The All Encompassing Socio-Political Aspects of World History Thread... or something

[Stilicho 1397]

@Lobo Here... now we can be friends again.  And get the conversation out of that dreaded Kanye thread.

@hayden_horn If this needs to be moved somewhere else, so be it.  I didn't want to bog down the Daily Texan with the political talk that such a thread will inevitably invoke.

[Guest Lobo]

I had thought it'd be a more military-centric discussion, as oftentimes the issue is that socio-political rancor discolors the notion of military tactics.  But yeah, another thread either way is a good idea.  Not all general officers are political operators and we sure as shit know that most politicians aren't military strategists of any measure.  

Edited October 15, 2018 by Lobo

[Stilicho 1397]

I agree, and if it needs to be moved to non-political forum, I'm all for that.  However, I have found it difficult to sometimes separate the tactics of a military commander without taking into consideration the socio-political environment in which they operate.  I think most of the more famous, or infamous, military commanders are often shadowed by such environments.  The tactics of Alexander, Caesar, Henry V, Gustavus, Napoleon, etc. can all be seen through numerous lenses, one of which happens to be their own socio-political leanings.

But to the point of the previous discussion, how do you differentiate Petain from Rommel when both seem to have followed the same "blueprint" in regards to supporting a regime in which they did not believe in for the sake of protecting their own?  And, if it is simply a matter of tactics and "who won the last battle", why would Zhukov not be just as viable a candidate for Allied commemoration as Rommel?  He was an actual Allied commander and it can be argued that he was an even more brilliant tactician than Rommel.

[sidis 9832]