so totally evil that we simply cannot comprehend how it ever existed. So how can we dare to say that it was not a major issue? But to them , it was just the way things were, a part of life.
So I would suggest a technique to make it easier for our modern minds to grasp: Let’s look at another, more modern, social custom which was once common: Jim Crow laws.
Everybody–north and south, was okay with it, remember? For a hundred years, nobody cared, nobody protested, nobody called for boycotting Southern businesses, nobody insisted that schools emphasize teaching about Jim Crow laws in every subject, from math to history.
Jim Crow was just the way things were . No reason to make
a big issue over it.
And a century earlier, I think that people had the same attitude about slavery. It’s just the way things were. No reason to get too upset.
Remember, your own grandparents lived with Jim Crow, just as Thomas Jefferson lived with slavery
. Is your grandma a disgusting human being? Or was she just living with the standards of her time? .
But in this post you seem to be making precisely the point that md-2000 was arguing against. The 1619-project’s claim is that slavery is a fundamental building block of our national identity. Md-2000 seems to be arguing that while that was true of the South, slavery had little effect on the evolution of society in the Northern states. Your argument that the North didn’t think much about slavery because it was seen as commonplace, proves that slavery was indeed woven into the fabric of American identity in both the North and the South.
This is over thirty years ago but a friend of mine was getting his PhD having something to do with heart research and materials science. He used fresh dog hearts and attached sensors to them and then stretched and twisted the muscle. He used pound dogs that were going to be euthanized anyway. The live animal lab at the university was in a very secret location.