Part 1 (of 2) of an in-depth investigation into the shenanigans that led to many of the developments of the 20th and 21st centuries, including the re-emergence of Neo-Nazis seemingly everywhere
You do spoil your readers. Being outspoken was to be the burden and duty of the humanities and the social sciences, and look at us now. Rather than doing what you do here, we have instead become the clergy of not only the politically correct, second for second, but the politically expedient career-wise.
Will read more thorough but I'll drop a question here if it's alright:
When studying history in school in Germany and Austria, does the time-line jump from the French Revolution, touching lightly on Napoleon and Marxism, and then mention the wars before settling in and becoming detailed again in the early seventies?
Because swedish history, in school books for the past fifty years basically skips everything but the world wars, during the period 1850 to 1965. Rather than going into detail about recent history, a period where we have lots of material, more time is spent on the neolithic era for comparison.
I ask, and if similar in Austria and Germany wonder if there's a conscious thought behind this, or accident?
Lots of text, so difficult to focus on just one item. But the most enraging part is the lack of morality of anyone in power from 1850 onwards. It is appalling.
Thanks for the very detailed history, which again, I knew very little about. In U.S. we are taught that Germany turned to the National Socialist party because of the heavy reparations they had to pay after WW1 and the subsequent depression, massive inflation that crushed their economy. In other words, WW2 happened because of the the Treaty of Versailles . The level of detail about the German political scene immediately after WW1 is not mentioned.
How does Mark Jones, writing things like "Violence is a physical action: it causes injury and death and it reminds all who encounter it of the fragility of their own physical existence.", duck the shitstorms? I am writing this after having just read William Briggs' piece here:
I have read several books detailing the events of 1918-19 (I don’t have them in front of me and therefore cannot cite them...one of them was “The Kings Depart”).
Soviet Russia was attempting to provoke a communist revolution in Germany at the time, opening an embassy in Berlin and pouring money and agitators into the country to foment revolution. The Army and police were almost nonexistent, and the new government couldn’t defend itself from the communists. Chancellor Ebert was presented with the first Freikorps units (placed under his control) which were used to support his government.
Historians tend to downplay the threat that the Russian Communists actually posed to Ebert’s (social Democratic) government.
I’m not defending the Freikorps or their subsequent actions....I’m just saying that they were needed at the time in order to prevent the spread of Bolshevik (Russian) Communism into Germany.
You do spoil your readers. Being outspoken was to be the burden and duty of the humanities and the social sciences, and look at us now. Rather than doing what you do here, we have instead become the clergy of not only the politically correct, second for second, but the politically expedient career-wise.
Will read more thorough but I'll drop a question here if it's alright:
When studying history in school in Germany and Austria, does the time-line jump from the French Revolution, touching lightly on Napoleon and Marxism, and then mention the wars before settling in and becoming detailed again in the early seventies?
Because swedish history, in school books for the past fifty years basically skips everything but the world wars, during the period 1850 to 1965. Rather than going into detail about recent history, a period where we have lots of material, more time is spent on the neolithic era for comparison.
I ask, and if similar in Austria and Germany wonder if there's a conscious thought behind this, or accident?
Lots of text, so difficult to focus on just one item. But the most enraging part is the lack of morality of anyone in power from 1850 onwards. It is appalling.
"Might makes right" and all that crap I suppose.
Thanks for the very detailed history, which again, I knew very little about. In U.S. we are taught that Germany turned to the National Socialist party because of the heavy reparations they had to pay after WW1 and the subsequent depression, massive inflation that crushed their economy. In other words, WW2 happened because of the the Treaty of Versailles . The level of detail about the German political scene immediately after WW1 is not mentioned.
How does Mark Jones, writing things like "Violence is a physical action: it causes injury and death and it reminds all who encounter it of the fragility of their own physical existence.", duck the shitstorms? I am writing this after having just read William Briggs' piece here:
https://wmbriggs.substack.com/p/i-have-the-power-to-slay-with-words
Note also his link (at the bottom of the piece) to a "hilarious academic conference" back in 2018.
I have read several books detailing the events of 1918-19 (I don’t have them in front of me and therefore cannot cite them...one of them was “The Kings Depart”).
Soviet Russia was attempting to provoke a communist revolution in Germany at the time, opening an embassy in Berlin and pouring money and agitators into the country to foment revolution. The Army and police were almost nonexistent, and the new government couldn’t defend itself from the communists. Chancellor Ebert was presented with the first Freikorps units (placed under his control) which were used to support his government.
Historians tend to downplay the threat that the Russian Communists actually posed to Ebert’s (social Democratic) government.
I’m not defending the Freikorps or their subsequent actions....I’m just saying that they were needed at the time in order to prevent the spread of Bolshevik (Russian) Communism into Germany.