Reading History,Facts Change,Perceptions Change , We change
Reading History,Facts Change,Perceptions Change , We change-
Agha H Amin
3 September 2013
DOI 10.13140/RG.2.2.20821.32486
T.E Lawrence-The Myth Decipehered as well as blasted
Agha.H.Amin
What you see first always has a lasting impression on your mind .The first military history book that I saw at a very young age was Stackpoles THEY MET AT GETTYSBURG.
My father had attended the US Army Engineer School at Fort Belvoir Virginia and Virginia had left a deep impression on his mind.Thus his buying the book.Richly illustrated , this book left an indelible impression on my mind and somehow R.E Lee stood as a hero !
When I read Stackpoles book on Chancellorsville my esteem for R.E Lee was reinforced although Stonewall Jackson seemed the super man without even R.E Lee was nothing.
📷
My American impressions became colorful when my uncle a diplomat trained at Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy brought his American sweatheart , a lady related to Kennedy family, Tony Rambay or something like that to our house in Pakistan ? My uncles romantic enthusiasm came to a heavy and traumatic shock when the Pakistani government vetoed his marriage plans.This was 1965 or 1966 ?
Colonel D.K Palits brief but vividly effective conduct of Lee in Seven Days Battle added greater weight to my convictions about Lees greatness.
B.H Liddell Harts Strategy the Indirect Approach introduced another possible hero , General Sherman but I always saw Sherman as a Hun or as an American Genghis Khan.
J.F.C Fullers GRANT AND LEE was a rude shock and I found Fuller positively biased to my hero R.E Lee ?
📷
A.H Burnes Lee Grant and Sherman was like a whiff of fresh air ?
In the end I concluded that my hero R.E Lee lost because he was outnumbered materially and numerically and that added to his greatness.
However I immensely admired Grant because he loved booze because booze was the love of my life also .
📷
T.E Lawrence seemed a giant when I saw the movie Lawrence of Arabia in 1977.
In 1984 when I read " Secret Lives of Lawrence of Arabia" the immensely awesome Lawrence of 1977 seemed a lesser mortal.
This does not diminish Lawrences greatness but iconoclasm when supported by facts transforms ones perceptions.
A similar thing happened with Napoleon .My earliest reading was that of D.K Palits Essentials of Military Knowledge and Emil Ludwigs Napoleon followed by F.N Maude and Liddell Hart.
However when I read Chandlers Campaigns of Napoleon in 1977 some of my admiration for Napoleon was shaken.Chandler seemed to some extent a jealous Britisher who was hostile ? Around the same time Brigadier General Espositos West Point Atlas and Military History of Napoleonic warfare increased my admiration for Napoleons genius.
📷
It was Tolstoys War and Peace that again attacked my beliefs in Napoleons genius but then Tolstoy was a Russian nationalist I thought ?
The turning point however came when I saw Connellys " Blundering into glory" which smashed many of my previously firmly held beliefs of Napoleons genius.This was when I attended the Arlington Virginia meeting of US Society of Military History.I think I briefly met Mr Conelly but really cannot remember ?
The beauty of history is that perceptions change and our judgements are subject to variance.
We may retain some basic convictions but many things change.
Liddell Harts books and T.N Dupuys A Genius for war glorified the Wehrmacht but subsequent study shook my belief when I saw that the best the Wehrmacht could think in attacking France was to repeat the Schlieffen Plan ?
http://www.scribd.com/doc/127374305/Dumb-Enough-to-Only-Think-About-Repeating-Schlieffen-Plan
My faith in Liddell Harts prophetic judgement was shaken wnen I read Mellenthins Panzer Battles. It so happened that Liddell Hart was presented as a demi prophet of military art in Pakistan ?
This if done would have been disasatorous ? It was an ex corporal agreeing with Von Manstein that changed the course of history ? Much that the Wehrmacht achieved in first three years of the war was because of Hitlers acceptance of Guderians ideas about tank organisation and his agreement to Manstein Plan of 1940. A book Hitler Speaks was of particular help in understanding many aspects.My views were briefly shaken when doubts were presented by researchers that Rausching was fake but I still feel that his book is useful ?
Perceptions change and if they dont change then there is something wrong with a mans mind ? Its a complex interplay of conscious and sub conscious forces.
When I started research on my book on Sepoy Rebellion of 1857 in 1977 my ideas were almost diametrically opposite from what they were transformed into when I finished the book in 1999 .
Similarly when I started researching the Taliban War in Afghanistan in 2000 my views were entirely different from those that I expressed in the final book in 2011.
Things change , sometimes what we know as facts change and sometimes we change ?
There is great truth in Somerset Maughams statement that no one can tell the whole truth about himself ? This perhaps is historys greatest hurdle and we have to overcome it ?
Dumb enough to only think about Repeating Schlieffen Plan
When the German General Staff Could only think about Repeating Schlieffen Plan
IF IMPLEMENTED SCHLIEFFEN PLAN WOULD HAVE BEEN A TOTAL FAILURE IN SECOND WORLD WAR AS THE ALLIES WERE FULLY PREPARED FOR IT AND THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN A HEAD ON CLASH IN BELGIUM BETWEEN ALLIED ARMIES AND WEHRMACHT
Comments
Post a Comment
Only substantial and serious comments will be accepted .