Some “land wars in Asia” are successful. For example, Germany successfully conquered Russia in 1917. Even more relevantly, Poland ejected the Russians from large parts of the Ukraine in 1921. I think the saying gets its popularity from a very superficial reading of history. Yes, Napoleon and Hitler famously came a cropper, but there have been plenty of successes.
For example, Germany successfully conquered Russia in 1917
You must be using a pretty strange definition of the word “successfully”.
there have been plenty of successes
Certainly Russian armies have been defeated and Russia lost chunks of territory on occasion. But the last guy who, I’d say, successfully invaded Russia went by the name of Genghis Khan.
You must be using a pretty strange definition of the word “successfully”.
I think I’m using the standard one. Germany invaded Russia, forced it to renounce huge amounts of territory, and knocked it out of WW1. Incidentally, it was that invasion which led to the formation of Finland, the Baltic States, Ukraine and Belarus which persist (some with interruptions) to this day. Looks like a pretty resounding victory to most. And Germany did all that while fighting on two fronts! Now, Germany later lost on the Western front, but the moral there isn’t “Don’t start a land war in Asia,” it’s “Don’t fight serious enemies on two fronts at once.”
Certainly Russian armies have been defeated and Russia lost chunks of territory on occasion.
Great, so you agree with skeptical_lurker that, nukes aside, NATO retaking the Crimea from Russia is a possibility. (Frankly I’d say it would be a certainty).
I think Russia’s conventional army today would fold in a matter of weeks. Yes I know who else said that.
It would be bloody though, on both sides.
Lenin’s peace with Germany in WW1 isn’t even applicable to the saying about land wars in Asia, as only the European part of Russia was a part of the theatre. The historically relevant bit of Russia is in Europe both culturally and geographically. Maybe the saying should be “don’t get involved in land wars with Russia.” China was partitioned just fine back in the day. Commodore Perry got what he wanted from Japan just by showing up in a fancy ship, right? The East India Company did ok for a while, etc.
You’re right that the WW1 invasion was entirely in the European part of Russia… but then, so were the Napoleonic and WW2 invasions. And the Crimea too, the point in question.
And you are of course quite right that lots of people have successfully invaded Asia by land, from Alexander onwards. I think the saying is nonsense, relying entirely on a highly selective reading of history.
I feel like Princess Bride was probably repeating Baby Boomer wisdom from the anti-Vietnam protests. A quick Googling attributes the quote to Douglas MacArthur, of all people(who fought no less than three of them, which makes me wonder...)
I like how you ignore Russia’s, um, internal problems at the time :-/ Not to mention that what you are showing is that Russia lost WW1, not that Germany successfully conquered it.
so you agree with skeptical_lurker that, nukes aside, NATO retaking the Crimea from Russia is a possibility
No, I do not, not in the real world. If you want to do simulated war-games which abstract from most everything except for numbers and hardware, maybe, but I don’t see how that’s relevant to anything.
I like how you ignore Russia’s, um, internal problems at the time :-/
But those internal problems were largely caused by the hardships and stresses of losing the war. Similarly, the proximate cause of the German surrender in WW1 was “internal problems” in Germany (the revolutions in Kiel and Bavaria, etc) but those are inseparable from the fact that the hardships of the war and the psychological sense that Germany was losing put an intolerable strain on German morale. Loss of morale leading to institutional overthrow is often the mechanism by which countries collapse when at war.
Russia faced Germany and its allies, fought until the country collapsed, and then surrendered and gave up a massive chunk of land to secure an ignominious and punitive peace.
Germany faced France and its allies, fought until the country collapsed, and then surrendered and gave up a massive chunk of land to secure an ignominious and punitive peace.
US does. European military isn’t particularly large or capable.
http://www.globalfirepower.com/ says that the UK, France and Germany are the 5th-7th most powerful countries respectively. UK tanks are probably the most powerful in the world, based on the idea that whoever shoots first wins (at least when you’re firing depleted uranium rounds that can punch straight through a tank), and the UK holds the record for longest distance tank-on-tank kill.
The US alone has over 8x the defence budget. The UK, France and Germany together have almost twice the defence budget.
