2/17 – New Episode and Members Material

Home Forums Announcements 2/17 – New Episode and Members Material

This topic contains 7 replies, has 5 voices, and was last updated by  drewster81 5 years, 6 months ago.

  • Author
    Posts
  • #15390

    Jamie
    Keymaster

    The Scotcast Part One is live.  Members, the Rough Transcript is up and the timeline has been edited to reflect the new material covered.

  • #16948

    Zoie
    Participant

    Yay no more romans! This gives me hope that one day we'll finally get to WW2!!

  • #16949

    Tim the Enchanter
    Participant

    I really liked this one-  Well produced and entertaining!Jamie started this thing about 9 months ago and we've covered about 450 years.  At this rate we'll get to WW2 in just a little over 3 years, so hang in there Zoie!

  • #16950

    Chris
    Participant

    Jamie started this thing about 9 months ago and we've covered about 450 years.  At this rate we'll get to WW2 in just a little over 3 years, so hang in there Zoie!

    I can wait. All good things....etc. etc.I am wondering how Jamie will combat (no pun intended) the intricacies of both World Wars and inter-war years. I prefer the Great War and with everthing that was going on it could take months just to get through four and a half years of conflict covering all theatres of wars (including the home front). Feeling nervous yet Jamie?  :-

  • #16951

    Jamie
    Keymaster

    I'm genuinely torn on the issue of WWI.  I think it would be a lot of fun to cover.  However, considering the fact that WWI and WWII are basically a single war with a brief pause, I suspect that what I might end up doing is covering the lead up to WWI and then stop there, and leave WWI and WWII to the war historians.  But I don't know.We'll just have to see how it's going as we get closer.  :)

  • #16952

    Chris
    Participant

    I understand where you are coming from. Covering one war let alone two is one heck of giant undertaking but you could include some highlights, maybe, for those of us who have interest in this field. Not sure I agree with you though on the whole WWI and WWII is one war with a brief pause. Both wars were very distinctive and individual entities separated by 21 years of peace, fought for different political reasons with different belligerents. Sorry for going off-topic in this thread but I thought I should mention my view.While the Great War was initially triggered by the assination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria in Sarajevo by Serbian terrorists, the whole knock-on effect started with Austria-Hungary blaming the Serbian Government and in turn the Russian Army mobilised in preparation for an Austria-Hungarian attack on Serbia. Germany sided with Austria-Hungary and declared war on Russia and France, and later Great Britain because she was protecting her trade routes through Belgium, the need to defend her coastline and because of Brtiain's obligation to defend Belgium in the Treaty of London in 1839. Along with other political issues involving Russia and Turkey, and that Britiain did not want Germany to be a dominant power in Europe, which she already was meant that the Great War was inevitable. It included many countries but not on the same global scale WWII. The Treaty of Versailles could have effectively destroyed Germany and it did do a lot of damage, it did not, however, destroy or pacify her completely. Ok, lands were taken from her, polical unions were disallowed, namely with Austria, military strength reduced and Western Germany was demilitarised, reparations had to be paid mainly to France and Belgium for the cost of all war damage during the war (amounting to £6.6 billion, which was an impossible amount to pay) amongst other items in the treaty and this, along with other political struggles, was in my eyes anyway, the start of the rearmament of Germany and bringing her back to strength under the new rule of Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party when he was appointed the role of Chancellor of Germany. He pretty swiftly changed everything from that point on creating the totalilitarian regime of the Third Reich and there was pretty much no way of stopping him, especially as he was building up Germany's military strength secretly for some time in preparation to overturn the treaty and start the New Order of the Aryan race across Europe. Of course I haven't even mentioned the Pacific. They were both very different wars faught for different reasons, it just so happens that the instigating country happened to be the same in both cases. I know it is extremely complex and I don't think I would like to cover them both in detail but covering the basics would be interesting. Like you say see you feel when you get closer to the time.BTW, love the whole Scotcast theme and episodes  :D

  • #16953

    drewster81
    Participant

    Chris, you would love my stepfather!  Because of him, I learned so much about WWII, which he collected a ton of artifacts from.I will say, when I think of WWI and WWII, I think of them, as Jamie was saying, as one war, or maybe a better phrase like "conflict period" i.e. the Hundred Years War (25 years of peace there in the middle, along with myriad others) or the Thirty Years War.  These periods had various reasons why the wars began but they had, at their heart, the same conflict (Hundred Years War: England and France fight over territory, etc.)  So, I'd say in the larger historical context, I'm interested to see if historians do the same to WWI and II.  A common theme running throughout the two world wars is nationalism.  It's the primary motivation, expressed by the territorial overreach of these vast trans-continental empries.  They simply went from fighting proxy wars in Africa or Central Asia, to just fighting a real one outright.  I mean, the Schlieffen Plan had been around for a while because Germany wanted Alsace-Lorraigne.  The same thing happened with World War II...trying to create a German homeland which of course leads to having to occupy other countries to show how "better" your society was.  (Napolean did much the same thing to tear down the ancien regime, though you could argue the pros and cons of that for ages) that The war period feels very much to me like a climax to the 19th century...a sort of bookend to the Napoleonic wars, which first spread this nationalist fervor and began, for many, the century of European dominance over the globe, which ended with WWII.(This isn't to say that nationalism didn't exist beforehand.  Many of the westernmost European states, Britain included, had already started to develop nationalistic identities, but the real push came after the French Revolution.)The Pacific's entry, to me, had more to do with timing.  Because of the global nature of the world during European dominance (and of course, aftewards) then it make sense that what were territorial wars in the Pacific would end up interacting with other global conflicts.  The Japanese ran the British out of Singapore and bombed Darwin to hell, so it does seem that Hitler would be very amenable to them, especially if they could open another front on the Russians when they got done with China.  That last bit is pure speculation, by the way as I can't remember reading that or not. ;)I recognize all of this is very theoretical and what not and expect a vigorous response. ;)

  • #16954

    drewster81
    Participant

    Haha, how do we move this to a different topic?  We seem to have strayed off the “new episode” mantle a bit. ;)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

jQuery('.testimonials-widget-testimonials17')