menu close

The Strategy of warfare applied to relationships # 2

/ 39:08/E77
Grand strategy tends to coincide w/morality: through having always to keep in view the ultimate goal of the efforts it is directing.


Transcript:
https://app.podscribe.ai/episode/53289973
Speaker 0 (0s): <inaudible> 

Speaker 1 (14s): Well, listen it up. Pilgrim. You say you and your man over there, I've been to come in to my house and take my things. Well, you might be able to maybe, maybe after you eat the peanuts out of my s**t, how's that for a John Wayne impression, I got to work on a Dona. I know, I know. I'm trying. 

What are you going to do? He's the Duke, he's hard. He's often replicated, but never duplicated. All right. But I'm trying, we are going to work some more on Strategy applying battle field techniques and strategy to every day. Life situations are the most complete and happy victory is this to compel one's enemy to give up his purpose while suffering no harm oneself, but a serious by indirections find directions out. 

Shakespeare Hamlet act two scene one. The whole art of war consists in a well-reasoned and extremely, extremely circum. SPECT defensive followed by rapid and audacious attack. Napoleon all military action is permeated by intelligent forces and there are effects Clausewitz. A clever military leader will succeed in many cases in choosing defensive positions of such an offensive nature from the strategic point of view that the enemy is compelled to attack us in them, Golan fellows, these soldiers, they always go for the thickest place in the fence. 

Admiral de Robeck. Well, lets jump into you. You guys remember when we left off at him, we left off with the Hitler and German armies advancing. They were utilizing the strategy of the indirect attack. For those of you just tuning in, or you may not have listened to these in sequence. Let me catch you up to speed here. The true purpose of strategy is to diminish the possibility of resistance and from this follows another Axiom that to ensure attaining and objective one should have alternative objectives and attack that converges. 

On one point she would threaten and be able to diverge against another. Only by this flexibility of aim can, Strategy be attuned to the uncertainty 

Speaker 2 (3m 7s): Of war 

Speaker 1 (3m 10s): Exploiting the weak points of the Weimer Republic playing on human weakness, alternatively playing off capitalist and socialist interest against each other, appearing to turn first in one direction and then in another. So that by successive indirect steps, he approached his goal. Let's think about that particular piece of Strategy they're the first one in those two paragraphs is to ensure attaining an objective one should have alternative objectives and attack that converges. 

On one point she would threaten and be able to diverge against another. Only by this flexibility of aim, can strategy be attuned to the uncertainty 

Speaker 2 (3m 56s): Of war. 

Speaker 1 (3m 59s): So you should have multiple attacking points and one battle should lead you, 

Speaker 2 (4m 7s): Right? 

Speaker 1 (4m 7s): Two multiple avenues. Your next year, this strike you make. Now it should open up two more strikes depending on what the person does. It's the same thing in a conversation. If your, if your going to be in a crucial conversation, if your going to find yourself at a table or in a meeting or some sort of debate, you should have pregame do what you are going to stay in your mind and you should have, or you should understand that what you say is a lead up to the next thing you say, and that each verse or each argument you make should have a few followups. 

You should be able to attack this point. If your talking about a specific situation that happened, you should be able to bring up that situation. And regardless of what the person says about that situation, you should be able to tack attack it in two different ways. Let's say, for example, you're speaking with a teacher or someone at your kids school and they are talking about the topic of diversity and that topic comes up a good strategy. 

They're would be for you to say something like all. Can you tell me the difference between diversity and inequality and then just kind of watch them for awhile? And if they're smart, they'll catch on what your doing. They probably won't. However, you, you ask them that question. What's the difference between diversity and inequality and they'll think for a minute and they will give you some answer and then you would follow it up with Okay regardless of what they say, you would follow it up with something like this. 

Okay if I put five balls out in front of me and I filled each bowl up with a different level of water, would those bulls be a diverse group, have bowls? Or would they have a diverse amount of water or would they have an equal amount of water? And at that point in time, it should Dawn on the person that it's the same exact word. It's just that people who want to use it in a specific way will choose which words they want to use. If its a negative connotation or a positive connotation. 

It's a good way of thinking about the particular Strategy we were talking about. The battle should lead you to multiple avenues of the next battle depending on where you want to take it. Alright, so let's, let's dig a little bit further into this particular book and read a little bit more about what happened in the original plan. The main effort was to have been on the right wing by box army group, but early in 1940, the plan was radically changed and the center of gravity shifted following the arguments of general Von Mon steam, chief of staff at Rood steads army group that a thrust through the art in things would have a much better chance of success being the line of least expectation. 

