搜索结果: *

Reading well over 500 posts is less than desirable I must say. But, that is just me.

For large scale strategy, nothing beats "The Operational Art of War." Nothing gives you the large war feel like commanding thousands of brigades on the eastern front in WW2.

According to my memory of Manstein's war memoirs the belief was that Stalin would declare war on Germany at some point. Because Sealion was unlikely to happen due to the failure of the bombing raids on the UK (from Hitler's eyes at least) 1941 was the ideal time for Germany to counter the Soviet threat. Probably the weak Soviet performance in the Winter War had some influence on the decision also.

Jhessail 说:

I'll bite. Imperial Russia when she decided to defend her little sister Serbia against Austro-Hungary and Germany. Led to three years of nearly constant Russian defeats and bloodshed and eventually the death of the whole Czar family and the revolutions. Pretty dismal end result. And it shouldn't have been a surprise for the Russian High Command to see this but apparently they had taken zero lessons from American Civil War and the French-Prussian War of 1870.

点击展开...

Well, the Russians saw a kinship with the Serbians due to ethnic similarities, they were both Slavic. That is one of the big reasons for Russian interest in the Balkans at that time, and today also.

For my pick, when it comes to modern history I would say it would be the US seeing Al Qaeda as an existential threat, with all that entails (open ended and expensive wars, a switch from a focus on increasing civil liberties to reducing them, assassination programs, etc.)

As for more ancient times, I would say the Byzantine Empire allowing the crusaders into its capitol in the 4th Crusade...

I made a post on this on another forum (around 12 hours after the assassination). I put it here for I suspect that some may find it of interest.

There are two possible groups (that I see at least) that engaged in the assassination of Bhutto.

The first one is a vanguard type force (think Zarqawi’s Al Quada in Iraq in the first year after the invasion of Iraq). If it was a vanguard type group, then the intent wouldn’t be to get rid of a western style leader (though it would be a plus) but to show that the state is impotent. This would cause other attacks by those who are also unhappy with the Pakistani government and increase the speed that primary loyalties are formed (for it seems the state fails at providing security), thus weakening the state even further. A possible secondary goal would be to weaken the social fabric of the state by creating a rift between those supporting the government and those who supported Bhutto. Though if this works too well (I.E. a full fledged civil war) it is liable to backfire on the attackers for a full scale civil war would be nearly a total war, something that the attackers would not be able to fight, though a low level burn would be something that an insurgency of that type can effectively fight in (read up on the Askariya Mosque bombings and their results as a modern example). With both, the objective isn’t to destroy the state, but to weaken it greatly.

A second possible group would be those who are opposed to her political beliefs or are against her pro western attitudes. The intent would likely be to prevent the westernization of Pakistan. If this is the case, I would assume that it would likely not be done by Musharraf. This is mainly because of exactly what is happening now, instability and people thinking that he may have been behind the attack. He already has enough people looking to kill/overthrow him, I doubt that he needs any more. I know very little of the Pakistani government and security services, but from what I have heard, I would not be shocked if it was done by a group inside the government or military, but acting independently of Musharraf. The main goal of this would be to keep the Pakistani government strong, but avoid certain influences on the government.

To be honest, I just heard about Bandit King from you. Who makes it?