Why do we need to study Military History

[niaz]

History tells you what we are and how we arrived here, therefore study of history including military history is a must for all serious political & military readers. Nevertheless, it can be a two edged sword. An imaginative military leader would learn from the past and improve upon it. Since that the adversary would have probably done the same exercise.

A competent military leader would take this into account while devising his strategy. He would not be afraid to try innovation to gain tactical advantage. For example when our holy Prophet (PBUH) faced enormous odds; he agreed to the suggestion of digging a ditch around Medina and fought a purely defensive battle.

On the other hand; because certain way of doing things worked in the past, mediocre leaders would prefer to stand by tried and tested methods rather than experimenting with new things. Remember in a warlike situation, failure of an experiment results in defeat.

Military history is full of instances where war leaders relied too much on the past and tried to fight the new war on the model of the previous one. Construction of Maginot Line by the French is the most glaring example. 30 years later Israeli army command was sitting pretty behind the sand walls on East side of the Suez Canal considering that these defences were impervious to bombardment form their air or canon fire; not realizing that the sand walls could be demolished by ordinary water cannons .

Nevertheless it would be foolhardy to dismiss the age old tested and tried principles such as having both quantitative & qualitative advantage in men and materials as well as having economic strength to wage a long war. This provides the ability to absorb losses in battles but still emerge eventual victor in the war of attrition. This was proven in North Africa, where Rommel was arguably better general than Montgomery and on the Eastern Front, where very capable generals such as Von Manstein were overcome by the ability to absorb huge losses by the Soviet army; an advantage that equally able Soviet generals like Zhukov exploited to the full.

Serious study of military history only helps a war leader prior to the commencement of battle. One can never tell how such a military leader will behave under an intense war situation. In my humble opinion, it all comes down to the individual leaders. In every case where the promotion is on merit alone, individual generals have proved their mettle even in case of asymmetric war; General Gap of Vietnam is a case in point.

 

[MastanKhan]

Hi,

You know what---military history or general history is nothing but mere words---what you need to study is the character of the man---who the man was---what made him do what he did---what drove him to have the drive to get to where he got to---the sheer madness of the man---the circumstances that drove the men and the women in question to the great heights they went to---.

Other than that---this discussion is mine is better than your---you get the drift---.

My recomendation would be to make a compulsory study in pak military colleges and for military personal to study the great generals and warriors but to keep a focus also on the women who were a part of their lives and made them get to where they arrived---.

Discussing technicalities of wars---okay---big deal---but to get into the head of the man---priceless---.

 

[MastanKhan]

Niaz,

In the most recent wars---the generals made the same mistakes---during GW1 iraq blundered into thinking that the u s will attack from the sea--next it made the mistake of not understanding what america was capable of--even our own Aslam Beg warned america that the iraqis are battle hardened troops only to change his mind after the first day of war---.

Fast forward 10 + years---a super power wants to take on the poorest country in the world---even thoughit takes charge of the land in no time---but the moment it decides to change tactics---the super power gets bogged down by the minions---.

Through all these wars=---one thing has been common amongst men---it was the EGO OF THE MAN that dominated the strategy and planning---the worst thing is that those who were the weaker in man and material were also living in stone age when it came to thinking strategy, gamesmanship, tactics and understanding your weaknesses, enemy's strengths and manipulating the enemy's position to their advantage.

I think that pak millitary should have classes in personal humiliation and degradation to see if the officers can think and act straight even after most humiliating and degrading episodes to personal self----.

Millitary history is only good to learn---if you can over come your prejudices---otherwise it is better to go to the range and try to hit the bulls eye---at least worst case scenario---you would learn to shoot straight.

 

[Xeric]

Hi,

You know what---military history or general history is nothing but mere words---what you need to study is the character of the man---who the man was---what made him do what he did---what drove him to have the drive to get to where he got to---the sheer madness of the man---the circumstances that drove the men and the women in question to the great heights they went to---.

Other than that---this discussion is mine is better than your---you get the drift---.

My recomendation would be to make a compulsory study in pak military colleges and for military personal to study the great generals and warriors but to keep a focus also on the women who were a part of their lives and made them get to where they arrived---.

Discussing technicalities of wars---okay---big deal---but to get into the head of the man---priceless---.

Couldn't agree more.

