The Handy Military History Answer Book. Samuel Willard Crompton

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ one planned it this way: that three of the greatest contests of the last 400 years should be in such close proximity to each other. Equally, no human brain devised a scheme by which the battles of the Old Testament should be so aligned, geographically speaking, with the modern-day wars between Arabs and Israelis. If any hand can be said to have “plotted” or “planned” it, this would be the hand of natural geography, which made the English Channel and the coasts of Holland, Belgium, and northern France such key strategic points. Land, water, and the vicissitudes of weather have played huge roles in many of the great contests of human history. Imagine, for example, if there had not been such a heavy fog over Manhattan Island in 1776, and George Washington had been unable to evacuate the Continental Army from Brooklyn. Imagine if an enormous flood in the Mississippi River delta had prevented the arrival of Admiral Farragut’s fleet? And, of course, the most significant of all: what if the weather report handed to General Dwight D. Eisenhower, on the afternoon of June 5, 1944, had been in error. One shudders at the potential consequences.

      Because we need a handle for the frying pan that we call military history, let us set out a short number of words, each beginning with a consonant. Let these serve as the opener—not the conclusion!—to our discussion of how men—and sometimes women—have fought each other for thousands of years.

       Men, Monarchs, Means, and Maneuver

      At first glance this list may seem too short, but the human mind works better with short, punchy declarations than long lists. Let us use these words as the springboard into the topic.

      Men, of course, are the great element of human warfare; they are perennially needed and often in short supply. Men make the difference, whether on the battlefield or in the strategy room. No matter how many computer simulations are used, or how many tactical schemes are created or abandoned, it still—nearly always—comes down to the men and women on the ground.

      In our modern era, no one practices this human element better than the Israelis, whose defense force is second to none. Whether in the gathering of intelligence or the unleashing of an armored column, the Israelis know that 98 percent of everything depends on the people on the ground. Is he or she ready? Will he or she make the sacrifice, take the direct hit in order to gain time for his or her fellow soldiers? Successful modern states know that people cannot be removed from the formula; that, regardless of how many technical gadgets are deployed, the human mind, heart, and spirit always play the most significant role. It is as true in our time as in the era of the Vikings, when a few thousand Scandinavians terrorized much of Northern Europe by means of skill, intention, and will.

      Monarchs are not much in the conversation these days. The only monarchy that is regularly in the news is that of Great Britain, and it often appears in the tabloids rather than the traditional news magazines. When we scan the entirety of human history, however, it is apparent that monarchs have sent more men into battle and war than any other type of leader. Presidents, prime ministers, and premiers may issue declarations of war, but they do not have the joint spiritual/political power of a king, queen, or emperor. Whether we consider the Great Khans of Mongolia, the kings and queens of the European nations, or David, Saul, and Jonathan of the Old Testament, we arrive repeatedly upon the importance of monarchs to military history. If one still has any doubts, he or she can simply whistle that marvelous tune “God Save the King.”

      Means refers to virtually everything necessary to put the soldier or warrior on the field. This can be as routine as buttons for his outer coat, or as involved as special glasses and goggles for night fighting. Too often we forget the thousands of sacrifices made behind the lines in order that soldiers can accomplish their tasks. Means are surely one of the most important of all aspects of military history, but they can sometimes be overridden by a powerful will. Who, for example, believed that the American revolutionaries of 1776 had the means to combat the British Army and the Royal Navy? Who could have imagined that a few thousand English knights and longbowmen could bring down so many knights at the Battle of Agincourt? And, in perhaps the single greatest example, who would have dreamed that Mao Tse-Tung would outlast the Nationalist Chinese? Most true soldiers—as opposed to armchair generals—will readily say that they like the equipment, just so long as it does not get in the way of the experience.

      Maneuver may sound basic, prosaic even, but a company or regiment that does not learn to march—and to do so in the most effective manner—will swiftly be beaten. From the first moments of what we in America call “Basic Training,” the soldier is trained to let his muscles react first and to let the mind catch up later. Maneuver, therefore, involves every kind of movement, from the humblest private soldier to the loftiest five-star general. The latter issues orders; the former executes them.

      Who knows how many battles have been decided by the smallest maneuver? Who xiv knows how many profound miscalculations have been made because they were based on things such as “turn and march 40 steps to the right” or “turn and march 40 steps to the left”?

      The Emperor Napoleon is not always the favorite of the modern reader. We learn, for example, that he was profligate with the lives of his men and that he abandoned them in Egypt. When it comes to compressing several of the important maxims into one brief sentence, however, Napoleon does it best: “An army marches on its stomach.”

      And there we have it. An army, composed of people, performs maneuvers that often include long marches, and it does so at the command of its monarch, who was, in this case, Napoleon.

      * * *

      “We rebuilt from scratch,” Hans declares.

      “We were determined to remake Old England, and make her better,” Tommy declares.

      “Russia has been pounded many times, and she always comes back,” says Ivan.

      Joe—who once was called GI Joe by his coworkers—shuts his eyes in admiration. He remembers the America of 1945, the incredible enthusiasm that existed, and the belief that Americans were the best at almost everything, whether the making of automobiles, the election of leaders, or the creation of the new suburbs that sprang up after 1946.

      Deep down, Joe envies his three fellow veterans. The Second World War was a horrible experience for them and their societies, but they survived, endured, and—thanks in part to U.S. economic assistance—they eventually thrived. But it’s their incredible optimism about the future, their belief that their efforts will come to fruition—that a better world will be established—that’s what really compels Joe’s envy, as well as his admiration. It’s an odd thing for an American, a nation that was only established in 1776, but he feels strangely older, more mature than Hans, Tommy, and Ivan, and he’s not sure he really likes the feeling.

      Joe thinks a few moments, and remembers a book he saw recently that directly challenged its readers, asking them if there were not some good things that came out of war. Though he’s not inclined to switch places with Hans, Tommy, or Ivan, he thinks it quite possible that his grandchildren—of whom he’s very fond—just might be willing to exchange places with the grandchildren of these men.

      And then one of the best quotes he ever recalled comes back to Joe. He does not speak it aloud, but smiles gently, as he ponders Thomas Jefferson’s words, written in 1786: “The tree of liberty must be refreshed, now and again, with the blood of tyrants. It is their natural manure.” How odd that the Europeans, who’ve experienced so much tyranny over so many centuries, seem to know this better than his fellow Americans.

СКАЧАТЬ