Sigh. Do the words “land war in Asia” ring any bells?
Yes… this is because Asia is very big, and armies can freeze on the way to Moscow. But the Crimea isn’t that big.
No one froze in Iraq or Afghanistan where the world’s #1 superpower with the defence budget that’s a large multiple of the entire GDP of those countries used the most sophisticated military hardware to achieve… what?
Well, the US conquered these countries, killed a lot of Taliban, inc. bin laden, toppled Saddam, installed democracy… admittedly things might have got slightly worse after they left, but that’s an ideology problem more than a military one.
But there is a difference. Do the Crimeans see themselves as Russian or Ukranian? Do they care enough to fight a guerilla war? If not, then an analogy to Iraq can’t be drawn.
Modern militaries give very few advantages when it comes to rooting out insurgents hiding in the general populace—you deal with that old-school, either with convincing the local public to join you, co-opting local power brokers, flailing ineffectually, collective punishment, or outright slaughter(on the sliding scale of evil). The US has used the first three in roughly equal proportion.
Russia is unlikely to retreat into the shadows—they’re a line-of-battle army, always have been, and most of Putin’s appeal is restoring the pre-1991 national pride of being able to throw down with NATO and survive. If it ever got to a war, I think they’d fight it mostly straight, and they’d lose badly.
If it ever got to a war, I think they’d fight it mostly straight, and they’d lose badly.
That all depends on what kind of war we are talking about. The biggest issue for the West is political will, and everyone knows it. Even in a full-out non-nuclear war, it’s not going to be like running tanks at full speed through the desert to Baghdad. Russia’s goal would be to bog down NATO army and engage in exchange of heavy casualties. If it manages to do this, it wins—it doesn’t need clear battlefield victories.
European militaries are extremely capable, for the most part—pound for pound, they’re almost as good as the US. They just have a lot fewer pounds.
And historically, land wars in Asia haven’t been a big deal. That’s a Vietnam-era myth—WW2 involved a lot of Asian land warring, and that went pretty okay.
European militaries are extremely capable, for the most part
Err… show me. The Brits fought a short and mostly air/naval war in the Falklands, most everyone sent in a few units for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. But other than that the European militaries haven’t done any real fighting for many decades. Even in the Yugoslavian mess nothing happened other than US air strikes.
I am sure they look good on paper. I am also sure the few elite units are very good. I have doubts about actual battlefield performance of the main part of the army, in part because because there is no data.
How recent are we talking? The French were involved in Vietnam before the US was and in the Suez Crisis around the same time, and a few years after that they fought a protracted and seriously nasty asymmetrical war in Algeria. More recently they’ve also been party to the Islamist civil wars in northern Africa, most importantly against Boko Haram in Mali, and to a number of other postcolonial squabbles.
They don’t get a lot of press in the Anglosphere, but theirs is probably the most active Western military after the US’s.
Fair concern. Still, has there been a meaningful difference between those few units and their American or British counterparts? (And Britain sent about as many soldiers per capita to Iraq as the US did, though they were posted to a quieter sector. That’s not “a few units”).
But other than that the European militaries haven’t done any real fighting for many decades.
The US fighter planes and armour haven’t faced a real opponent in a long time either. Most of the experience is in asymmetric warfare against guerillas, which would be very different from a war against Russia.
I have doubts about actual battlefield performance of the main part of the army, in part because because there is no data.
No data does justify uncertainty, but you can’t just say “I don’t know how well the German army would perform, therefore I’m going to assume they’ll do badly”.
Anyway, there is data from wargames, from testing grounds, on what distance a weapon can hit a target, and so forth.
It’s been more than twenty years, but the first Gulf War was a conventional war waged against an opponent that was serious about fighting conventionally. The strategic outcome wasn’t really in doubt, and the Iraqis at the time were largely running old and/or downgraded export versions of Russian equipment, but it still gives us good tactical data; the current reputation of American armor, for example, largely rides on the Battle of 73 Easting.
This depends whether the advantage of american combat experience is proof of abilities, or experience gained.
My understanding is that having seen combat, veterans are then less scared by future engagements. But what proportion of Gulf war vets are still serving now—wouldn’t they be getting a bit old?
