THR Just moved. See problems? Make sure you're logged in and come to this thread and tell us about it!
Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by wacki, Jan 19, 2007.
From a classic movie:
The history behind that quote? What is the military history?
"A Princess Bride," from the scene where Wesley (as the Dread Pirate Robert) caught up with the self-declared "brains" of the kidnapper crew and challenged the miscreant to a duel of wits.
The laughs ended rather suddenly ...
Aaaand, this has to do with General Gun Discussions.. how exactly ?
That's not what he's asking
He wants to know why
is supposed to be "famous" as a "classic blunder."
There's a lot of satire in the movie, and I've never, myself, completely understood the "land war in Asia" quote.
History is replete with examples of messy, protracted, disastrous land wars in and around Asia. I was never sure if there was a particular one that stood out.
So, will the history professor please step forward and . . . the envelope please!
I don't know if the origins of the quote actually come from somewhere outside the script or not. I just wanted to add that this was/is one of my favorite movies .
General Gun Discussions?
Probably because we don't have a subforum for General Sword Discussions where we can review the Spaniard and Dread Pirate Roberts great duel by the cliff.
found these on the net with a quick search................
One of my favorite movies, I even have a script
The most famous of the "classic blunders" mentioned by Vizzini - "never get involved in a land war in Asia" - was reputedly advice given by General Douglas MacArthur to President John F. Kennedy, in 1961.
Vizzini's advice on not getting involved in a land war in Asia is derived from principles stated by Field Marshal Bernard L. Montgomery (Viscount Alamein) in a speech in the House of Lords on 30 May 1962: "Rule 1, on page 1 of the book of war is: 'Do not march on Moscow.' ... Rule 2 is: 'Do not go fighting with your land armies in China.'"
I know you were joking, but after reading the first chapter of the Samurai, the Mountie, and the Cowboy I have a feeling this includes periods where guns were involved. They may have used matchlocks, but they would have still been guns.
I think you'll find it was one of Montgomery's Rules of War.
yes it is:
Yet, according to him, it WAS acceptable to have three divisions of parachutists jump miles ahead of their supporting armor in daylight, with landing zones that were, in some cases, miles away from their objectives.....guess he shouldn't have stopped with just two rules.
This must be fiction or a misprint - surely this is all new to everyone. It can not possibly have been something known for such a long time.
He did have a few more IIRC among them was "never begin a fight you are not confident of winning" or words to that effect.
the problem in Montgomery's case was that his confidence in his own grand plans vastly out stripped his abilities to actually MAKE grand plans that WORKED!
dreaming big is fine and dandy when you're an engineer, etc, and even if you're a general if you have the time and resources to give your ideas/plans due dilligence in the planning stage. montgomery lacked in this area.
Wasn't it an obvious reference to the Vietnam and Korean conflicts?
In the movie, I mean, not when Montgomery said it.
I think Market Garden is the perfect illustration of just how much of a donkey's butt Sir Monty was! They should have let Patton run the whole thing! He was a PR nightmare, but he was hell on the Germans!
Er... paratroopers don't get armor support... if you can get armor in, you don't need parachutes really.
They do get support if 1) they aren't dropped so far behind the lines that likely complications will result in the advance they are supporting stalls or 2) they are being sent to capture airfields and/or areas where air transports can get in.
Market Garden was a classic example of what happens of situation 1. Taking the bridges was a great idea but expecting to take multiple bridges in a single advance using paratroopers who would only be supported if each individual bridge was taken in sequence was . . . ambitious to say the least.
1) if they aren't dropped so far behind the lines, then armor is close enough, which doesn't apply to his statement.
2) if they are to capture airfields so armor can be flown in, then obviously they have no supporting armor when capturing said airfields, therefore this scenario also doesn't apply to his statement.
I believe that quote was in reference to Britain's missteps in Afghanistan and India...but I'm not sure.
I believe "Asia" can refer to not just what most people think of of "Asia", but the entire continent, including Siberia, Tibet, and China.
And in that case, it most certainly applies. From the Germans on back to various scuffles back and forth to the most ancient armies, every land war in Asia has pretty much resulted in the invader getting their teeth broken.
Also, don't forget Napoleon.
Prof. A. Wickwire
I have been thinking about the similarities between Bush and Vizzinni lately
Britain vs. Afghanistan.
Napoleon vs.the Russian winter.
Hitler vs. the Russian winter.
Soviet Union vs. Afghanistan.
Didn't he do a pretty good job? (seriously asking, don't know).
Separate names with a comma.