Re: [GZG] [OT] Books (Weber/White/Meier)

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lYea
h, I'd have to say Good fighting only wins out over economy when the
differences in economies between the two parties is close or marginal at
best. When ou have a vast gap in economies, the economic giant can
afford to throw crappy soldiers and equipment against the enemy. I mean,
both the Russians and Americans in WW2 prove this and I invite anyone to
try to wage a way against the Chinese and see how goo your excellent
fighting stands up to an army that can be a billion strong if it needed
to be.

-Eli

-------------- Original message -------------- 
From: "K.H.Ranitzsch" <kh.ranitzsch@t-online.de> 

> John Atkinson schrieb: 
> > And also buys into the myth of 'overwhelming economic resources'
being 
> > the decisive factor. 
> > 
> > I never saw anyone killed with a chunk of GNP. 
> 
> I would describe a tank or plane, a bullet or a nuke as a 'chunk of
GNP' 
> You think they are produced by cargo cult magic ? 
> 
> > Theories that take the fighting out of an analysis of warfare are
worthless on 
> the face of 
> > it. 
> 
> Depends on the level you are looking at. 
> Adam Tooze's 'The wages of Destruction' is thorough discussion of the 
> war against Germany at the economic level. Recommended, though rather 
> voluminous. 
> 
> > Combat is the ultimate argument of nations, economics only sets the 
> > parameters of the combat. Good fighting overcomes economics 
> > frequently. 
> 
> That's what German and Japanese commanders believed. They got away
with 
> it for a few years - until the allies got their act together to 
> outproduce AND outfight them. 
> 
> Greetings 
> Karl Heinz 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________ 
> Gzg-l mailing list 
> Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu 
> http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l