The Cellar - View Single Post

jet_silver · 06-22-2001, 10:50 AM

History proves people don't learn from history.

Battles of attrition as in WWI are still fought - or, at least, one side applies the model and gets handed their butts. The attrition model was mis-applied to Vietnam, for example. In WWII Bernard Montgomery thought battles of attrition were swell; that is because he never did seem to manage any pursuit worthy of the name. He was right, the Germans did not have a whole lot of reserves to spare from the Ostfront, but he did not mind throwing resources (we're talking about people) at the problem he had at hand. MacArthur's 'island-hopping' was inspired, but Corregidor and Iwo were battles of attrition.

And Marshal Joffre in WWI probably never missed a meal or a good night's sleep, while the battles you're talking about were going on. There wasn't a general in WWI who didn't make grievous screw-ups (the first German gas attack killed...Germans, but of course not the generals). Attrition was the model used by both sides, with the possible exception of Kitchener, and he was relieved early IIRC.

If we -were- to learn from history, the lesson in organized, large-scale warfare would be 'your personal survival depends in large measure on another person who doesn't know you and who will spend more time worrying about a blister on his foot than he will about you'. Following someone for any reason other than your personal agreement and commitment is pretty stupid. That is not stopping Army recruitment from making its numbers this year.

I'd love to know where the wisdom's coming from, Tony. At present people know a lot, but the knowledge is applied with no more wisdom or insight than it was at the time of the Romans, and I do not see that any fresh source of either has been developed.

06-22-2001, 10:50 AM	#2
jet_silver wazmo medio Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: San Narciso, CA Posts: 53	Knowledge, yes, but wisdom? History proves people don't learn from history. Battles of attrition as in WWI are still fought - or, at least, one side applies the model and gets handed their butts. The attrition model was mis-applied to Vietnam, for example. In WWII Bernard Montgomery thought battles of attrition were swell; that is because he never did seem to manage any pursuit worthy of the name. He was right, the Germans did not have a whole lot of reserves to spare from the Ostfront, but he did not mind throwing resources (we're talking about people) at the problem he had at hand. MacArthur's 'island-hopping' was inspired, but Corregidor and Iwo were battles of attrition. And Marshal Joffre in WWI probably never missed a meal or a good night's sleep, while the battles you're talking about were going on. There wasn't a general in WWI who didn't make grievous screw-ups (the first German gas attack killed...Germans, but of course not the generals). Attrition was the model used by both sides, with the possible exception of Kitchener, and he was relieved early IIRC. If we -were- to learn from history, the lesson in organized, large-scale warfare would be 'your personal survival depends in large measure on another person who doesn't know you and who will spend more time worrying about a blister on his foot than he will about you'. Following someone for any reason other than your personal agreement and commitment is pretty stupid. That is not stopping Army recruitment from making its numbers this year. I'd love to know where the wisdom's coming from, Tony. At present people know a lot, but the knowledge is applied with no more wisdom or insight than it was at the time of the Romans, and I do not see that any fresh source of either has been developed.