Anyway, yes the Gulf war shows the massive superiority of US/UK tanks over T-72s.
US does. European military isn’t particularly large or capable.
Sigh. Do the words “land war in Asia” ring any bells? (yes, I know that Crimea is technically in Europe)
Some “land wars in Asia” are successful. For example, Germany successfully conquered Russia in 1917. Even more relevantly, Poland ejected the Russians from large parts of the Ukraine in 1921. I think the saying gets its popularity from a very superficial reading of history. Yes, Napoleon and Hitler famously came a cropper, but there have been plenty of successes.
You must be using a pretty strange definition of the word “successfully”.
Certainly Russian armies have been defeated and Russia lost chunks of territory on occasion. But the last guy who, I’d say, successfully invaded Russia went by the name of Genghis Khan.
I think I’m using the standard one. Germany invaded Russia, forced it to renounce huge amounts of territory, and knocked it out of WW1. Incidentally, it was that invasion which led to the formation of Finland, the Baltic States, Ukraine and Belarus which persist (some with interruptions) to this day. Looks like a pretty resounding victory to most. And Germany did all that while fighting on two fronts! Now, Germany later lost on the Western front, but the moral there isn’t “Don’t start a land war in Asia,” it’s “Don’t fight serious enemies on two fronts at once.”
Great, so you agree with skeptical_lurker that, nukes aside, NATO retaking the Crimea from Russia is a possibility. (Frankly I’d say it would be a certainty).
I think Russia’s conventional army today would fold in a matter of weeks. Yes I know who else said that.
It would be bloody though, on both sides.
Lenin’s peace with Germany in WW1 isn’t even applicable to the saying about land wars in Asia, as only the European part of Russia was a part of the theatre. The historically relevant bit of Russia is in Europe both culturally and geographically. Maybe the saying should be “don’t get involved in land wars with Russia.” China was partitioned just fine back in the day. Commodore Perry got what he wanted from Japan just by showing up in a fancy ship, right? The East India Company did ok for a while, etc.
You’re right that the WW1 invasion was entirely in the European part of Russia… but then, so were the Napoleonic and WW2 invasions. And the Crimea too, the point in question.
And you are of course quite right that lots of people have successfully invaded Asia by land, from Alexander onwards. I think the saying is nonsense, relying entirely on a highly selective reading of history.
I think that facing an Eastern Front meatgrinder over some intra-Slav land squabble, the West’s political will today would fold faster.
The saying, I think, is a quote from Princess Bride and at the time the relevant war was Vietnam (and to a lesser degree, Korea).
I feel like Princess Bride was probably repeating Baby Boomer wisdom from the anti-Vietnam protests. A quick Googling attributes the quote to Douglas MacArthur, of all people(who fought no less than three of them, which makes me wonder...)
I like how you ignore Russia’s, um, internal problems at the time :-/ Not to mention that what you are showing is that Russia lost WW1, not that Germany successfully conquered it.
No, I do not, not in the real world. If you want to do simulated war-games which abstract from most everything except for numbers and hardware, maybe, but I don’t see how that’s relevant to anything.
But those internal problems were largely caused by the hardships and stresses of losing the war. Similarly, the proximate cause of the German surrender in WW1 was “internal problems” in Germany (the revolutions in Kiel and Bavaria, etc) but those are inseparable from the fact that the hardships of the war and the psychological sense that Germany was losing put an intolerable strain on German morale. Loss of morale leading to institutional overthrow is often the mechanism by which countries collapse when at war.
I agree that Russia lost WW1. What I don’t agree with is that Germany “successfully conquered” Russia in 1917.
Russia faced Germany and its allies, fought until the country collapsed, and then surrendered and gave up a massive chunk of land to secure an ignominious and punitive peace.
Germany faced France and its allies, fought until the country collapsed, and then surrendered and gave up a massive chunk of land to secure an ignominious and punitive peace.
I see no difference between the two.
http://www.globalfirepower.com/ says that the UK, France and Germany are the 5th-7th most powerful countries respectively. UK tanks are probably the most powerful in the world, based on the idea that whoever shoots first wins (at least when you’re firing depleted uranium rounds that can punch straight through a tank), and the UK holds the record for longest distance tank-on-tank kill.
