in article co3fj2$c5j$1@nnrp.gol.com, Brett Robson at deep_m_m@hotmail.com
wrote on 11/25/04 11:21 AM:

> 
> 
> Ernest Schaal wrote:
>> in article co3ckl$bcv$1@nnrp.gol.com, Brett Robson at deep_m_m@hotmail.com
>> wrote on 11/25/04 10:31 AM:
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> Ernest Schaal wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> The "Great War" was a case study of European generals wedded to tactics
>>>> outmoded by technology.
>>> 
>>> Bullshit.
>> 
>> 
>> Wow, how persuasive.
> 
> I am not trying to be persuasive and I am not trying to win an
> argument. You are wrong.

You state that I am wrong, and I discount your opinion as not based on fact
or sound reasoning.

I am sure you believe you are right and I am wrong, but I also believe that
Kaz thinks he is right, and Ultraman thinks he is right.

 
> 
>>> I haven't got time to lecture you, read some real history, the
>>> early campaigns and especially the mobile warfar in Belgium and
>>> France, the early Russian successes, and the Battle of Tannenberg.
>> 
>> 
>> Apparently, you not only haven't the time to lecture me, you also don't have
>> the grasp of history?
>> 
>> While the first year saw rapid movement at the beginning, stalemate quickly
>> followed and the war of attrition began.
> 
> You are obviously unaware of the developments tactics during this
> time.
> 
> Stalemate only means neither side was able to gain advantage; not
> that "European generals [were] wedded to tactics outmoded by
> technology". Napoleonic type victories where the enemy is
> completely swept from the battlefield are rare in modern times as
> technology and professionalism are relatively equal between
> enemies (The Iraq Invasion being an obvious exception).
> 
> Looking forward to you rolling out other gems like generals train
> for the previous wars.

Actually, the nature of war could have been foretold if they had looked at
the right previous wars. Both the US Civil War and the Russo-Japanese War
could have given them a sense of what would happen in trench warfare against
prepared positions.

The stalemate occurred because, as you said neither side was able to gain an
advantage, but the death toll was due to European generals not learning
lessons from previous non-European wars.

The end of the war turned out to the Allies advantage only because of the
new American troops. If the US had not been dragged into the war, the German
troops from the collapsing Russian front transferred to the Western front
would have either have prolonged the war or would have caused a different
result than the one that occurred.