Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony_Scott
I'll refrain from any personal response, but I will answer professionally:
1. Military history is not, nor will it ever be, seperated from the politics of the era. Politics have played a central part in the wars of the latter half of the past century.
2. I will never bash either purposely or inadvertantly the fighting prowess, ability or pride of such a vaunted army as the Russian one. It serves no use. And it is the height of disrespect to minimize the average Russian Army conscript. The Germans did that in 1942 to their undoing.
3. All data on the personnel losses were broken down in the wikipedia article and, to the best of my knowledge, takes into account battle fatigue as well. See the bottom part of the article.
4. I have not the foggiest idea as to pay, bonuses, hazard pay, or any of the ways the Russian military may or may not compensate their combat troops. Your assertion of troops volunteering may be correct but to assume that they have the same bonus pay as we do is not a correct course. I just don't know how their pay scales work.
And Lastly:
Please consider reading John Keegan's excellent work A History of Warfare and Suz Tzu The Art of War. Both these tomes and some truly excellent military history professors have made very sure that I have absorbed the lessons of history. John Keegan's work continues to occupy pride of place on my desk and every Marine that walks into my office sees it every day. My long association with Marines and soldiers has given me a rare insight into the way one fights and warfare.
I would agree with you that my Georgia thread was ill-considered largely the result of not thoroughly reading the subject or the article and for that I apologize.
|
1. My point is this: you have to understand the difference between military historians writing articles and politicians writing articles, and treat them as such. You have to know the purpose behind the article. Something written about Russia's army by the Jamestown Foundation is a joke, but something written about Russia's army by the Moscow Defense Brief, or even found on the CIA World Factbook is to be taken seriously. You have to learn the difference between the two.
2. I consider some of your posts, particularly about Russian discipline and Russian drunkenness to be bashing, as they come form sources who focus on hype and sensation, rather than reality. I am not saying you do it intentionally.
3. Battle Fatigue is a factor in every war. It was certainly a factor in Afghanistan, but not the deciding factor.
4. I never said Russian troops had the same bonus pay as US troops. That would be a silly assumption. If one was to merely look at the average wages in the US vs. Russia or the USSR, one would see that US wages are generally higher, so the bonuses would be greater.
If you want to know more about the Red Army, read David Glantz and John Ericson. And Sun Tzu is a must read, no questions here. As for John Keegan, I would agree with the Christian Science Monitor that the comparison of the Iraq War to WWII are innapropriate.
The thing about your Georgia thread, it happened many times, and you weren't the only one, so apology accepted
You just happened to mention it on what I would consider to be a military website, so I had to say something about it.
The part that annoys me the most, is that the bashing is still going on to this day, and not just in the case of Russia. Many Marines unjustly get called Baby Killers. Russians are now calling "butchers of civilians" - even though their acts saved civilians. The media, politics, will drive anything, "if it bleeds, it leads". Political articles must be ignored, they must be trashed, and until people realize that political articles are written for the sole purpose of someone's monetary gain, and not to inform the read, we will have misunderstandings. I mean people are thinking that Russia will be invading Ukraine soon, which is the biggest bull**** I've heard.
I try to stay out of political forms, which is why I like this forum, but my main point remains: you have to separate politically written articles from those written by military professionals. And sometimes, credentials are a tricky business, as credentials are not hard to get at all. One must look at the content of the article itself, and not the credentials of the writer. The articles that I've seen you put up for discussion here, albeit I've only seen two, have been primarily politically-driven articles, rather than complex military analysis. And to me, that is the most dangerous path of them all, articles with a political purposes, disguised as military analysis. It's like a guy selling you a lemon and telling you it's the greatest car in the World.
An easy way to tell the difference, is to read their previous articles. If a person was wrong 20 percent of the time or more, he is not a professional military analyst, and should be ignored. Focus on the article itself, rather than the writer. Look for content, more political crap, or more military analysis. That's just my two cents, because I see you, and not just you, making the same mistake, trusting that crooked car salesman, and buying their articles, hook, line and sinker. I want to assist you by giving you a guide, I don't want a flame war, and I thank you for avoiding the latter; it is my hope that you follow the former.