As Liddell Hart puts it:

“Our knowledge of any past event is always incomplete, probably inaccurate, beclouded by ambivalent evidence and biased historians, and perhaps distorted by our own patriotic or religious partisanship... most history is guessing, and the rest is prejudice... the historian always oversimplifies..."​

But guess what, at the same time he also says:

“History is the record of man’s steps and slips ... it is the broadest of studies, embracing every aspect of life. It lays the foundation of education by showing how mankind repeats its errors, and what those errors are… It provides us with the opportunity to profit by the stumbles and tumbles of our forerunners...The study of history ... is a universal experience – infinitely longer, wider and more varied than any individual’s experience. How often do we hear people claim knowledge of the world and of life because they are sixty or seventy years old? There is no excuse for any literate person if he is less than three thousand years old in mind.”​

Nevertheless, to further add to your and niaz's points i will advice students of history to avoid pit falls. The following quotes, i hope can sum it up:

- “Historians realize how greatly the causation of events on which the fate of nations depends is ruled, not by balanced judgment, but by momentary feelings as well as personal considerations.”

- “The most dangerous of all delusions are those that arise from the adulteration of history in the imagined interest of national and military moral. This has resulted because of unwillingness of even good people to admit the truth when it was disturbing to them.” Nothing can deceive like a document. Many are the gaps to be found in official archives documents destroyed to conceal
reputation; forgeries implanted to replace originals in an effort to manufacture history; placing on record files relating to events that did not take place; shaping facts to suit the purposes of propaganda; etc. Therefore, it is hard to discover the truth, and assertions should be treated with critical doubt.”

- “I have written too much history to believe in it. So, if any one wants to differ from me, i am prepared to agree with him.” - Henry Adams

- “To see clearly and analyse scientifically requires freedom from prejudice, combined with the power of discernment and a sense of proportion. The path of truth is paved with critical doubt, and illuminated by the spirit of objective and impartial enquiry.”

So in short, readers must remain critical of what they read, alternately by including more than one author (presenting other side of the picture) in his reading list, a reader can avoid drawing wrong conclusions from history.

 

[Xeric]

I think that pak millitary should have classes in personal humiliation and degradation to see if the officers can think and act straight even after most humiliating and degrading episodes to personal self----.

That we do, especially during courses of instructions.

i wish i could have shown you how the Commandant of a School (or the instructor) thrashes a student while the latter is on the dice and presenting a plan, fighting a battle on a model or is war-gaming.

The aim, ofcourse is to see if the guy can stand his ground under pressure especially when he is insulted and humiliated ruthlessly. This also helps in finding out if the guy has the integrity to accept mistakes when confronted or does he go more rigid and throw tantrums (Hitler sire is a point in case) when he is found with his hand inside the cookie jar?

 

[Joe Shearer]

So do you think there is something that history has to offer you in this context?

^^ Ofcourse, you guys may not be able to unfold another Schlieffen Plan to overcome the problems of 'superior terrain available to the enemy' and the possibility of a Two Front War, but what do you suggest, is there any other 'help' that you as a reader can get from history?

There is, in fact, a huge amount that history can offer a military planner in this state.

We learn, for instance, from Mahan and other maritime historians, that we have immense strategic depth, that magical unicorn so prized by the military thinkers of the sub-continent. We have the entire Deccan peninsula, and beyond that, a vast ocean of our own.

We learn from the history of the Delian League, that a land power without corresponding sea power has no hope of taming a power dominant at sea. We learn this lesson over and over again, as we see the defiance of England against the Spanish, of the British, again, over the French of the Empire, of America backed by the French fleet, against the British, of the British against Nazi Germany, and today, the seat of American power when she wishes to recharge out to the furthest corners of the globe.

We learn from the history of invaders of Russia that our rivals simply cannot deploy equal numbers, and hope to prevail by overwhelming superiority of numbers. We have the world's second biggest population to fall back upon. We have tapped only a fraction of a fraction of the potential strength. But we also learn from the history of the central Asian invasions of the mediaeval ages that such strength is useless until organized into military formation.

We learn that a long land frontier cannot be guarded against an agile and swift enemy, with the power to concentrate his forces quickly, by fortifications, otherwise Hitler's downfall would have been at the Maginot Line.

We learn that the most ruthless armies can be halted in their tracks and cut to pieces as we see how the Marathas fought the Mughals, how the Sikhs fought the Afghans, and how the Spanish fought the French, indeed, how the Chinese fought the Japanese.

We learn that democracies generally have prevailed over autocracies - generally. So the Allies won twice, in two separate Great Wars involving the whole world.

We learn from Indian history itself that land-locked north India does not think, or has not thought about a life on the bounding main, but that the east Indians, the Tamils, the Konkani, the Gujarati, above all, the Malayali are sea-faring folk, and have a sense of the bays and the seas around them.

We learn that the forests of central India are eminently defensible, and have held out throughout Indian history against all powers for ages. They may be vulnerable to a ruthless campaign by a foe like the Americans, who will wreck the earth to gain victory.

It is not the objective of this comment to offer a full-blown military solution, merely to illustrate how history can illuminate our path to such solutions.

We learn from history. We act on our own.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Needless to add, Pakistan would have its own approach to the mining of military history in order to produce a coherent strategy for herself. Again, I have no doubt that this exercise has been carried out many times, perhaps by iteration, and that a cogent strategic core infuses military decisions by Pakistani leaders.

