Talk:Military strategy

I'm not entirely sure that the claim of a lack of strategy on the western front is correct. A lack of manuever doesn't necessarily imply a lack of strategy (despite what Hart might think :P ). I'm going to see if I can reword some of this to a more pleasing form. Stargoat 15:28, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Another point is that there is a difference between no strategy and a bad strategy.

Roadrunner 16:37, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Do you think this might need its own article? Stargoat 16:32, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Should we add something about a stratagem as being an execution of a strategic campaign to achieve a strategic goal? (Okay, I admit it, that sentence made my brain hurt.) I'm not sure about the best way to accomplish that. Anyone have any thoughts? Stargoat 17:08, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The current text says (wrongly, IMO)

France entered World War II with a purely defensive doctrine, epitomized by the "impregnable" Maginot Line, but only to be completely circumvented by the German blitzkrieg in the Fall of France.

Background: Their doctrine wasn't purely defensive, and it wasn't "circumvented by the German blitzkrieg". The Maginot Line wasn't described as 'impregnable' except by the newspapers and by politicians in public speeches. The French strategy was reactive, i.e. they wanted to fight in the Low Countries but had to wait until the Germans entered Belgian territory before they went on the offensive, which they duly did with maximum speed and force, which meant that they stepped into the trap that the Germans had set for them. If they had had a purely defensive strategy and kept their own army and the BEF behind the "soft Maginot Line" in the north, they might have been able to hold the Germans off and avoided defeat.

In any case, I think that text would be better formulated as

France attempted to use its Maginot Line to apply the principles Mass and Economy of force (troops could be concentrated in the north for an offensive there while the Line acted as force multiplier in the south), Maneuver and Security (the Germans couldn't go directly from Alsace to Paris).

Possibly adding

The Germans used Surprise with their assault through the Ardennes.

Rationale: how the French made their strategy based on these principles is of historical interest as it represents two of the most prominent (out of a very short list) attempts to deal with modern, mechanised war. Common wisdom held that the combat aircraft and the armoured vehicles would, mostly penetrate any defences. The British set up a radar network along their shores to attempt to keep aircraft out, and the French built the Maginot Line to deal with, specifically, armoured vehicles. Infantry could, slowly and with great losses, penetrate the Line (but not reliably roll it up), but vehicles would, by and large, be stopped.

Hoodiecrow (talk) 16:00, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

@Kolya Muratov:, as I've told you repeatedly, as you are the person seeking inclusion, you are the one who is required per WP:ONUS to seek consensus for disputed edits. Please stop edit warring, and provide an exact quote from the given source that supports your claim. Please ensure that any said quote *directly* addresses the point without WP:SYNTH, i.e. it should explicitly state that "the larger force size" that a commander leads, "the more talented he is". I'll wait -- that is an utterly nonsensical statement, because assigned force size has absolutely nothing whatseoever to do with talent, so I'd be fascinated to see an official source actually make that claim, something that has been pretty conclusively disproven throughout the history of military warfare (and something that I've personally observed to be untrue in my years of military service). ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 18:19, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

This is not rocket science or physics; it is even logic. If you do not like the word "lead," replace it with "command" - that is what was meant here. Commanding a single advance guard is easier than leading(commanding) and controlling an entire army. Watch or read about the campaigns and battles during the era of Napoleon, one of the greatest military leaders.

Read the last two pages of the source carefully. Kolya Muratov (talk) 18:29, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

With 11,000+ edits you should know better than this -- it is your responsibility to seek consensus and to collaboratively edit; as I've told you repeatedly now, I've reviewed the source and found nothing that supports the claim you're making. Instead of actually responding with a quote -- like I've asked you several times now -- to explain what you think is the support, you keep refusing to do so. That is not how Wikipedia works. Until you can provide a quote to a direct, in-line statement that unambiguously supports the claim you're making, I object to this edit and you have *not* achieved the necessary consensus for inclusion. Either show your work, or stop wasting our time.⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 18:36, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Also given that you're in violation of the 3RR, I'd strongly suggest you self-revert pending this discussion. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 18:39, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Additionally, I'll note that the argument you're making now does not match the claim you're advancing in the article. On this talk page, you're arguing that "commanding unit A is easier than commanding unit B". But in the article you are stating that "The larger the forces a military commander is able to lead and control, the more talented he is" -- this is not the same thing, and is nowhere to be found in the source, which does not use the word "talent" nor make this argument in any other format using synonyms, including on the last two pages (which consist solely of unrelated footnotes and the author's bio) -- so I'm increasingly curious if you have actually read the source you're claiming to be citing (and yourself accusing me or not having read). You're familiar with the concept of WP:SYNTH, right? Surely you must recognize that this is why I've been asking you to provide the specific quote in question -- because it's clear to me that you're relying on abject synthesis to support a conclusion not actually reached by the source in question. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 18:50, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Why quote anything when you can read the last VERY short chapter yourself?

Unit A and Unit B? The vanguard is actually part of the army. Naturally, you should look at the last two pages of the NARRATIVE, not the footnotes. Once you figure this question out, let me know, please. Kolya Muratov (talk) 19:02, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

You seem mistaken -- it is *your* responsibility to provide the relevant information. It is your responsibility to build consensus. It is not my responsibility to play guessing games about what you mean, when I've already repeatedly told you that I've read the entire source, and it does not state what you're claiming it states. Nothing on those last two pages (or anywhere else in the document) makes any statement about a unit's size correlating to its commander's talent. In fact, nowhere in the entire document is there any discussion of even the concept of this. Answer me simply: Why can't you provide a specific quote that directly supports the text in question? ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 19:27, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

It is written in clear language that managing large forces is more difficult and requires greater mental skills. Kolya Muratov (talk) 01:30, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

OK, well good luck then. I'm not interested in playing your games, it's clear that you cannot provide a quote that supports your claim because the source doesn't in fact support your claim and I'm pretty sure you know this. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 03:33, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Everything is absolutely directly supported, as written in the previous answer. Kolya Muratov (talk) 04:05, 24 November 2025 (UTC)