The most significant feature of the Western campaign was the German commands care to avoid any direct assault and its continued use of the indirect approach despite superiority and modern means of attack. It did not attempt to penetrate the Mae got line instead buy a baited offensive against the, to small neutrals Hollande in Belgium. It managed to lure the allies out of their defenses on the Belgian frontier. 

Then when they had advanced deep into Belgium, their March began deliberately unimpeded by the German air force. It struck in behind them with a thrust at the uncovered hinge of the French advance. This deadly thrust was delivered by a striking force that formed only a small fraction of the total German army, but it was composed of armor divisions. The German command had been shrewd enough to realize that for any chance of quick success, it must rely on mechanics rather than on mass even. 

So this spearhead was so small that the German generals were far from confident that the stroke would succeed, that it did was chiefly due to the recklessness or perilous convention reality convention conventionality excuse me, of the French command and concentrating almost the whole of their left wing for a massive advanced to offer battel in Belgium while a few second rate division's to guard the pivotal sector facing the Artinian is a wooded, a hilly area, which they are assumed to be too difficult as a line of approach for a mechanized. 

Division's the Germans by contrast in exploiting its possibilities for a surprise had shown their appreciation of the oft taught lesson. That natural obstacles are inherently less formidable than human resistance in strong defenses. Let me just read that part again for you, because that is something that the majority of people will never know in exploiting its possibilities for surprise, the Germans had shown their appreciation of the oft taught lesson. 

That natural obstacles are inherently less formidable, that human resistance and strong defenses think about that. Keep that one in your pocket book. It is your to that the rapid progress have the German penetration beyond sedan benefited much from the fact that it's successfully threatened alternative objects and kept the fringe in doubt as to its a real direction First whether it was towards Paris or the rear of the forces in Belgium. 

Then when the German armor division swung westwards whether they were moving on Amiens or a Lil selling the dummy first one way and then the other, they swept on to the channel coast, right? So that Strategy of selling the dummy. Like which way am I going? It's kinda like a reverse pickle. What do they go to Georgia? You know what you mean by that? You trying to sell the dummy, like which way am I going to go? 

Which way am I going to go? The Tactical and the German forces correspond to their strategy, avoiding head on assault and always seeking to find soft spots again, in the first podcast we talked about, if you want to strike heart, if you want a great victory, people that do do that. However, it's its one of those things that's often looked past one of those things it's right in your face that you don't even see while the allied statesman vitally misunderstanding modern warfare called on their Army's to meet the invasion by furious unrelenting assault, the German tank tied, swept round and past there clumsy infantry mops, the allied troops might perhaps have stemmed it. 

If they had not been told to cast away the idea of defending barrier lines, nothing could have been less effective than there are attempts at counterattack while the allied commanders thought in terms of battle the new German commanders sot to eliminate it by producing the strategic paralysis of their opponents, using their tanks, dive bombers and parachute is to spread the confusion and dislocate communication's. 

This is one of those points that I want to bring up where you're seeing a new type of warfare being fought for the first time in conventional terms. That's like you haven't heard that saying like there all the, the General's were fighting the last war often you hear when you feed this into some military leaders speak or if you listen to some commentary, you'll often hear that term that the generals are always fighting the last war. 

That's not always true. In fact, there is a lot of great young men and women that are engaging in new tactics and coming up with new ideas. And that's usually what wins. The Wars is a new strategy and this is, this is a good book to get at. And this is a good package in this book because it illustrates what's happening here. You have the allied stay at the allied powers and they are in fact fighting the strategies of the old war. And you have this new, nimble German for us. That's going out of there way to try and never have a head on attack. 

In fact, they're always sweeping behind it kind of pull in that Napoleon maneuver. So its a its a great way to look back at history and, and see these tactics being used. Ultimately what I try to do when I'm reading this and I hope that you guys try and do also is that as we are taking time to read the, a little bit of the book and read these passages and break down the battle's, we can go back and look at what they did. Try to go back in your mind's eye and replay some crucial conversations and think about the strategy that you used thinking about a time that you've you want to negotiation or think about a time when you've lost in negotiation. 

