![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In message , phil hunt
writes On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 20:40:27 -0800, Steve Hix sehix@NOSPAM speakeasy.netINVALID wrote: One problem here; totalitarian regimes tend not to tolerate lots of initiative in their underlings, which makes preparing for this sort of fighting somewhat harder. True, but there are exceptions, Nazi Germany being an obvious one. The Wehrmacht had a good system of mission command at company level and below, but was absolutely devoid of initiative at the operational level: witness Hitler's orders that forbade any retreat under any circumstances, even a false withdrawal to draw the enemy into a prepared killing zone being forbidden (to say nothing of 'move it or lose it' escapes) It was obvious as early as 1940 (the Luftwaffe's fighters are most effective high above the bombers they're protecting, but the bomber crews want to _see_ their escorts, so the fighters get ordered to fly slow weaves next to the bombers) and continued through the war. -- When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite. W S Churchill Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 22:32:24 +0000, Paul J. Adam wrote:
In message , phil hunt writes On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 20:40:27 -0800, Steve Hix sehix@NOSPAM speakeasy.netINVALID wrote: One problem here; totalitarian regimes tend not to tolerate lots of initiative in their underlings, which makes preparing for this sort of fighting somewhat harder. True, but there are exceptions, Nazi Germany being an obvious one. The Wehrmacht had a good system of mission command at company level and below, but was absolutely devoid of initiative at the operational level: True, particularly as the war went on. -- "It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia (Email: , but first subtract 275 and reverse the last two letters). |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Paul J. Adam" wrote in When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite. W S Churchill Where does this quote come from? |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"a425couple" wrote:
"Paul J. Adam" wrote in When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite. W S Churchill Where does this quote come from? Churchill one would assume... -- -Gord. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article ,
"Gord Beaman" ) writes: "a425couple" wrote: "Paul J. Adam" wrote in When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite. W S Churchill Where does this quote come from? Churchill one would assume... Manitoba? Which one of the bears said that? -- Pete Stickney A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many bad measures. -- Daniel Webster |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In message 5DEHb.157132$8y1.465695@attbi_s52, a425couple
writes "Paul J. Adam" wrote in When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite. W S Churchill Where does this quote come from? His work "The Grand Alliance". Apparently, some felt that the British declaration of war against Japan on 8 December 1941 was too formal and insufficiently blood-curdling. -- When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite. W S Churchill Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Paul J. Adam" wrote in a425couple writes "Paul J. Adam" wrote When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite. W S Churchill Where does this quote come from? His work "The Grand Alliance". Apparently, some felt that the British declaration of war against Japan on 8 December 1941 was too formal and insufficiently blood-curdling. Thank you for your kind, helpful, and informative response. Yes, I have found it now on page 514 of my edition. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Steve Hix skrev i meddelelsen ...
In article , "Carl Alex Friis Nielsen" wrote: The entire idea behind assymetric warfare is to refuse to play by the enemy's rules - so if fighting the US use a doctrine not reqirering an C3I infrastructure, which can be attacked - have lots of small dispersed units capable of operating on their own initiative. One problem here; totalitarian regimes tend not to tolerate lots of initiative in their underlings, which makes preparing for this sort of fighting somewhat harder. Why do you assume the US will only fight totalitarian regimes ? Or that totalitarian regimes can't exist with the suport of the population - remember that only about 20 % of the worlds population share our western values. -------------------------------------- Carl Alex Friis Nielsen Love Me - take me as I think I am |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Carl Alex Friis Nielsen" wrote:
Why do you assume the US will only fight totalitarian regimes ? Name a non-totalitarian regime that has a good chance of going up against the US militarily in the next 20 years. Or that totalitarian regimes can't exist with the suport of the population - remember that only about 20 % of the worlds population share our western values. Name a true regime of that sort with real popular support. Should be simple, right? -- cirby at cfl.rr.com Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations. Slam on brakes accordingly. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Thu, 25 Dec 2003 21:28:02 GMT, Chad Irby wrote:
"Carl Alex Friis Nielsen" wrote: Why do you assume the US will only fight totalitarian regimes ? Name a non-totalitarian regime that has a good chance of going up against the US militarily in the next 20 years. Or that totalitarian regimes can't exist with the suport of the population - remember that only about 20 % of the worlds population share our western values. Name a true regime of that sort with real popular support. Should be simple, right? Well, a lot of it depends on what you mean by totalitarian. Some people would call Iran that, but the government enjoys a fair amount of support, and even many of those who dislike it don't do so enough to cooperate with a U.S. invasion. China is another example where many of the citizens support the government, and while the government is authoritarian, I wouldn't call it totalitarian in the Hussein mode, but it might be coming into conflict with the U.S. at some point. And you migth consider that a democracy has the problem that if somethign blows up to create great public outcry, the elected leaders might have to go along with it, even though they wish to avoid the conflict. Although not a democracy, China had this problem with the EP3 incident. They called out the demonstraters, but once nationalism got involved the demonstrations quickly started to escalate beyond what the leadership wanted. Scared them badly, by some accounts. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Australia F111 to be scrapped!! | John Cook | Military Aviation | 35 | November 10th 03 11:46 PM |