Assault Units or Sturmtruppen in German were WW1 infantry tactics. The big advancement was the radio and they put it in their panzers, after all the tank was a British innovation. The reason for WW2 the Germans couldn't cope with their defeat and the French and the British found that victory came at a high price too high.Germany developed a new way to fight?
Progress marches forward, but can history's lessons always keep up? For every war, I am sure we can find examples of a new technological innovation (or perhaps even strategy) winning out over the tried and true methods. The original post to this thread features a photo from our American Civil War. Similar to the radio, the Union took advantage of the telegraph much more than the Confederacy. Much to the chagrin of his generals, Lincoln micro-managed the war in ways never before seen, and having a effective centralized command played an important role, even if it didn't always mean victory on the battlefield.The big advancement was the radio and they put it in their panzers, after all the tank was a British innovation.
In my opinion that is accurate but not precise. Better, I believe, is that history is written by those in power. Consider what the typical Japanese student learns of World War 2. Moreover, isn't history a kind of "soft-science?" Historians develop theories, but often lack methods that prove to everyone's satisfaction what we "know" (or learn.) Even in these forums there was a recent debate about how rational it was for Hitler to invade Russia. Depending upon the evidence presented, and how much one believed the evidence, people, even historians, had differing opinions on the subject.History is written by the winners.
German law (section 86a) forbids the "use of symbols of unconstitutional organizations" outside the contexts of "art or science, research or teaching". So, one doesn't see swastikas displayed in Germany, for example. Yet one can learn the history.I disagree -- statues are NOT history ... the REASON they were put up in the first place IS the history.
Won't change anything? I wonder. I see you are now (?) in England. I am not sure if you appreciate the tensions that have gone on in my country, America, and are still going on. There is history, but what you are describing is symbolism. I am sure you are aware of the importance of symbolism on perception. Changing the symbolism won't change the history. I don't think anyone here wants to change the history apart from what they feel deeply is a misperception, or inaccuracies, but mostly omissions.Winners or losers it's still History ....... So it's no good pulling down statues ( Idiots ) it won't change any thing
If it is propaganda by the winners, it is not history by definition. The original meaning was to investigate. There was one big conflict in the world during the 20th century. What we call now WW1 ended with an armistice with WW2 the conflict just continued. The consequence for Europeans was, the century Europe imploded.History is written by the winners... are times a changing?
Better, I believe, is that history is written by those in power.
But surely the point is learn and know and not to let it happen again, a statue doesn't make you celebrate the reminder of the things that might have happened be they wrong or right,I disagree -- statues are NOT history ... the REASON they were put up in the first place IS the history.