What this strategic core is remains a challenge for Indian strategists; discovering its elements has important, indeed, critical implications for Indian thinking, which must differ radically on this front if it is to take the vastly different local conditions into account.

However, I propose to Pakistanis thinking on this subject that the major challenges for Pakistan must be Indian capability, not Indian intentions. In taking capabilities into view, it is proposed that Pakistani military planners may need to get away from the staple consideration of a slow-motion armoured encounter on the plains between Chhamb and Sind, and think about other things: the ability of the Indians to outflank Pakistan's largely terrestrial defensive system, the very sharp hierarchy of capability of Pakistan's three services, the equally sharp differences in their quality of leadership, the lack of congruence between the quality of leadership and capabilities on the one hand and the financial and political support given to each of these services on the other hand, and the reality of a hostile neighbour on the west.

As much as India, Pakistan might be required to consider a two-front engagement.

 

[MastanKhan]

That we do, especially during courses of instructions.

i wish i could have shown you how the Commandant of a School (or the instructor) thrashes a student while the latter is on the dice and presenting a plan, fighting a battle on a model or is war-gaming.

The aim, ofcourse is to see if the guy can stand his ground under pressure especially when he is insulted and humiliated ruthlessly. This also helps in finding out if the guy has the integrity to accept mistakes when confronted or does he go more rigid and throw tantrums (Hitler sire is a point in case) when he is found with his hand inside the cookie jar?

Hi,

Thank you for your input---but I am talking about the stuff that can shake your very beliefs right to the core----religion---Qura'an---Prophet Mohammad---shake your soul right to the core kind of degradation but you are able to come out of it with a smile on your face.

 

[niaz]

With 20/20 hindsight one can say with certainty that Khem Kharan thrust by the Ist Armoured Div. in 1965 and attempted armour penetration in the Indian Territory in the Longewala /Jaisalmer sector in Dec 1971 were not well thought out and even if succeeded in attaining their initial objectives, it would not have been possible to withstand continued Indian counter attacks. Mainly because overwhelming superiority in men and materials imply that Indian military’s ability to sustain losses has always been greater than Pakistan’s. This leads me to conclude that ‘Offensive defence’ strategy devised by the Rawalpindi GHQ was based on incorrect assumptions.

Now that all branches of Pakistani armed forces; Navy and Air forced in particular; are at a greater disadvantage both in the numbers as well in the quality of military hardware, success of an ‘offensive defence’ strategy is even less likely to succeed. Additionally, with the anti US feeling in Pakistan following OBL raid and continued drone attacks combined with the fact that China-Indian trade volume is now $70-billion per annum; it would be unrealistic to expect strong pro Pakistani support from any quarter in case of future Indo Pakistan war.

For a simple minded person like me, it is clear that such overwhelming odds in India’s favour have lowered ‘nuclear threshold’. But would the winner of any Indian- Pakistan nuclear exchange have a victory worth celebrating?

It is quite possible that study of history of Indo Pak military conflicts have led me to the wrong conclusions. However, even if I am 10% right, don’t you think it means that any future India/Pakistan war should be avoided and no stone left unturned for resolving the problems thru dialogue?

 

[Penguin]

Ask "How can/do we learn from history" rather than "Why do we need to study history"

All of us presumably love history for its own sake. And all of us presubably believe that, by expanding our experience to the lives of men and women in different times and places, history teaches us valuable things both about others and ourselves. But what about the uses of history in a narrower, more pragmatic sense? Does the past provide lessons for the present, guidance for the future? In addition to telling us who we are, does history help us know what to do? However professionally skeptical we may be about learning from the past, there is no doubt that we try to do it all the time. Military units write after action reports that provide the basis for assessing the reasons for success or failure.Historical analogies, comparisons, and metaphors are all around us; they are a source of collective wisdom on which we must rely. It is unlikely that we could live without them even if we wanted to. In learning lessons from the past, differences are often as valuable as similarities. To public debates on the lessons of history, historians should bring the discipline's traditional virtues: a strict adherence to research methods that are public, transparent, and open to critical scrutiny; a commitment to examining as much of the relevant evidence as possible, even if it threatens our own interpretation; a critical approach to all sources, and especially those that seem to confirm conventional wisdom; the struggle to overcome personal bias, a struggle that should be no less persistent because it is unavoidably imperfect; and, last but not least, the resolute refusal to believe something merely because we wish it to be true. Nothing more politically useful and practically important than these habits of mind. What we learn from history depends entirely on how we do it.

How Do We Learn from History?

 

[Penguin]

i.e. if your don't do proper fact finding (research) and do not reflect on the past (introspection), there is no hope of ever learning anything.