[lit-ideas] Re: Virility and Slaughter

  • From: Andy Amago <aamago@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2005 17:59:53 -0800 (PST)

-----Original Message-----
From: Eric Yost <eyost1132@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Feb 2, 2005 10:26 AM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Virility and Slaughter

  I don't mean to nit-pick, he said, preparing to
pick several, but the conquest of France in 1940 does not represent the 
success of a new paradigm; it represents the conquest of organization 
(German) over muddle and timidity (French and British)

____

Robert's right of course. And the last two war-paradigms--nuclear and 
information--have never, fortunately, been tested. "Fixed lines opposing 
each other" was also a characteristic of the Franco-Prussian War, until 
Napoleon III screwed it up.

In my opinion, the only real 20th century innovation is Blitzkrieg. The 
Iraq War for example was Blitzkrieg-with-smart-bombs.

So one answer to RK's WWI slaughter question is that so much slaughter 
ensued because that's how Europeans fought at the time.



A.A. I may be misunderstanding RK's question, but I think he's asking why 
Europeans (I assume among others) had to fight at all.  Are we that stupid we 
can't find a better way than destroying ourselves?  Where does the intelligence 
come in then?


Andy Amago


------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html

------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html

Other related posts: