US Military History and US Military Historians , How Perceptions Change Reading History,Facts Change,Perceptions Change , We change

1. Reading History,Facts Change,Perceptions
Change , We change-
Agha H Amin
3 September 2013
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

2. 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.

3. 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 ?

4. A.H Burnes Lee Grant and Sherman was like
a whiff of fresh air ?

5. 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 .

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. 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 ?

9. 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/Dum
b-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 ?

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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

13. COMPLETE ARTICLE MAY BE READ AND
DOWNLOADED FROM THE URL BELOW:---

14. http://www.scribd.com/doc/27386132/Plain-
as-Well-as-Subtle-Aspects-of-Military-
Decision-Making
http://www.scribd.com/doc/27386132/Plain-
as-Well-as-Subtle-Aspects-of-Military-
Decision-Making

15. http://telawrence.blogspot.com/2010/12/secr
et-lives-of-lawrence-of-arabia.html