Quote:
Originally posted by mad=dog:
I am a biologist myself. I take great professional pride in maintaining the ability to explain my work in simple terms. Otherwise I fear I might loose connection with my subject and ultimately fail to see the greater picture.
Being a natural scientist I have to cut to the core of a problem so I can establish a research strategy. For that reason I need to be able to summarize facts and put them into a simple, yet functional frame. I am perfectly aware that the same does not apply to history. Nevertheless there is no need to cloud something with obscure and irrelevant facts.
I will have to admit I do not know of the Willy-Nicky telegrams, but I would guess that it is an English nickname for correspondance between the Kaiser and the Tzar. I did not know Germany and Switzerland fought aerial combat(s) in WWII, but again I'll take a wild guess and assume it is over violation of air space. I do not consider these facts directly relevant for the subject of hand, but I am willing to be lectured. After all I live to learn.
PS: Did you know that the allies attempted and failed an invasion in France in august 1942 at Dieppe? Just another little trivia about war rarely mentioned.
|
Your assumptions are right, but your conclusion "I do not consider these facts to be relevant for the subject at hand" I find rather strange, to be honest. Although the initial discussion was about World War 3 and the probability of it happening someday soon, we have found ourself on the path discussing the outbreak of both the first and the second World War. My reaction was towards the very blatant assumptions that I read in this thread, and my examples illustrated the fact that nearly everyone usually fails to see the exact picture of an event. Conclusions should therefore be carefully drawn.
Geez, I actually can't believe that I should be defending myself here. As a scientifical person yourself you should know that functional frames are usuable to illustrate something, not to function as hard evidence for a theory, mad=dog. To take a subject that's probably a little closer to your turf than mine; the theory of Charles Darwin was hardly original in his time. Evolution was a known principle, Darwin was just the man that labelled the ideas on the subject as 'scientific'. The Church wasn't opposing to evolution because of the inconsistencies it had with 'Genesis', but because evolution told us the world was far from harmonious. That the reason some of us existed was by mere fortune, by a twist of fate.
Most conclusions that have been drawn by people from history are so incredibly wrong that it's frustrating. Behind every argument there are a gazillion more waiting to be explained and thought upon. And who are we to judge which argument is more valuable than the other?
Of course I know that the Willy-Nicky telegrams are hardly interesting for someone who wants to know the basics about World War 1. But they do describe the tense situation in Europe at the beginning of the twentieth century. They do illustrate the manner in which European royalty and politics alike were intertwined with each other. Above all, they do show us that war was hardly something that people wanted, it was just expected to happen.
OOC: Kudo's for your English, by the way. Although you're from Denmark (or maybe moved there, that's an option too, of course) I think you do a better job than some of the native speakers on this forum. [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img]
[ 05-30-2005, 08:57 AM: Message edited by: Link ]