The US alone has over 8x the defence budget. The UK, France and Germany together have almost twice the defence budget.
Yes… this is because Asia is very big, and armies can freeze on the way to Moscow. But the Crimea isn’t that big.
No one froze in Iraq or Afghanistan where the world’s #1 superpower with the defence budget that’s a large multiple of the entire GDP of those countries used the most sophisticated military hardware to achieve… what?
Well, the US conquered these countries, killed a lot of Taliban, inc. bin laden, toppled Saddam, installed democracy… admittedly things might have got slightly worse after they left, but that’s an ideology problem more than a military one.
But there is a difference. Do the Crimeans see themselves as Russian or Ukranian? Do they care enough to fight a guerilla war? If not, then an analogy to Iraq can’t be drawn.
Modern militaries give very few advantages when it comes to rooting out insurgents hiding in the general populace—you deal with that old-school, either with convincing the local public to join you, co-opting local power brokers, flailing ineffectually, collective punishment, or outright slaughter(on the sliding scale of evil). The US has used the first three in roughly equal proportion.
Russia is unlikely to retreat into the shadows—they’re a line-of-battle army, always have been, and most of Putin’s appeal is restoring the pre-1991 national pride of being able to throw down with NATO and survive. If it ever got to a war, I think they’d fight it mostly straight, and they’d lose badly.
That all depends on what kind of war we are talking about. The biggest issue for the West is political will, and everyone knows it. Even in a full-out non-nuclear war, it’s not going to be like running tanks at full speed through the desert to Baghdad. Russia’s goal would be to bog down NATO army and engage in exchange of heavy casualties. If it manages to do this, it wins—it doesn’t need clear battlefield victories.
European militaries are extremely capable, for the most part—pound for pound, they’re almost as good as the US. They just have a lot fewer pounds.
And historically, land wars in Asia haven’t been a big deal. That’s a Vietnam-era myth—WW2 involved a lot of Asian land warring, and that went pretty okay.
Err… show me. The Brits fought a short and mostly air/naval war in the Falklands, most everyone sent in a few units for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. But other than that the European militaries haven’t done any real fighting for many decades. Even in the Yugoslavian mess nothing happened other than US air strikes.
I am sure they look good on paper. I am also sure the few elite units are very good. I have doubts about actual battlefield performance of the main part of the army, in part because because there is no data.
How recent are we talking? The French were involved in Vietnam before the US was and in the Suez Crisis around the same time, and a few years after that they fought a protracted and seriously nasty asymmetrical war in Algeria. More recently they’ve also been party to the Islamist civil wars in northern Africa, most importantly against Boko Haram in Mali, and to a number of other postcolonial squabbles.
They don’t get a lot of press in the Anglosphere, but theirs is probably the most active Western military after the US’s.
Fair concern. Still, has there been a meaningful difference between those few units and their American or British counterparts? (And Britain sent about as many soldiers per capita to Iraq as the US did, though they were posted to a quieter sector. That’s not “a few units”).
The US fighter planes and armour haven’t faced a real opponent in a long time either. Most of the experience is in asymmetric warfare against guerillas, which would be very different from a war against Russia.
No data does justify uncertainty, but you can’t just say “I don’t know how well the German army would perform, therefore I’m going to assume they’ll do badly”. Anyway, there is data from wargames, from testing grounds, on what distance a weapon can hit a target, and so forth.
It’s been more than twenty years, but the first Gulf War was a conventional war waged against an opponent that was serious about fighting conventionally. The strategic outcome wasn’t really in doubt, and the Iraqis at the time were largely running old and/or downgraded export versions of Russian equipment, but it still gives us good tactical data; the current reputation of American armor, for example, largely rides on the Battle of 73 Easting.
This depends whether the advantage of american combat experience is proof of abilities, or experience gained.
My understanding is that having seen combat, veterans are then less scared by future engagements. But what proportion of Gulf war vets are still serving now—wouldn’t they be getting a bit old?
Anyway, yes the Gulf war shows the massive superiority of US/UK tanks over T-72s.