The Military History Thread

[scoundrel]

Originally Posted by palo5

You've had an 'insight' for almost 200 years, Comrade. Did no one tell you about the 1839 war that wiped out British forces?

Or the other two wars, both lost?

Asian history is not easily viewed from the outside

I learned these things in history at school. Of course, the inside view of life with the Afghans in 1838 to 1842 is not much recorded, since there were only a handful of survivors. No doubt the Afghans formed a poor impression of the British, since our final act of that war was to re-occupy the whole country and burn and blow it up until not one brick was left on top of another brick, just to let them know how we felt about the fact that they had killed the women and children (even the babies) as well as the actual soldiers. When we had smashed everything we could reach, we pulled out and left the people to rot. We British should not be measured by the way we drink tea and play cricket. Push the wrong buttons and we are more merciless than an owl hunting in moonlight.

Say, is there Beauty yet to find?
And Certainty? and Quiet kind?
Deep meadows yet, for to forget
The lies, and truths, and pain?... oh! yet
Stands the Church clock at ten to three?
And is there honey still for tea?
~ The Old Vicarage, Grantchester by Rupert Brooke (1912)

Plus ca change; plus la meme chose.

[rotobott]

I'm sure there are many nice afghans, but on the whole they seem quite unpleasant, I think we should nuke them, it might work, a short sharp shock, what could go wrong

[uli12345]

Hello rotobott
You are welcome!

My Tour: First Russia next USA, next China, next Europe, next Asia, next what ever you want!!!



Best Regards

Dr. Seltsam

[Nobody1]

Originally Posted by rotobott

I'm sure there are many nice afghans, but on the whole they seem quite unpleasant, I think we should nuke them, it might work, a short sharp shock, what could go wrong

What could go wrong? Big green Taliban in purple panties, juggling with American tanks. LOL. Battle cry : Dollarhu akbar. Obama : dafuq ?

Would be worth seeing.

[deepsepia]

Originally Posted by palo5

The Americans did not think about this before Vietnam, Afghanistan or Iraq. They thought no exit strategy was necessary because they would win so quickly. This was bad intelligence work

There's a consistent fallacy on the part of invaders: "The country we're invading is corrupt and weak, and with one small push the whole thing will collapse and we'll be welcomed as liberators"

Hitler had a comment like that about the Soviet Union "kick in the door, and the whole rotten place will come down" (I think that's the line. . . is that right?)

But sometimes, if you "kick in the door" on a place like Russia, where perhaps people are disgruntled, they'll decide that however disgruntled they may be with each other, they hate the invader far more.

The Cheney/Rumsfeld team actively trashed all attempts by the US State Department to do things like "planning" for "what happens after we win". In their magical world, with Saddam gone, Iraqis would be happy, pump oil, and "pay for their own reconstruction" (per Paul Wolfowitz, who famously estimated Iraq war costs in the $50 Billion range)

The curious thing is that this defect in strategy at the highest levels would get you reamed out as an operational officer. Anyone commanding small units has to have a "plan a, a plan b, and 'go to hell" plan". No junior officer is permitted to say "our plan is that everything will work the way we predict", but mysteriously at the level of Secretary of Defense and Vice President, that's exactly what we did.

[knobby109]

Having been away I've just found this thread and apologies if this is a little late.
The 1745 rebellion is widely misunderstood.When Bonnie Prince Charlie landed very few people were interested . Those who did take part were often coerced-threatened with eviction or something else by their lairds who probably lived in London anyway.
There was no such thing as a clan tartan-that was a Victorian invention. In fact one feature of the battle in which Scots fought on each side was that they could not be distinguished from each other.
As mentioned elsewhere the clearances were the result of economic changes. They had happened earlier in England so it was nothing to do with how the Scots were treated.

[scoundrel]

Originally Posted by knobby109

The 1745 rebellion is widely misunderstood.When Bonnie Prince Charlie landed very few people were interested . Those who did take part were often coerced-threatened with eviction or something else by their lairds who probably lived in London anyway.

As mentioned elsewhere the clearances were the result of economic changes. They had happened earlier in England so it was nothing to do with how the Scots were treated.

Up until 1746, power politics had tended to trump economics. It was better to be powerful than to be rich; especially since rich men who could not defend their land and livestock were routinely preyed upon by Highland clan neighbours. We see this reflected even by Hollywood, in the opening scene of Rob Roy, when Liam Neeson as Roy declines to wipe out the cattle rustlers in the dead of night, but instead visits them at dawn for a chat, explaining that they have stolen cattle belonging to My Lord of Montrose but that if they hand over the cattle and leave quietly, they may all go in peace, except for Tam Sillars, who has been caught by Roy stealing cattle from My Lord of Montrose before, and must come with Roy to Perth in order to be hanged. Rob Roy, before he and Montrose fell out, was a thief-taker employed by Montrose to deal with Highland cattle rustlers, because Montrose (who was actually a Graham from the Border country) was a lowlander and needed Highlanders to help him keep his own property.

Men equated with power. Your tenants obeyed you because they farmed your land by courtesy of you. If you said "We shall fight the Elector" then they put on their claymores and shields and marched with you to Glenfinnan and swore allegiance to Prince Charles. It was your decision; they had to do what you said. They were your power in the land.

That all changed after 1746 when the clans were forcibly disarmed. Your tenants were no longer your private army. They were now just a burden to you, sub-optimally occupying land which could carry sheep more profitably than it could carry people.

[palo5]

Originally Posted by scoundrel

I learned these things in history at school...life with the Afghans in 1838 to 1842...our final act of that war was...

I learned that the final act was to be annihilated. A legend says that only one man survived, and all the rest were massacred

[Mal Hombre]

That was end of Phase one,As Scounds says phase two was defeating the Afghans in battle and then devasting the country in a manner redolent of The Hundred Years War in the Middle Ages.

[palo5]

Originally Posted by Mal Hombre

That was end of Phase one,As Scounds says phase two was defeating the Afghans in battle and then devasting the country...

Obviously they learned the wrong lessons. The problem is not to defeat the 'Afghan army' - almost anyone in any age could do that. It's the irregulars that break you, and it's still the same today