The Art of War PART 6

The Art of War is a Chinese military treatise that was written by Sun Tzu in the 6th century BC, during the Spring and Autumn period. Composed of 13 chapters, each of which is devoted to one aspect of warfare, it has long been praised as the definitive work on military strategies and tactics of its time, and one of the basic texts on the subject.

The Art of War is one of the oldest and most successful books on military strategy in the world. It has had a huge influence on Eastern military thinking, business tactics, and beyond. Sun Tzu recognized the importance of positioning in strategy and that position is affected both by objective conditions in the physical environment and the subjective opinions of competitive actors in that environment. He taught that strategy was not planning in the sense of working through a to-do list, but rather that it requires quick and appropriate responses to changing conditions. Planning works in a controlled environment, but in a competitive environment, competing plans collide, creating unexpected situations.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• The
• Art
• of
• War
• Sun
• Tzu
• USA
• America
• United
• States
• Vietnam
• day
• Normandy
• Landings
• World
• Two
• Nazi
• Germany
• American
• Revolutionary
• Battle
• Gettysburg
• History
• Channel
• China

[TheShinestofSunnys]

If you ever visit stalingrad it will change your view of Russia. I am pretty sure any group of soldiers you throw into a "Die or move forward" sitiuation will do "heroic" things. Not just American soldiers.

[thedukeofpotato]

"While we were there, we were wouping their ass"

lol! but that's not the point. You don't go to wars to kick ass. You go to wars to achieve strategic goals. People like you keeps me thinking that US will never win in the Middle East.

[blackthought123]

Heroes man

[quote3000]

@mensch454 That makes him sound overrated. Surely it was the planning of his generals and the planned invasion of France from WWI updated for WWII. Also Gerd von Rundstedt was the one who lead and conquered the French, Dutch Belgians, and Luxembourgers. At the same time he urged Hitler to negotiate with Britain, and not invade Russia, but the Fuhrer's ambitions got the better of him in the end. Adolf should have stopped at Greece and built the Camps.

[quote3000]

@MrLantean Thank you for correcting me. If not for their blind ideals, they could have won the war with moral influence. In the end, breaking the principal of focusing on victory, i.e. winning the war and brushing aside one's ambitions, would've achieved Germany's status as a superpower.

[MrLantean]

@quote3000 When the Germans invaded the Soviet Union, they were welcomed by many of the local population who were eager to get away from Stalin's purges. However they were being mistreated by the Germans as they were the Untermensch or subhumans under Nazi racial definition. Slavic peoples were being treated as subhumans. In the end, many of the local population returned to support Stalin as he was now seen as the lesser evil than the Nazis.

[niggaplezlol]

4 people are Neo-nazi lol

[VictumRoManius]

@quote3000 "To capture the land intact, is much better then to destroy it."

- Sun Tzu.

[quote3000]

@eacans But still it is against military logic to mistreat conquered peoples in occupied territories for this will give rise to armed insurgents. If the Nazis were to avoid such useless labor then their war production would have gone smoothly. Besides, who knows how many weapon prototypes those slaves sabotaged; not to mention the amount of damage done to railroad tracks and tunnels. Again, mistreating and slaughtering civilians will inspire insurgency as it happened in Vietnam.

[eacans]

@quote3000 you moron, he used the captured Jews and Poles as a cheap labour input for Germany's war time industry. He was a shrewd man, so no need to pose his as an incompetent General, he knew what he was doing. Call him evil and we can agree, but call him incompetent, then I diagree. He was very competent at what he did.

[quote3000]

@quote3000 Anther thing, he should have just stayed at the rear lines the whole time designing and planning with Albert Spear to rebuild Europe in a classical style. Hitler was more visionary when it came to politics, but utterly arrogant when it came to military matters. On the contrary, the invasion of France was planned as early as 1914 and modified when carried out in 1940. Thus Hitler doesn't deserve the attention that Rommel, von Rundstedt, and von Brauchitsch put their efforts into.

[quote3000]

@eacans lol. If Hitler had not killed the Jews and built those concentration camps, he would never had an intercontinental revolt in the first place as Aeneas Tacticus and Onasander also said that murdering innocent people during occupation creates rebellion and loss of territory; plus those camps were a waste of resources as they could have saved those materials to build bases during the conquest of the USSR. In short, Hitler squandered his chances at winning and took credit from others.