172
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 06 Aug 2026
172 points (100.0% liked)
Chapotraphouse
14427 readers
617 users here now
Banned? DM Wmill to appeal.
No anti-nautilism posts. See: Eco-fascism Primer
Slop posts go in c/slop. Don't post low-hanging fruit here.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Hyper militaristic society. Wages one war. Loses.
Ain't that fascism in a nutshell?
If I remember correctly, treating war as a boring logistics war (as callous as it is) is arguably MORE effective than what fascists want.
Be the biggest baddest dude and you win from sheer badassery.
Military history can be summed up by one group going "War is best fought by a bunch of people who would rather be doing literally anything else, like accountants, teachers, engineers, and logistics managers", followed by another tough guy going "Nah, war is about me being a glorious badass, and... ARGH! I'm dead!"
I feel there's a mid-point here where they're like "Hey these guys can fight back! That's cheating! No fair!"
Basically the response of ex-military who went to Ukraine and were crying about Russians having air support; also the response of military today that Iran can give them a bloody nose
That’s the one I’m looking for!
"I am supposed to be teaching ninth grade history, not fighting a war!"
"Those who fail to learn from history, are doomed to repeat it."
ⓘ This user is suspected of being a bear. Please report any suspawcious behaviour.
Clausewitz talks about this at length, 90% of success in war is making sure shit's in the right place at the right time.
It's funny that Clausewitz became *the war guy' when his career consists of the Rhine campaign (Had to be bailed out by the Austrians), the war of the fourth coalition (loss), working a background role as the Prussian army was reformed along Napoleonic line, defecting to Russia and participated in one battle that he lost, going home to Prussia to negotiate Prussia betraying their alliance with France so he could participate in the battle of Ligny (loss) and the battle of Wavre (loss) at which point he retired from combat.
He was involved in a battle that resulted in the occupation of a major European capital 2 times on the losing side.
TBH, he never commanded himself, just was a staff officer, and wrote a book drawing from his experiences on the dumb shit that resulted in defeats.
Those who can't, teach
He spent most of his time as a teacher on sick leave because he was shitting out his doo doo ass, and most of the work on the thing he's most known for ("On War") was done by his wife while she was also busy having two other jobs. Incidentally she also got him his promotion to colonel and his teaching job.
The man was hard carried through life by his wife.
I was about to say "well, at least he had the ability to self-reflect and write about why he lost and all the fuckups he made" and then you reveal that it was all his wife lmao
I'm not saying he didn't do anything for his magnum opus. That would be unfair. But his wife finished his magnum opus after he died leaving a bunch of unfinished manusccripts and a bunch of notes and got the result published.
For all of his faults, it seems he was a good husband. And sometimes, that is all that counts.
He clearly has a lot of experience losing, so he knows what's the opposite
You got it ...Thats it. Thats the meme
Surprisingly common occurrence.
Honestly, what the fuck are chuds doing if this is the result of their hog lives?
Like, admittedly, most leftists in this country are pencil necks with ZERO training, and yet we’re not far behind as a fighting force. Imagine if we did train lmao they fight for nothing, they’d be fucked
In an actual firefight, most chuds would die the second they had to run into cover.
History has proven over and over again that those who romanticize war fucking suck at war.
Almost always the best at war are those who will try not to fight it
Is that a quote? I know ive read something almost exactly the same by someone before. Probably just cause im far from the first person to notice this. Telling your populace they have an enemy that is weak snd strong at the ssme time can work until they meet the enemy, who time and time again turns out to know what the fuck theyre doing in their own land and csn defend it quite well or at least make every victory as empty and strategically meaningless as possible. And much like their prison system, the people they unfairly expose to war end out getting better at it.
Its a piss poor doctrine cause that's what gets the doctrine guys paid the most for the longest time. Those who profit from war usually also suck at conducting it. A big major trick to beong good at war id having a fucking goal.
I mean, sounds kinda like Sun Tzu's whole "win without fighting".
All the people they lost against still suffered devastatingly while the American citizen was just fine and dandy. They fought a lot and materially and human cost wise lost quite a bit more in comparison. America hust didnt get what it wanted after killing all those people. They can force a vert pyrric victory
I meant that's what the quote sounds like.
Sun Tzu's whole thing for that is basically, before you decide to go to war, make sure you understand exactly what you are trying to achieve first. Which is literally basic effective project management tactics in a nutshell.
If you can achieve that objective without ever having to field soldiers, then you should always achieve it without fielding soldiers. As well, fighting simply to fight is not a good enough reason, as you will usually lose to the defender's advantage, even if you have vastly superior numbers and technology. It is better to use the threat of overwhelming force to force your opposition to do something than actually test it, as warfare can be extremely unpredictable, like casting dice on a craps table. Moreover, any amount of damage you sustain, even if you are victorious, leaves you vulnerable to a third party who did not participate in the conflict.
The annals of history are littered with the corpses of empires who defeated their primary political opposition in war, only to lose to a player that wasn't even considering playing the board until the other two players had weakened themselves.
Makes the whole "know your enemy" thing a lot more difficult
Not quoting anyone directly tho like you I'm sure I'm not the first to say this or express this sentiment
Something about it is dettimg off my 'ive resd this somewhere else' brain. It felt like a wuote by someone who i probably should remember. Most likely a coincidence but now I wanna know who it reminded me of, cause its someone
It's almost certainly some paraphrasing of Sun Tzu.
Copying Sun Tzu's homework is a pretty common way to write wise leader characters. You've probably seen a dozen variations on this.
Well definitely let me know if you find out... Curious who I am channeling...
The closest person I can think of who's an exception is Napoleon Bonaparte, and even then, there's still more to it than that.
Except Napoleon didn't romanticize war before he fought in it. Big difference.
They would fight by making marketing slogans and setting narratives as they get shot
They wouldn't even bother to leave their porches