And what strategy did you use? Have you thought about using the nimble approach of not having a head on attack and coming around the backside by that you would, instead of having a face to face all out argument, like an all out battle, you may want to kind of tip toe up to it and then get people to ask a question. You know what I mean? By that you would ask a question that would make them think of something that would, then you could ask the next question and because you had already primed them, you'd already primed them with will, you know, I think you're an honest person or we all believe that leaders should be honest, right? 

Most people are gonna say yes. So you've kind of set up that little battle right there. And then you can ask them about something they did that, you know, it was wrong. And now there are kind of in a catch 22 where they've already told you they're an honest person or they have already told you, they agree that a leader should be honest. So now it's going to be very difficult for them to admit that they've lied to you when you know they've done well when you know that they have, or when they've done something wrong, when you could pull off a maneuver, right? 

Speaker 3 (15m 10s): Like that that's, it's, it's devastating. 

Speaker 1 (15m 14s): Right? And I highly recommended. So just think about these battles and the strategies you're using and how you can apply him. All right. Let's jump back into the book here. The outcome Castin ironical reflection on the comforting assumptions of field Marshall iron side, that the opposing generals would be handicapped by the fact that none of them had been more than captain's in the last year, eight years earlier, Hitler had criticized the German generals as blind to the new and surprising things as imaginatively stare aisle, as being imprisoned in the coils, have their technical knowledge. 

Some of the latter vintage, however, showed an exceptional capacity to appreciate new ideas. But this exploitation of new weapons, tactics and strategy does not cover all the factors in Germany's run of success for a Hitler's warfare to the indirect approach was carried into wider fields and deeper Strada here. He profited by studying the Bolshevik technique of revolution just as the new German army had profited by applying the British evolved technique of mechanized warfare, whether he knew it or not. 

The basic methods in both spheres could be traced back to the technique of mongrels warfare under a Gangas Kahn to prepare the way for his offensive. He saw it to find influential adherents in the other country who would undermine his resistance, make trouble in his interest and be ready to form a new government compliant to his aims. Bribery was a necessary, he counted on self-seeking ambition, authoritarian, inclination, and party spirit to provide him with willing and unwilling agents among the ruling classes. 

Think one G***o. Then two open the way at the chosen moment, he aim to use an infiltration of stormtroopers who would cross the frontier while peace still prevailed as commercial travelers or holiday makers and Dawn, the enemy's uniformed. When the word came there, a role was to sabotage communications, spread false reports, and if possible, a kidnap the other country's leading men, this disguised Vanguard would intern be backed up by airborne troops in the warfare. 

He intended to stage frontal advances would be either a bluff or a walking on part. The leading role would always be played by the rear attack and one of its forms, he was contemptuous of assaults and bayonet charge. It is the ABC of the traditional soldier, right? His way in warfare began with a double D demoralization and disorganization above all war would be waged by a suggestion by words, instead of weapons, propaganda, replacing the projectile just as an artillery. 

Bombardment was used in the last war to crush the enemy's defenses before the infantry advanced. So a moral bombardment would be used in future. All types of ammunition would be used, but especially revolutionary propaganda General's in spite of the lessons of war want to behave like chivalrous Knights. They think war should be waged like the terms of the middle ages have no use for nights. I need revolutions. The object of war was to make the enemy capitulate. 

If his will to resist, could be paralyzed, killing was superfluous, right? Side's being a clown and expensive way of attaining the object. The indirect way of injecting germs into the body of the opposing nation to produce disease and it's will was likely to be far more effective, such as Hitler's theory of war with psychological weapons. Those who tried to check him should have taken care to understand it. The value of its application to the military, his fear was proved to paralyze the enemy's militaries nerve system is a more economical form of operation than to pound his flesh it's application to the political sphere was proved in effect, but not in content. 

It is open to question whether it would have succeeded in demoralizing resistance, but for the paralyzing effect of the new type forces, applying new methods of attack, even in the case of France, it's The German, a superiority in a military technique, suffices to account for her collapse. Apart from any decay or a disorder of the national will be something to think about it quite a bit as the level of propaganda, the psychological warfare that happens regardless of which military is infiltrating, who there's tons of examples of leaflets being flown and dropped over via helicopter on places or, or rebel groups or people that are just unhappy with society. 

Be it like the KKK or the BLM or a low Roz Yeah or you name it. It doesn't take a whole lot to get Yeah a rumor out there and rumors can be incredibly paralyzing, especially if they see it, we can be targeted to the right people. I think one thing happening with COVID right now is that they are in fact targeting a lot of the older generation. A lot of the people who have spent their whole lives saving and get into retirement. 

