Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site mit-vax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!think!mit-eddie!mit-vax!oaf
From: oaf@mit-vax.UUCP (Oded Feingold)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Hannibal/history/horsefeathers/Hitler
Message-ID: <190@mit-vax.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 6-Feb-86 16:57:55 EST
Article-I.D.: mit-vax.190
Posted: Thu Feb  6 16:57:55 1986
Date-Received: Mon, 10-Feb-86 22:09:02 EST
Organization: MIT, Cambridge, MA
Lines: 45

>>	That concern leads many israeli leaders to adopt the
>>	axiom "The best defense is the attack or offense". ...
>>	...
>>	History teaches that many nations and leaders got trapped in that
>>	axiom whenever they adopted it. Eventually, it caused their downfall.
>>	From a politico-military point of view, Hanibal, Neron, Hitler ...
					[Chedley Aouriri]
		     ------------------------------
    I perceive that lumping of historical figures as proof  by  mishmash
coupled with "proof" of some unrelated premise.  [I'll exclude Neron cuz
I dunno who he was.]

    Of Hannibal and Hitler, the claim (that best defense = attack) could
only  apply to Hitler.  (I'm not sure it does.)  Hannibal's strategy was
to threaten his enemy's link between resources and home base, then force
a  battle  of  his choosing.  He first attacked Rome by cutting its link
with  Spain  (source  of  metals),  forcing  the  Romans  to   send   an
expeditionary  force  after him, then defeating that force.  In crossing
the Alps and Appenines, he  cut  Rome's  land  lines  with  its  eastern
empire,  again  forcing  his  opponent  to  attack.  He then sacked Rome
itself, obligating the Romans to attack again from southern Italy,  once
more at his schedule, on his choice of turf.  What a smart fellow!
    The reason he lost was  that  Scipio  Africanus  proved  too  apt  a
student:   He sat at Canae, between Carthage and its port - suddenly the
tables were turned and Hannibal had to restore his  capital's  viability
by attacking where the Romans had cased the joint and set up shop.  That
was the end of him, and of Carthage.  [Liddell-Hart,  Sir  Henry  Basil;
STRATEGY: THE INDIRECT APPROACH].

    Mr.   Aouriri  may  come closer to truth on the Hitler analysis, but
such a simpleminded assignation of causes  ignores  many  dimensions  of
Hitler's  mania,  as  well  as  the rest of the world.  In any case, the
"similarities" between Hitler and Israeli  is  AT  BEST  farfetched.   A
trivial  counterexample  -  Israel's  failure  to  "attack"  in  time to
forestall the 1973 Yom Kippur war.

    Your best proof methodology, Mr. Aouriri?  I am underwhelmed.  (Then
again, at least you're consistent.)

-- 
----------
Oded Feingold     MIT AI Lab.   545 Tech Square    Cambridge, Mass. 02139
OAF%OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA   {harvard, ihnp4!mit-eddie}!mit-vax!oaf  617-253-8598
			        ----------
   If we can send a woman to the moon, why can't we send all of them?