It’s a really interesting thought. I wonder whether the fact that WW2 encompassed (impacted?) multiple nations in multiple theatres, was at a time of growing media (particularly moving pictures), and provided a rich vein of source material for a rapidly expanding Hollywood post war, may have caused the shaping of perspective and therefore academic interest?
Similarly, I suspect, to you in the search for lessons for the future, I have recently found myself becoming far more interested in the bush wars of Africa in the mid to late 20th century. I believe Africa will be the next major battleground of the 21st Century.
The Rhodesian War and the South African Bush Wars are well worth study, and have many lessons. Tactically, they are interesting with a range of innovations and interesting battles fought by a wide range of different force structures, from SF and insurgents to large combined arms battles. In political and information terms, these wars have plenty of interesting elements too, including use of proxies, political and information operations. Well worth looking into, in my opinion.
Hi Matthew, another good article and I agree with your points, particularly about studying a broad range of conflict. Studying war it is clear that there are consistent trends, and patterns of conflict that are consistently replayed in all theatres and cultures. Keep up the good work.
“I will also add that coverage of the Gaza war is exceptionally politicised, which makes analysis difficult.” I submit that, especially since the late 1960s, all coverage is politicized, making it very hard to ascertain what really happened in some cases.
Another problem is that conflicts that take place far away from the “lights of civilization” have always received less attention and coverage. There were a huge number of lessons other armies should have learned from both the Balkan Wars of 1913-1913 or the recent Armenia Azerbaijan conflicts, but few did. It makes you wonder what our military historians and intelligence analysts do sometimes.
Good article and quite thought provoking - thank you.
Yes, World War II with its sweeping mechanized thrusts and dazzling carrier battles gets the lion's share of the attention--well, outside of Italy and Burma where the dazzle factor was low and the mud factor was high.
Add in the story arc of brutal enemy aggression, good guys reeling but hanging on (but turn the lights down and squint when you speak of the USSR in this story), good guys arming up, and good guys driving on to smash the enemies and stand in their capitals despite the high cost the good guys paid to win.
But it is always a mistake to only look for your lost keys under the lamp post because the light is better there.
It’s a really interesting thought. I wonder whether the fact that WW2 encompassed (impacted?) multiple nations in multiple theatres, was at a time of growing media (particularly moving pictures), and provided a rich vein of source material for a rapidly expanding Hollywood post war, may have caused the shaping of perspective and therefore academic interest?
Similarly, I suspect, to you in the search for lessons for the future, I have recently found myself becoming far more interested in the bush wars of Africa in the mid to late 20th century. I believe Africa will be the next major battleground of the 21st Century.
The Rhodesian War and the South African Bush Wars are well worth study, and have many lessons. Tactically, they are interesting with a range of innovations and interesting battles fought by a wide range of different force structures, from SF and insurgents to large combined arms battles. In political and information terms, these wars have plenty of interesting elements too, including use of proxies, political and information operations. Well worth looking into, in my opinion.
Hi Matthew, another good article and I agree with your points, particularly about studying a broad range of conflict. Studying war it is clear that there are consistent trends, and patterns of conflict that are consistently replayed in all theatres and cultures. Keep up the good work.
“I will also add that coverage of the Gaza war is exceptionally politicised, which makes analysis difficult.” I submit that, especially since the late 1960s, all coverage is politicized, making it very hard to ascertain what really happened in some cases.
Another problem is that conflicts that take place far away from the “lights of civilization” have always received less attention and coverage. There were a huge number of lessons other armies should have learned from both the Balkan Wars of 1913-1913 or the recent Armenia Azerbaijan conflicts, but few did. It makes you wonder what our military historians and intelligence analysts do sometimes.
Good article and quite thought provoking - thank you.
Absolutely, all coverage is politicised, but I'd still state that Israel-Palestine is caught up in western culture wars to an almost unique degree.
Truth
Yes, World War II with its sweeping mechanized thrusts and dazzling carrier battles gets the lion's share of the attention--well, outside of Italy and Burma where the dazzle factor was low and the mud factor was high.
Add in the story arc of brutal enemy aggression, good guys reeling but hanging on (but turn the lights down and squint when you speak of the USSR in this story), good guys arming up, and good guys driving on to smash the enemies and stand in their capitals despite the high cost the good guys paid to win.
But it is always a mistake to only look for your lost keys under the lamp post because the light is better there.