And now all of a sudden there's this threat of the market crashing and this new disease that specifically targeting old people, you know, that level of panic, that level of propaganda is in fact another disease that can lead to the crippling of the nerve system. Just exactly like what this book is talking about. Since we're talking about propaganda, let me, I'm sure some of you know this, but let me tell you a little bit about the Smith Monday, the U S information and education exchange act of 1948, popularly called the Smith Monday act is the basic legislative authorization for propaganda activities conducted by the us department of state sometimes called public diplomacy. 

The act was first introduced by Congressman Carl each month in January 45 and the 79th Congress. It was subsequently passed by the 80th Congress and signed into law by president Harry as Truman in January 27th, 1948. Okay. Now listen to this beauty part right here, the Smith mud modernization act of 2012. Thank you, Obama, which was contained within the national defense authorization act for fiscal year 2013, section 10 78, a amended the United States information and educational exchange act of 1948 and the foreign relations authorization act of 1987, allowing for materials produced by the state department and the broadcasting board of governors to be available within the United States. 

Basically the Smith Modac allowed us in the United States to weaponize propaganda everywhere in the world. In 2012, Obama, the entirety of Congress, you name it, all of them, they're all on board. They allowed that same propaganda that was wielded in world war two in Vietnam, in the middle East. They now allowed our government to use the propaganda on the American people. 

Just to be clear, the legislation authorizes the us state department to communicate to audiences in the United States, through broadcasting face-to-face, contacts, exchanges, educational, cultural, and technical, the publishing of books, magazines, and other media of communication and engagement funding for these activities comes from the legislation passed by the U S Congress So you as the taxpayer, get to pay for the propaganda at against you magical. 

And so if you want to do something that is interesting and disheartening, go back and start looking at when the media started talking about fake news, and I think you can track it down about 2012, 2013, it's now legal 100% for propaganda that's been developed at the state department to be used on all Americans. Pretty disheartening right back to the book force can always crush force given sufficient superiority and strength and skill. 

It cannot crush ideas being in tangible. They are invulnerable safe to psychological penetration and their resilience has baffled in numerable believers in force. None of them perhaps were so aware of the power of ideas as Hitler, but the increasing extent to which he had to rely on the backing of fours as his power extended show, that he had overestimated the value of his political technique and converting ideas to his purpose for ideas that do not spring from the truth of experience, have relatively brief impetus and a sharp recoil real quickly. 

And let me just talk a little bit about strategy there. I think it's obvious that for us can always crush for us given sufficient superiority and strength and skill. However, the idea that it can't crush idea's is something we can see examples of in the not too distant past to be an occupy wall street, even though people were brought into subvert that movement, The the idea of never dyed the BLM movement. That idea is not going to die. 

The idea, the preppers, you know, there's all these different ideas that can't be crushed by fours. In fact, when they are crushed by force, they are just splintered. And when they are splintered is like the Hydra, right? You cut off one head that grows three more. I think it's also a it's. It has, it has roots in the idea of decentralization. If there is no one leader, then the army, the military power, the group, the rebels, whatever it is, if it doesn't have one direct leader, it's much more difficult to crush. 

There is a similar, not exactly the same, but a similar strategy in a book called the starfish in the spider that talks about the spider, obviously being at the center of web and the starfish, being able to regrow its own limbs. It's a fascinating book. If you get a chance to check that out, it, it talks a lot about this particular type of Strategy. So back to the book, Hitler gave the art of offensive. Strategy a new development. 

He also mastered better than any of his opponents, the first stage of grand strategy that of developing and coordinating all forms of warlike activity and all the possible instruments, which may be used to operate against the enemy's will, but like Napoleon, he had an inadequate grasp of the higher level of grand strategy that of conducting war with a far sided regard to the state of the peace that will follow to do this effectively. 

A man must be more than a strategist. He must be a leader and a philosopher combined while Strategy is the very opposite of morality, as it is largely concerned with the art of deception, grand strategy tends to coincide with morality, through having all the ways to keep in view the ultimate goal of the efforts. It is directing. That is a pretty deep thought right there. Maybe I should go over it again, just so that I can kind of nail it down in my own mind, the first stage of grand strategy that of developing and coordinating all forms of war-like activity and all the possible instruments, which may be used to operate against the enemy's will you guys got it? 

