Britain and the Great War
Вставка
- Опубліковано 3 жов 2024
- Sir Max Hastings presents his arguments for British involvement in the Great War. Uploaded for educational purposes only. All films on The History Room are unmonetised, and any advertising that appears is unconnected with the channel.
Four years led to this, quite excited I must say. Just discovered you too.
Please visit our site for the serious history enthusiast: www.historyroom.org We have recent history, old history, ancient history, debates, reviews, quizzes and much more. You might even consider contributing something of your own! See you there!
One of the best writers on the history of the 2nd world war Max Hastings.
Dear someone, I'm a history student and I'm writing a story based on Roman history in which I'm going to focus on the Roman dictators Sulla and Julius Caesar and Augustus.
Okay
awsome welcom back why did you stop for 5 years
i go school 🏫 with you
*Logos, Ethos and Pathos are the prime means used in any argument.*
These are the means used by the presenter of any theory (incl. this comment) to convince a reader or audience. Logos, ethos and pathos is present in this documentary and in every debate, and in every speech anybody will ever hear regardless of the language, ethnicity, or origin of the speaker; and just like every book and just about every theory out there today, stresses various criteria by implementing an appeal to the reader or listener. Almost imperceptibly, a "pecking order" of criteria is stated, as a result of what is stressed: Logos, ethos, or pathos.
What is not immediately clear is that this documentary is an example of syllogism:
The primary criticism should therefore not be directed at this specific documentary, but in the layout of such documentaries in general. It starts off with what it sets out to affirm, basically an exercise in circular reasoning, or the incomplete argument:
"The Aristotelian syllogism dominated Western philosophical thought for many centuries. Syllogism itself is about drawing valid conclusions from assumptions (axioms), rather than about verifying the assumptions. However, people over time focused on the logic aspect, forgetting the importance of verifying the assumptions." (Wiki/Syllogism)
This basic truism means that the listener automatically assumes that everything presented is "true", based on already established "truths" which have been presented over long period of time and in different contexts, and have simply always been assumed to have been "true". However, just like in the fallacy of the *false premise,* the assumed "truths" have often never been proven to be correct, meaning that the outcome is based on assumptions which have never been proven to be correct, but are then *still* used to form grand theories...
Logos falls short.
The documentary immediately launches into "ethos and pathos", and continues doing so for the overwhelming majority of the 60 minutes. The general layout of the theory presented in the documentary reinforces what most people already think is important.
*WHAT actually happened, or HOW it unfolded, and WHY it unfolded that way, then falls short in the argument.*
Therefore the prime criticism regarding a documentary with the heading "Britain and the Great War (WW1)" is that around half of it deals with "Germany and WW1", and not what London did or how a very few specific London lords ticked. That is only tucked away into the last folds of the documentary, roughly following 55 minutes. Following from this logic, the documentary would have been a lot more accurate, and a lot more informative, if these 2 minutes or so, had been put right at the beginning as an introduction, and then dealt with in greater detail. These details would then have lain a suitable foundation to a proper understanding as to why the historian (assumes) to believe that "no one nation is entirely at fault for the war". Or in other words, why the historian at least partly appoints blame to London.
The "old gang" as mentioned at 51:00 minutes, which "remained in power" (in London). The "false bill of goods" mentioned spans a much wider scope than this documentary alludes, and is based on the narrow field of view open to the historian's grandfather (annecdotal evidence). The logic of the "old gang" remained intact after 1919: The causes of World War 1, were simply transported into the future, and not solved. This is in fact a dead giveaway for any "divide and rule"-system: Problems are not solved, but the can is kicked down the road, for a different set of leaders to address at some future point in time. Obviously, if most issues are solved, a lot a people will find themselves without work. An observation not only true in the leadup to WW1, but also today: Such "systems" carry themselves, by affording privileges, and granting favor to a few key chosen systems, from a position of power: Divide and Rule.
Logos falls short.
The documentary immediately launches into "ethos and pathos".
The general layout the theory presented in the documentary reinforces what most people already think is important.
An example of a specific criticism of such documentaries is presented at 1:34 minutes as the "What if Germany had won"-argument (ethos and pathos), which is a fallacy known as false dichotomy. Whoever said "Germany had to have won" anything? There was of course the third option, not mentioned in such arguments ("appeal to emotion") of the status quo ante bellum, which can only be reached as a matter of negotiations, and around 1916 was the perfect opportunity to do so, but elements on *both* sides did not want it. Neither did outside powers, as a concerted effort (for example, in Washington DC/the USA).
Therefore, there is a lot of truth in the "Blackadder"-take of history of the "little people" ("proxies") set up against the little people (proxies) elsewhere, and that observation is based on "Logos".
The "status quo ante bellum" would have required Germany and the Central Powers to remove it's forces from Belgium, from France, from Luxembourg, from Serbia, and from Russia etc, to return to their old borders. In which alternative universe are you suggesting that was ever likely to occur?
Even the briefest of perusals through the various peace proposals entertained by Germany show that this was an impossible likelihood under the regime that existed at the time. In order for any such plans to have been implemented, the existing regime would have had to relinquish power. By the middle of 1916 Germany was under a de facto military dictatorship bent on preserving the autocratic monarchical order within Germany and securing such a win as to "guarantee" German security "in perpetuity", and to preserve the existing internal political order against growing calls for constitutional reform. The "status quo ante bellum" was never going to be seriously entertained by Germany under those conditions, certainly not with "the old gang" at the helm. This is certainly not a fallacy, the assumptions are valid, and your "logos" has fallen short.
I would remind you of the words of Wilhelm himself, as presented in previous comment threads :
Wilhelm sought to impose upon the Western Allies "[...] a genuine, proper, common-or-garden peace of the kind that has so far always been signed after a victorious war. There is no place in such a peace for dreams of human happiness or humanitarian cosmopolitanism, only one’s own naked self-interest and the guarantee of one’s own security and greatness must count. The vanquished must submit to his fate!" - Wilhelm II, one week after signing Brest-Litovsk
There is no "circular reasoning". He first sets forth his position in the introduction and then proceeds to present his case in detail.
This is classic "essay" format, consisting of an introduction, a body and a conclusion, and is also, coincidently or not, the same format used in presenting a court case.
If you disagree with his arguments then refute them in detail. Don't attempt to circumvent the argument by simply dismissing the entire video en masse based on some apparent grievance with the format.
The black community honors nothing about this war