[lit-ideas] Re: Virility and Slaughter
- From: Eric Yost <eyost1132@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2005 22:51:04 -0500
Marlena: So, if we, librarians have enough sense of responsibility to
at least do the most awful of jobs <g>, then why could not the leaders
of those sending people, one after another, to DIE...do it himself?
_____
<g> back at you.
Sort of like saying that, "If cells in my body have to die, why can't
they be brain cells?"
Granted history is full of stupid generals who might just as well have
died at the onset of battle, but leadership has often been crucial in
battles, e.g., Gettysburg in the Civil War, and a leaderless army would
probably incur more casualties than a well-led army. (Guerrilla war
being an exception.)
One serious answer to Koenigsburg's question is that military strategy
and tactics change VERY slowly. After millions have died in WWI trench
warfare, the Germans discovered that one can reinforce a breakout in a
single point on a line, rather than overcoming the entire line.
The result? Blitzkrieg, the only major strategic development of the 20th
century.
Eric
aka "Lawrence Lite"
------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
