Isn't the quote reminiscent of the rich and once unmatched military traditions of the Asiatic steppe societies (epitomized by the Mongols) and sedentary societies (epitomized by the Chinese)?
Isn't the quote "Never fight a land war in Asia" anachronistic & nostalgic?
- Thread starter Fenestella
- Start date
Joined Feb 2017
1,295 Posts | 971+
Birland
Is 'The Princess Bride' a historical source now, did I miss the memo?
My understanding is it orginated from the Korean War. The US and UN forces could not prevail over the PLA despite air and naval superiority.
Leftyhunter
Joined Jul 2019
1,750 Posts | 2,006+
Pale Blue Dot - Moonshine Quadrant
MacArthur’s warning to JFK about a land war in Asia is well known and the old general was in a position to know. Not only did he have his Korean experience to draw upon but he also had seen the impossibility of Japan’s effort to defeat and control China.
British Field Marshal Montgomery apparently said that same thing at about the same time.
In The Wrong War Why We Lost In Vietnam author Jeffrey Record noted that:
“Among other things, it violated an established strategic injunction against committing U.S. military power to a large-scale land war on the mainland of Asia. Since World War II, U.S. military leaders, including Omar Bradley, Douglas MacArthur, and Matthew Ridgway, had cautioned against ground combat involvement in wars on the Asian mainland, where, it was felt, U.S. naval and air power's effectiveness would be diluted, and where Asian foes could exploit their great superiority in manpower and bog the United States down in a protracted conflict. This strategically sound aversion underpinned the Truman administration's refusal to commit U.S. ground forces on behalf of the Nationalist Chinese government in the latter half of the 1940s as well as its opposition to MacArthur's pleas in 1951 to widen the Korean War. I t also played a significant role in the Eisenhower administration's refusal in 1954 to intervene on behalf of beleaguered French forces in Indochina.”
So the idea was well established and given the population dynamics in Asia, it basically common sense. At some point along the way, common sense was abandoned.
At the risk of stretching the point, one could argue that the experience of Alexander the Great, despite his many victories, was the first to pay the price for embarking on an Asian land war.
Even if some military force summoned the tremendous power and projection necessary to defeat land armies in Asia, the task of sustaining that control afterword would be overwhelming.
British Field Marshal Montgomery apparently said that same thing at about the same time.
In The Wrong War Why We Lost In Vietnam author Jeffrey Record noted that:
“Among other things, it violated an established strategic injunction against committing U.S. military power to a large-scale land war on the mainland of Asia. Since World War II, U.S. military leaders, including Omar Bradley, Douglas MacArthur, and Matthew Ridgway, had cautioned against ground combat involvement in wars on the Asian mainland, where, it was felt, U.S. naval and air power's effectiveness would be diluted, and where Asian foes could exploit their great superiority in manpower and bog the United States down in a protracted conflict. This strategically sound aversion underpinned the Truman administration's refusal to commit U.S. ground forces on behalf of the Nationalist Chinese government in the latter half of the 1940s as well as its opposition to MacArthur's pleas in 1951 to widen the Korean War. I t also played a significant role in the Eisenhower administration's refusal in 1954 to intervene on behalf of beleaguered French forces in Indochina.”
So the idea was well established and given the population dynamics in Asia, it basically common sense. At some point along the way, common sense was abandoned.
At the risk of stretching the point, one could argue that the experience of Alexander the Great, despite his many victories, was the first to pay the price for embarking on an Asian land war.
Even if some military force summoned the tremendous power and projection necessary to defeat land armies in Asia, the task of sustaining that control afterword would be overwhelming.
The Princess Bride is based on a traditional Florinese epic. More recents editions include new forwards from William Goldman outlining his research into the historical origins of the story.
Joined Jan 2021
1,513 Posts | 1,322+
Portugal
Not sure what your point is. Yes the British did defeat various Indian rullers but they also had " Princely States" which were autonomous to a certain degree. The British did size parts of the Indian Subcontinent then by divide and conquer used various ethnically segregated regiments to police these provinces. By 1947 the British though realized that they needed to leave the Indian Subcontinent and just hope they could maintain trade and diplomatic relations with the four newly independent countries that emerged.
Leftyhunter
Also for the W Allies in WW2.
However, Britain not so much in Afghanistan : Anglo-Afghan War - Wikipedia
Or the US in Korea and Vietnam or the Dutch in East Java post WWII.
Leftyhunter
The concept of not fighting a war on the Asian mainland mainly applied in the context of China. China is just to big to conquer as the Japanese found out the hard way.
Leftyhunter
Joined Jan 2021
1,513 Posts | 1,322+
Portugal
Yes, exactly my point. Whether through open conflict or political machinations the British got involved in landwar in Asia and I'd say the results were fairly satisfactory for them, regardless of those inevitable setbacks they suffered along the way.
And lets not forget that the Dutch also "fought a land war in Asia" and ended controlling most of Insulindia.
Well yes a divide and conquer strategy in India similar to what the British did in Scotland did work until it didn't and by the end of WWII it was time for the British to wrap it up. The general concept not to fight a land war in Asia has more to do with China which proved a formidable adversary during the Korean War .China also proved to be to much of a challenge for the Japanese to conquer.
Leftyhunter
Joined Jul 2011
7,400 Posts | 945+
Australia
It went well for the Allies in WWII because they were seen as liberators from Japanese oppression and not as invaders. It was when the colonial powers decided to stay after the war ,as in Indo China and the NEI, that problems began.
Joined Jan 2021
1,513 Posts | 1,322+
Portugal
Maybe, but then again, I doubt the Europeans would have been unable to partition China had they actively wanted to in the 19th century. It seems to me like hesitations arose regarding what exactly to do afterwards.
We also shoudn't forget the English conquest of the Indian subcontinent was undertaken by no national government but a megacorp - the EIC. A fact that strikes me as oddly overlooked in todays environment. Yet the EIC did not move against China like it didn't against the Mughal empire when it was fairly stable.
At the end of the day however, the adage is clearly false.
Never fight a land war in Asia is a rule followed by everyone except the British, the French, the Dutch, the Portuguese and the Russians, who between them controlled almost the entire landmass of Asia except China (and even parts of that were colonial territory) for some two centuries.....
No the adage makes tremendous sense. China is just to big to conquer in the modern era. Even back in the day no empire could permenantly keep control of China. Yes the British had a gin run but when push came to shove the British shoved off. Afganhistan even if never a truly unified country can not be occupied by forighners.
Yes the Soviet's occupied much if Aids but they had to give up the more densely populated areas which by 1992 were independent republics. Fighting land wars by non Aidan countries doesn't end well for the non Asian militaries. Even India which has won wars against Pakistan doesn't go whole hog and try to annex all of Pakistan.
Leftyhunter
Yes but it didn't end well. The British lost the least men in Asia excluding WWII when they had the sense to leave the Indian Subcontinent.
Leftyhunter
More History Discussions
Trending History Discussions
-
The Great Captains of History - How Many Battles? - Version 7- Started by DiocletianIsBetterThanYou
- Replies: 861
-
-
The Great Captains of History - How Many Battles? - Version 5
- Started by DiocletianIsBetterThanYou
- Replies: 3K
-
The Diversity Of Early African Architecture/Ruins Thread- Started by Kilwa Sultanate
- Replies: 2K
-