>in4 Storm of Steel
Let that normie meme die. It's not a pro-war text, it simply doesn't get bogged down by the moral baggage of war. It's meant to be an objective account of war rather than a subjective experince involved in war.
It's not pro-war but Junger did think that the experience of war and pain as a benefit to a man. War as an Inner Experience and On Pain give good insights on this.
It's not pro-war but Junger did think that the experience of war and pain as a benefit to a man. War as an Inner Experience and On Pain give good insights on this.
>(although it is also >War is...LE BAD)
No it's not and that's only really been an opinion since WW2. The Iliad was told in a society that held war as almost sacred, especially among the aristocracy to whom the poem was going to be mainly rehearsed to in their palaces and whatnot. Looting the enemy takes up like 5% of the lines. It is intensively pro-war and especially victory in war.
Homer's implicit attitude in his stories was a loathing of war. Tthe battles were cartoons to sate his reactionary and anti-intellectual audience. He barely bothered to get his military background accurate, his fighting is a careless muddle and he indiscriminately mixed up modern and outmoded weapons. He was really contemptuous of the stupidities of war.
>his fighting is a careless muddle and he indiscriminately mixed up modern and outmoded weapons
Anon.....there's a much more obvious answer to this.
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
>'Homer was an oral tradition'
The Iliad presupposes an presupposes an earlier story cycle about the events leading up to it, these generally described heavy-chariot fighting, which had fell out of vogue by Homer's day, so he modernised most of the fighting. He often had to strain his imagination in describing novel varieties of manslaughter, which he credited to the ancestors of his hosts (typically crass, snobbish princelings).
He is so careless, too, about the names of Trojans killed - Greek sword-fodder - that Erymas, Acamas and Chromius get dispatched twice, and Chromius lives to tell the tale.
I have no idea how chuds reconcile their notion of WW1 and WW2 being "forced" upon Germany when the upper echelons of society were churning out books like this lmao. It's clear that Germany was begging for both wars and they got their asses handed back to them twice
Because the man in control Wilhelm frantically tried to connect with European leaders trying to avert a war but they (Framce and Russia) told him to get fricked.
FACT: Russia mobilised it's army AGAINST GERMANY prior to the German declaration of war.
FACT: The french government announced in parliament that they would aid Russia in a war against Germany even if Russia were the aggressor.
Because the man in control Wilhelm frantically tried to connect with European leaders trying to avert a war but they (Framce and Russia) told him to get fricked.
FACT: Russia mobilised it's army AGAINST GERMANY prior to the German declaration of war.
FACT: The french government announced in parliament that they would aid Russia in a war against Germany even if Russia were the aggressor.
You mean Wilhelm “antagonize France at every chance” the second? Ah yes he dindu nuffin!
He did a lot. Veritably more than any other leader trying to avoid the war and after it started to find a consolidatory peace.
You morons are outing yourselves for not knowing what you're talking about. The build up towards WWI was beyond the control of monarchs, the Nicky-Willy correspondence shows this itself. The German-Russo alliance agreed by Wilhelm and Nicholas which was also destroyed by the minsters and cabinet of both (for good reason as well in terms of geopolitics) also shows the limited power of the monarchs.
WWI and the declerations of war were all "forced" either from needing to follow an alliance (you can't just not follow an ally after agreeing you will aid them in war, nobody would every trust you and you would be isolated) or going to war for premptive action. France had every reason to follow Russia who had every reason to defend Serbia and Germany had every reason to not just protect Austria but also attack France. Nobody was really cheery at the war, even Von Moltke was quite depressed at the outbreak of war saying >I will do what I can, we are not superior to the French
Read Strachan or something.
>Prussian Militarism
Not a real thing. France and Britain spent more time at war than Prussia. It's literally deflection. >imperial war for money good >war for self defense (of germans) bad
>in4 Storm of Steel
Let that normie meme die. It's not a pro-war text, it simply doesn't get bogged down by the moral baggage of war. It's meant to be an objective account of war rather than a subjective experince involved in war.
