Voit lisätä twiitteihisi sijainnin, esimerkiksi kaupungin tai tarkemman paikan, verkosta ja kolmannen osapuolen sovellusten kautta. Halutessasi voit poistaa twiittisi sijaintihistorian myöhemmin. Lue lisää
Hot take: Arguing that the Wehrmacht was a master at tactics and operations but abysmal at strategic thinking is like lauding a boxer who is utterly demolished and knocked out in every bout for having the best right hook in the sport. Who cares?pic.twitter.com/BhfaocMVzt
Effective tactics and operations must be borne of doctrine and operational concepts that serve realistic strategic objectives. If I know I have limited funds, I adjust my spending habits accordingly. I don't get 5 credit cards and max them out hoping I'll win the lottery.
Tactics and operations have to be calibrated to strategic ends and means or there's nothing "masterful" about them. Unbounded bold risk taking isn't a sign of martial genius. It's a sign of desperation and a dangerous lack of creativity.
Because tactics and operations are decided by soldiers and technicians, while strategy is an executive decision (and we know who that was in this case). That was out of the Wehrmacht's scope.
That doesn’t let the Wehrmacht off the hook for failing to calibrate (or attempt to calibrate) said tactics and operations to the strategic ends handed down. Business as usual (seeking the decisive Kesselschlacht) was not evidence of that.
I'm not entirely sure I follow here. In recollecting my time in flooded foxholes, I can assure you that awareness of strategic bankruptcy was not effectively salved by the knowledge that my tactics were exceptionally sound. At least not in my experience.
So, because they weren't great at everything don't focus on what aspects they were good at? This just seems like a "don't praise the Nazi army for anything" sentiment.
Levels of war are tools of analysis. War is all of one piece. Excelling at actions within one "level" while blundering in another is one of the fastest recipes for defeat. As Germany found out the hard way (multiple times), eventually the unity of the levels of war will catch up.
They were horrible at logistics, key to winning wars. Just look how they handled the attack on the USSR. They were also utopians and fantasy driven. Their "secret weapons" and the plans of Hitler: All crazy stuff.
Wouldn't it be "in spite of having the best right book?" Like you can have team or athlete with technical excellence but a poor overall grasp of how to win?
Perhaps if the fate of the nation didn't hinge upon that right hook. My argument isn't that one can't have ever technical expertise that doesn't translate into success. It's that if one does, it usually indicates deeper flaws that ought to inspire caution before emulation.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.
