Comments by "DynamicWorlds" (@dynamicworlds1) on "Eastory" channel.

  1. I'd argue anticipating possible changes to warfare is part of a general's job. (An often neglected part, but part of it just the same, so yes, it is fair to blame them)
    11
  2. crackshack2 I wouldn't give too much credit to the Nazis, as their military strategy wasn't as much a stroke of brilliance as just being the only method of war they had the capabilities to wage synergising well with the optimal ways to use the weaponry of the era. Of course, failing to make a plan to defend against your enemy's only viable strategy only makes the French failure even more embarrassing. The only defense you can make for French military leadership of the time is that failures in war caused by gearing your entire military to be overly committed to the way the last war was fought is so insanely common throughout history that I can only assume there's some near universal human cognitive blindspot causing it. Humans are predictably foolish if nothing else...hell, if we weren't, we wouldn't get into so many stupid wars in the first place.
    11
  3. Rolling Thunder I'd argue any plan for any of the big 3 invading another and expecting it to stay as a war fought with conventional arms, instead of devolving into a thermonuclear war once one was loosing would be a better example. Russia and China are upfront about the fact that they'll use nuclear arms first if they're being invaded and loosing, and while the US claims it will only use atomic weapons to respond in kind to WMDs, our history speaks louder than our rhetoric, so I'm sure we would use them if backed into a corner. Sadly, there are some people in government that seem to think that a war between the large powers can end in anything but their mutual destruction, so this kind of stupidity is alive and well (and part of why we're at 2 minutes to midnight on the doomsday clock again).
    5