Is false surrendering a war crime? Has this tactic ever been used in war?
Undoubtedly, this is a war crime and the danger of this tactic is that subsequent, legitimate acts of surrender will not be taken seriously, and the surrendering party will be killed despite a legitimate effort to give up the fight and lay down their arms. The same holds true for false promises to accept a surrender. As an example, in September of 1999 during the War of Dagestan, six Russian soldiers surrendered to Chechen militants after the Chechen militants offered terms that would allow the soldiers to live; telling them that they were only going to use the soldiers for a later 'prisoner exchange.' The Russian soldiers agreed to the terms of surrender and were unmercifully executed by beheading and/or being shot after being taken prisoner. Horribly, the militants even filmed the killing and made it freely available as a 'snuff film' on the burgeoning web at the time. Warning: The video is one of the more gory videos available on the web and you may regret it if you choose to look for it. It suffices to say that the 'Dagestan Massacre' is an example of the worst kind of war crime. This kind of trickery was likely rampant during that war, with both sides accusing each other of killing prisoners and unarmed civilians, torture and all sorts of other crimes. And of course, there is some level of this type of behavior during most wars. The danger of this type of behavior is that it creates an environment where no one will able to surrender or accept a surrender, or worse, it opens the door to all kinds of dishonorable war behaviors that are counter the tenets of the Geneva Convention and common decency (attacking hospitals, shooting and gassing civilians, etc).
What was the real cause of the Civil War?
Money. As usual. This is also where the State Rights thing came into place. The South was knocking out all of this agriculture AND cotton for fabric. The North had gone almost strictly industry. The North had all these empty factories and the huge costs for purchasing raw materials from the South. Great Britain and Europe was more than willing to pay these costs for export of these raw materials, namely cotton. Therefore making these Southern property owners very wealthy. The wealthy business owners of the North took steps to legally change that practice so they would get the raw materials at a cheaper cost and control the commerce. When they tossed the ethical problem of slavery......they brought with them a winning argument over to their side. If the Southerners had no slaves, they wouldn't be able to produce these raw materials in such a quantity, thereby taking the commercial power away from the South and giving it to them, the wealthy businessmen, in the North. It is always about money, honey. Money and control.
Strategy Vs Tactics: What is the difference between a strategist and a tactician?
When somebody asks to differentiate the two words, generally they are used synonymously most of the time by most of the people. Same is the case with these words.These words belong to the realm of warfare and management and needs to be differentiated using those paradigms. The common denominator of both strategy and a tactic is to reach towards a stated goal or objective.Strategy is a long term plan, needs a good deal of time and effort to successfully execute it and may undergo a change if the feedback received warns or warrants a course correction. A strategist is one who has or develops a long term vision and capable or expected to be capable of foreseeing things before they happen and steers his side towards the desired goal.On the contrary, a tactician does not or can not wait for such a long term and looks for small or big ,but immediate victories by spotting the opportunities. Tactics work in short run, before the opponents realize what is happening. Similar tactics may not work again and again. The real beauty of a tactic is that it was not thought before, suddenly appears and you may lose the opportunity if you do not utilize it.A good strategist will not loose sight of tactics as long as it is not diametrically opposite to his strategy and would like to implement it as a furthering step towards the goal he is aiming through his strategy.Expanding your business in ,say, Japan may be your goal for which you need a strategy which should carefully go into the pros and cons , and identification of right locations and strategic partnerships , how to go about etc., etc will be the the strategy part. Making yourself a member of visiting business delegation along with your country's ruling elite could be a tactic.In the game of chess, these two words are most frequently used. Winning, i.e. Mating the king is a goal for which the player needs a strategy like keeping his king safe, developing his forces without leaving any weaknesses, identify the weaknesses of the opponent , look for guard against weakening of his position by some accidental pitfalls etc. Suddenly a tactical combination appears on the board where you may sacrifice a piece for a pawn or give up exchange but can secure a mate or a deliver a big blow to the opponent.One needs to have a strategy, but look for tactical opportunities all the way till you reach the goal.
What were some of the strengths and weaknesses of General Patton's (WW2) leadership?
In the strength column, Patton was audacious, understood the power of combined arms better than any army commander in Europe (the 9th Air Force was a tactical air force and he used them extensively) and had a clear view of what it meant to win.Additionally, he was an ardent anti-Communist and was not confused about what the Soviets would do with the territories they captured and said so repeatedly.He had fought the Germans in WW1 so he had had first hand experience in combat—unlike many other army commanders, he’d been wounded in action. He knew the mind of the German military and had a healthy respect for his foes abilities while despising fascism and Nazism and being very open about the joy of killing them.His tactics emphasized violent action and speed to exploit any opportunity. His standing orders were to attack and force the enemy to react to his plans rather than the reverse.In the negative column, Patton didn’t know how to keep his mouth shut. He was his own favorite general and said so. Bradley was jealous of Patton’s success and notoriety and was a bit of a schemer—so anytime Patton said or did something outrageous (which was frequently) Bradley saw to it that he profited from Georgie’s mistakes.Patton also never really grasped the idea of logistics. He understood it of course but he was much more interested in the point of the spear, not the heavy lifting required to get the fuel and ammo and rations to the front. He left that to others with varying degrees of success.Finally, in the negative column, Patton was advanced about as far as his skillset would allow. A lot like Robert E. Lee in a way. Patton—like Lee—was an inspiring commander and his troops (contrary to the movie) thought highly of him. They knew as soldiers that speed is life in a combat zone. But Patton—like Lee—was out of his depth beyond commanding an army.As an aside, the notion that Patton was pre-occupied with race or skin color or was anti-Semitic or that the US military had him killed in some wacky conspiracy (seriously Bill O’Reilly?) is absolute nonsense. Revisionist gibberish.