It's not pro-war but Junger did think that the experience of war and pain as a benefit to a man. War as an Inner Experience and On Pain give good insights on this.
Yes this.
Iliad
(although it is also >War is...LE BAD)
>(although it is also >War is...LE BAD)
No it's not and that's only really been an opinion since WW2. The Iliad was told in a society that held war as almost sacred, especially among the aristocracy to whom the poem was going to be mainly rehearsed to in their palaces and whatnot. Looting the enemy takes up like 5% of the lines. It is intensively pro-war and especially victory in war.
Homer's implicit attitude in his stories was a loathing of war. Tthe battles were cartoons to sate his reactionary and anti-intellectual audience. He barely bothered to get his military background accurate, his fighting is a careless muddle and he indiscriminately mixed up modern and outmoded weapons. He was really contemptuous of the stupidities of war.
>his fighting is a careless muddle and he indiscriminately mixed up modern and outmoded weapons
Anon.....there's a much more obvious answer to this.
>'Homer was an oral tradition'
The Iliad presupposes an presupposes an earlier story cycle about the events leading up to it, these generally described heavy-chariot fighting, which had fell out of vogue by Homer's day, so he modernised most of the fighting. He often had to strain his imagination in describing novel varieties of manslaughter, which he credited to the ancestors of his hosts (typically crass, snobbish princelings).
He is so careless, too, about the names of Trojans killed - Greek sword-fodder - that Erymas, Acamas and Chromius get dispatched twice, and Chromius lives to tell the tale.
I have no idea how chuds reconcile their notion of WW1 and WW2 being "forced" upon Germany when the upper echelons of society were churning out books like this lmao. It's clear that Germany was begging for both wars and they got their asses handed back to them twice
Because the man in control Wilhelm frantically tried to connect with European leaders trying to avert a war but they (Framce and Russia) told him to get fricked.
FACT: Russia mobilised it's army AGAINST GERMANY prior to the German declaration of war.
FACT: The french government announced in parliament that they would aid Russia in a war against Germany even if Russia were the aggressor.
You mean Wilhelm “antagonize France at every chance” the second? Ah yes he dindu nuffin!
He did a lot. Veritably more than any other leader trying to avoid the war and after it started to find a consolidatory peace.
Americans know and understand absolutely nothing about History regardless of their political orientation.
You morons are outing yourselves for not knowing what you're talking about. The build up towards WWI was beyond the control of monarchs, the Nicky-Willy correspondence shows this itself. The German-Russo alliance agreed by Wilhelm and Nicholas which was also destroyed by the minsters and cabinet of both (for good reason as well in terms of geopolitics) also shows the limited power of the monarchs.
WWI and the declerations of war were all "forced" either from needing to follow an alliance (you can't just not follow an ally after agreeing you will aid them in war, nobody would every trust you and you would be isolated) or going to war for premptive action. France had every reason to follow Russia who had every reason to defend Serbia and Germany had every reason to not just protect Austria but also attack France. Nobody was really cheery at the war, even Von Moltke was quite depressed at the outbreak of war saying
>I will do what I can, we are not superior to the French
Read Strachan or something.
FACTS: von Falkenhayn and von Moltke the Younger outright wanted a war.
I would absolve the Kaiser though. He wanted to keep the war confined to Russia.
This. Germany was no worse than Russia, The UK or France in WW1, but it's strange how chuds have a fetish of being a "victim".
Prussian Militarism and Communism were the great scourges of the last century and we're good to be rid of them.
>Prussian Militarism
Not a real thing. France and Britain spent more time at war than Prussia. It's literally deflection.
>imperial war for money good
>war for self defense (of germans) bad
How was the Franco-Prussian war a war of defense on Prussia's side?
The German Sonderweg is a myth.
Albanians are Indian
they're HWHITE! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1MCqa2glpoQ
Blood Meme
Mitteleuropa by Naumann although it focuses more on foreign policy