Soviet generals have never been faced with problems of this sort. They have always known that victory in a war can only be achieved by advancing. To them defensive operations spell defeat and death. In the best case, such operations can only produce a deadlock, and not for long, at that. Victory can only be achieved by means of an offensive-by seizing the initiative and raining blows on the enemy's most vulnerable areas.
Very interesting. This reminds me of Clausewitz, who 200 years earlier had tried his best to convince those around him that just defending "stuff" by holding positions on mountain passes was a sure way to get defeated.
Clausewitz specifically states that defense is a stronger form of war than attack, and makes a very good case for why. "On War" did make the case that having two rows of soldiers simply standing on the side of a mountain, shooting at the enemy was a poor use of forces, but still goes on to use numerous examples from the Napoleonic wars and seven years war to demonstrate the advantages of defense.
Comments
Very interesting. This reminds me of Clausewitz, who 200 years earlier had tried his best to convince those around him that just defending "stuff" by holding positions on mountain passes was a sure way to get defeated.
Clausewitz specifically states that defense is a stronger form of war than attack, and makes a very good case for why. "On War" did make the case that having two rows of soldiers simply standing on the side of a mountain, shooting at the enemy was a poor use of forces, but still goes on to use numerous examples from the Napoleonic wars and seven years war to demonstrate the advantages of defense.
Strange, that means I remembered incorrectly :)