Another Sunday Morning Debate
Claire Berlinski, Ed. ·
September 4, 2011 at 10:03am
Is it true that the more extensive a man’s knowledge of what has been done, the greater will be his power of knowing what to do?
The "Ricochet Glory" merit badge will be awarded to the member of Ricochet who provides the best 200-word response in the coming 24 hours.
- Comment (50)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
Comments:
May '10
Re: Another Sunday Morning Debate
"Despite the term blitzkrieg being coined by journalists during the Invasion of Poland of 1939, historians Mathew Cooper and J. P Harris generally hold that German operations during it were more consistent with more traditional methods. The Wehrmacht's strategy was more in line with Vernichtungsgedanken, or a focus on envelopment to create pockets in broad-front annihilation. Panzer forces were dispersed among the three German concentrations without strong emphasis on independent use, being used to create or destroy close pockets of Polish forces and seize operational-depth terrain in support of the largely un-motorized infantry which followed."
Edited on September 4, 2011 at 11:33pmMay '10
Re: Another Sunday Morning Debate
Like most simple questions, the answer is complicated and requires nuance (a little yes and a little no).
As some in this thread have observed, history aids man by pointing to prior mistakes, pitfalls, and sins. It also gives clues as to what should be done in the positive sense.
Others in this thread have noted that knowledge of historical fact does not always translate into political savey, social acumen, or even just street-smarts. More often than not, snot-nosed intellectuals flunk in the common sense department.
So it's not merely about knowing history extensively. It's about knowing it well, or knowing it deeply. It takes wisdom to shift through the fog of the past and learn from it. It requires a sound ethical framework, for starts.
Ethics, then, (dare I say, religion) gives a man knowledge of what to do. On the other hand, knowledge of ethics, or religion, is tempered and refined by a knowledge of history.
Rats. Maybe the problem with this question is our modern assumptions (do x and you always get y).
A knowledge of history is irrelevant to knowing what to do. Though sometimes it has everything to do with it.
May '10
Re: Another Sunday Morning Debate
Claire Berlinski, Ed.
And I wonder if the excessive study of history does not quite often lead to folly: It is a cliche that generals are apt to fight the last war; cliches usually emerge from somewhere. · Sep 4 at 5:16a
m
Interesting how you used events in the past to argue that history sometimes leads to folly, proving simultaneously that history sometimes leads to wisdom
Edited on September 5, 2011 at 12:27amMay '11
Re: Another Sunday Morning Debate
Knowledge of what has been done is necessary, but not sufficient for knowing what properly should be done. Correlative factors, wisdom and integrity help to fill the voids and enhance sufficiency.
Often in complex and critical circumstances, expansive knowledge may provide the illusion of good judgment with unfortunate consequences; to wit political advisers too numerous to mention.
Oct '10
Re: Another Sunday Morning Debate
The knowledge of the New Deal and Keynesian economics have caused generations of people to do the wrong thing. It depends on how you define knowledge. It it facts, which are truths - Pat Moynihan's famous line, "Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts." Or, is it cognition, that has little to do with facts. Beliefs will impact the decisions much more than knowledge. Lower marginal tax rates generate more revenue than high marginal rates, a truth that many believers of statism ignore, such as our President and his acolytes. The answer is a resounding no to the question.
Apr '11
Re: Another Sunday Morning Debate
Isn't that an overstatement? The "Blitzkrieg" was unprecedented, but it was not unimaginable. The French knew; they just didn't recognize a threat. Maneuver warfare--recently exemplified by General Sherman--had its champions in several countries as a response to the devastating effects of modern firepower in direct confrontation, demonstrated as early as the U.S. Civil War. Also, the Germans had used coördinated air and armor in overrunning Poland. The Wehrmacht did confound history-based expectations by violating Belgian neutrality to outflank France's static defenses.
Re: Another Sunday Morning Debate
Brandon Zaffini
Claire Berlinski, Ed.
And I wonder if the excessive study of history does not quite often lead to folly: It is a cliche that generals are apt to fight the last war; cliches usually emerge from somewhere. · Sep 4 at 5:16a
m
Interesting how you used events in the past to argue that history sometimes leads to folly, proving simultaneously that history sometimes leads to wisdom · Sep 4 at 3:26pm
Edited on Sep 04 at 03:27 pm
Excellent point.
Apr '11
Re: Another Sunday Morning Debate
For this sort of question, the answer almost always has to start with some qualification like “it depends”, or “all else being equal”. But things are never equal, and while sages have declared
knowledge of the past is of at most secondary importance.
All one needs for good judgment are clear knowledge of the facts and good principles, both regarding how one ought to act and what ends one ought to seek. Lacking these, good decisions are impossible, however broad one’s historical knowledge.
Some familiarity with history is useful, reassuring us that others have weathered similar straits. Even here, though, someone overconfident in his cursory knowledge of history or present facts can be led astray by false historical analogy. A close study of similar historical events can produce the greatest benefit, first by shaping right principles, and even more by exercising the mind and spirit in the consideration of certain situations.
Edited on September 5, 2011 at 5:20pmNov '10
Re: Another Sunday Morning Debate
You’d think knowing what was done in the past would help one know what to do in the present because you know what worked and what did not work. If that were enough the Maginot line should have worked. It failed spectacularly because Germany used armored mobile vehicles to easily flank the line through the Ardennes forest. Turns out you can’t just know what was done in the past, you also have to know how circumstances have changed. That may require a bit of wisdom.
The Nero Wolfe approach to solving mysteries comes to mind. Each case is different. Asked how he cracked each new case he answered simply, "experience guided by intelligence."
Oct '10
Re: Another Sunday Morning Debate
Because of its journalistic origins, Blitzkrieg means different things to different people. In this Wiki entry, it is accurately identified as an offensive tactic which “include(s) utilizing speed, manoeuvre, and the shock of sudden violence throughout the entire depth of an enemy's defence to create conditions of psychological shock in the minds of their troops and commanders. The idea is to beat them mentally, as a prelude to their destruction or surrender. Deep penetrations by raiding formations...coupled with disruptive techniques and air superiority wrest the initiative away from the enemy, keep them off balance and…prevent them from establishing effective defences.” This characterizes the tactical thrust of Wehrmacht operations, including against Poland. The 18th-19th century Vernichtungsgedanke tactical doctrine “emphasizes rapid, fluid movement to unbalance an enemy, allowing the attacker to impose his will upon the defender and avoid stalemate.” If that sounds similar, it’s because Blitzkrieg is in some ways an application of the latter with the addition of mechanized armor and powered flight, which helped overcome the advantage that high-volume fires provided to the defense, as demonstrated in WWI.