That's the first stage of grand strategy, but like Napoleon, he had an inadequate grasp of the higher level of grand strategy. So let's reread what the higher level of grand strategy is that of conducting wor with a far sighted regarding to the state of the piece that will follow its like the end thought the higher end of grand strategy is understanding and visualizing what the state of peace will look like after the war. 

That means you need to know the hearts and minds of the people. You need to know what it is at the end of the war. That's going to bring them back together. You need to have multiple outcomes and in case one doesn't work, right? If you don't have one objective are, if you have one objective, then you should have back of objectives. That means that you need to have a plan ready to go, to put people back in some what we have a working environment and somewhat of a rebuilding environment. 

And that is incredibly difficult to even begin to think about doing, I like this next part too, while Strategy is the very opposite of morality because it is based in the art of deception. Grand tends to coincide with morality too. Having always to keep in my view, the ultimate goal of the efforts it is directing. It's amazing to think of a grand strategy, right? 

Having a type of morality to it, fascinating to think about in trying to prove their irresistibility in attack. The Germans had weakened their own defenses in many ways, strategic economic and above all psychological. As there are forces spread over Europe, bringing misery without securing peace, they scattered widespread the germs, a resentment from which the resistance to their idea's would develop. And to these germs, even their own troops became more susceptible from being exposed to contact with the people of the occupied countries and made sensitive to the feelings they inspire. 

This began to damp the marshal enthusiasm, which Hitler had to assiduously stimulated and to deepen their longing for home. The sense of being friendless reinforces the effect of staleness opening the way for the infiltration of war wariness as well as of counter ideas by his offensive expansion, Hitler had provided his remaining opponent with opportunity to wrest the advantage from him. Or it could have been developed more quickly by a fuller vision of grand strategy on her side. 

But even without that, the opportunity was likely to grow so long. As Britain remained invincible to impose his peace, he needed to complete victory, which he could not attain without conquering Britain while the further he advanced elsewhere, the more he enlarged his own problem and holding down the conquered peoples each step forward increase the dangers of a slip Britain's problem was a simple one though, a hard one. She had to hold out until he made an ear repairable slip as Napoleon had done, fortunately for her, he made this lip very soon before the strain on her head to become a crippling in the slip became you're a parable because it was flare for a offensive strategy was not mashed by a corresponding sense of defensive. 

Strategy the immensity of his earlier successes. Let him as Napoleon has been led to believe that the offensive offered a solution of all problems. So in conclusion, 

Speaker 4 (32m 16s): Right, 

Speaker 1 (32m 17s): Try and think about let's go back just a few paragraphs in try to wield this in your life. Try to think about 

Speaker 4 (32m 25s): The right. 

Speaker 1 (32m 27s): Higher level of grand strategy in relationships. And that is to be able to understand the outcome, be able to understand the, that the battle you wage will eventually end up in, but what outcome do you want from this? What is going to be the way to get people to work together? Once you have begun the battle or won the battle or begun the war a one on one, whatever it is, what is going to repair the damage that you did, the first stage of grand strategy that of developing and coordinating all forms of war-like activity and all the possible instruments which may be used to operate against the enemies will that's the first form as the first stage of grand strategy to a higher level of grand strategy is that of conducting war with a far side, with regard to the state of the peace that will follow to do this effectively, a man must be more than a strategist. 

He must be a leader and a philosopher, a combined while Strategy is the very opposite of morality. Just trying to wrap your head around that for a minute. Strategy is the opposite of morality, as it is largely concerned with the art of deception, grand strategy tends to coincide with morality two, having always to keep an eye view, the ultimate goal of the efforts it is directing what, there you go, my friends, there you go. 

You got war battlefield war applied to every day relationships, battlefield strategy applied to every day relationships. I know what you're thinking. You're thinking, wow, George Can this battle field. Strategy these tactics and war are these the same tactics in war that the organism uses an evolution? I know that's probably what your thinking, right? That's what I was thinking. Probably. 

What do you think we learn them from? How do you think we know them? It's usually something we see some animal deal. Are we animals anyways? I'd like it. I liked getting into the nitty gritty and finding out why don't you, you should always ask that question. Questions are in fact the best way to get to the bottom of all problems. All right. My friends, I hope you have a great day and will be back at it tomorrow. A Aloha. 


The Strategy of warfare applied to relationships # 2

headphones Listen Anywhere

More Options »
Broadcast by