“no kidding, we did the same thing in the 19th century by using the british officer corps as a spine to much larger colonial militias. d00d, its a revelation!”
Well, apparently it is…
And by the way, the English never had Colonial Officers, the French did, and Civil administrators. The English Colonialism was more “racist” than the French so they hardly trained locals above the ranks of NCO. The French did.
So to point out the “colonials” troops were good only under “white” officers is the same things than to block people from school and then saying there are uneducated and even don’t know to read… …d00d…
“I'm not sure that dictatorship or oppressive government can be correlated with poor military performance.” Agree. If the dictator is an able General (Franco) that won’t be a problem or if the dictator doesn’t intervene in the Army running, it will not affect the final result.
However, I was watching a documentary on History Channel and they said this: The French Revolutionaries Skirmishers were better because ideologically fighting from freedom. Whereas the Monarchies troops couldn’t be left without officers, the French were looking for the fight, the others were looking for a place to sleep and hind… Roughly…
So, if you are fighting for A cause (and it could be for dictatorship, SS and Red Guards), you are motivated and mostly successful.
And the attack in 1974 by the Egyptians against the Israelis was efficient, and failed only when for political reason Anouar El-Sadat decided to go forwards to help the Syrian and didn’t stick to the plan…
Bookmarks