ExtremeCowEnthusiast
133226
2814
21
Apr 12, 2023 2:25 AM
ExtremeCowEnthusiast
133226
2814
21
icbkr
And business weasels buy their copies faithfully in the Airport book store and suppose they have become profound by misquoting it in meetings.
GnomeDeGuerre
It's a good book and mocking the universality of it is silly. People can absolutely benefit from clearly communicated logic.
tariqk
I remembered one section of the book basically boiled down to, “Please, for the love of Heaven, don't start fucking with trying to lead an army when the generals on the field will likely actually know more of the circumstances of your campaign than you.”
mikeatike
#1 and yet this still regularly gets fucked up
DrMaggot
As a teacher I cannot express how little common sense kids have growing up, and you do have to make the most common stuff very clear to them. People think of a war as only the battles way too often. Sun Tzu was right to stress this kind of thing that appears like common sense to us.
sf111
"...foreknowledge [of enemy actions] cannot be elicited from spirits; it cannot be obtained inductively from experience, nor by any deductive calculation [~therefore you must use spies]." Sounds basic until you consider most people make decisions based on past experiences/gut feeling/superstition.
TheWombatStrikesAgain
It's like teaching a ceo "You need to actually pay workers a living, they literally can't survive on one pizza party a month."
foreverlurking19
Sounds like John Madden. “To win the game they must score more point than the opposing team” lol
dlshark
Yea… now I want the Art of War narrated by John Madden on Audible
Mavgurian
#2 So the rocket equation applies to frontline supply lines
TheSaganater
The idiot's guide to war
Feralkyn
It's true though, like... he's 100% right and any time you think "lmao Sun Tzu is too basic" look at what Russia is doing. It's like "Oh. Oh, maybe they DO need to be told."
ElBarbu
If fighting is sure to result in victory, then you must fight! Sun Tzu said that.
Clockworkdancerobot
A lot of past leaders, kings, rulers weren't always known for being top thinkers. a lot of familial relations.
yalczero
In more ways than one.
PrfctDrk
This nearly sounds like the Ferengi Rules of Acquisition
brickius
It's basic knowledge now, but back then it was rare insights
Filanwizard
Sun Tzu basically wrote "War for Dummies". Naturally of course the most important thing is always in the end logistics. WW2 might be the best example of that, The Germans had some great tanks. Great tanks do not mean much when the allies can just ship in 10,000 good tanks, and keep them fueled, crewed and having bullets.
Thisusedyet
Read a quote from some German officer that was basically "A Tiger tank can take out 5 Shermans... the problem is they always bring 6"
ArkoneAxon
There's an account of a German officer who captured some Americans and eagerly snatched up their rations for himself and his men. He opened one up and found chocolates from a New York bakery... and knew at that moment that the Allies had already won. "If they can send quality desserts to the front lines... when we can't even reliably get ANY food to our troops..."
jamesx
It is also written thousands of years ago when books are rare as shit, and knowledge passing from one generation to the next is abysmal. It is like laughing at books in ancient times that record addition and subtractions.
flacoloco
basically a little coloring book with the number dots so that you can trace it in order.
Endocrom
Unless it's a farm
HytekDragn
Wirefun
This might actually get me to read the thing
ArkoneAxon
I like the part where he writes about spies, and their importance - and how captured spies and operatives should be treated kindly. He was pretty emphatic about that: NO TORTURE. Treat them kindly in order to convert them.
GnomeDeGuerre
It's worth knowing about.
torokunai
I like reading it in the original Chinese with English since a lot of Chinese is 1:1 with English, eg: 知彼知己，百戰不殆 - know those know self, 100 battle without peril; 不知彼而知己，一勝一負 - not know those but know self, 1 victory 1 defeat
eightyearplan
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/UsefulNotes/TheThirtySixStratagems
Kitakita
Sun Tzu has never witnessed me gather 2 tons of Buffalo meat in 30 seconds
DukeDarkwood
Yeah, but you could only carry 100 pounds with you back to the wagon.
Kitakita
a necessary limiter to my raw power
GravyEducation
Sun Tzu said that and I think he knows a LITTLE BIT more about fighting than you do pal
beesinmymouth13
BECAUSE HE INVENTED IT!
GravyEducation
AND HE PERFECTED IT
LastChans
IN A CAVE! WITH A BOX OF SCRAPS!
ArkoneAxon
Wrong reference. They're quoting this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h42d0WHRSck
whitefoxkei
So that no living man may best him in the ring of honor! Then, he used all of his fight winnings to buy two of every animal on Earth, then he herded them onto a boat, then he BEAT THE CRAP OUT OF EVERY SINGLE ONE! That's why, from that day forward, any time a bunch of animals are together in one place, it's called a TZU! UNLESS IT'S A FARM!
NowDoThatVoodooThatYouDo
I'd read a book about how the business and finance worlds fooled themselves into thinking The Art of War is some managerial self-help tract.
woobniggurath
It's really good advice for everyone. As with all Chinese philosophy don't be so literal with it.
fearghul
Honestly, most meetings could be improved with the addition of fire arrows.
ArkoneAxon
The first time I read "Art of War," it was a copy printed in the 1980s - which claimed exactly that. "For years, Americans have been reading the Book of Five Rings to understand the secrets of Japanese success, but the Japanese themselves have been reading this Chinese book of wisdom. Read it, and conquer your foes in business!"
jaggcomputing5
Yeah, just after the "Eye of the Tiger" phase. That was a big hit with car salesmen.
mithiwithi
My cynicism says that as a target audience, MBAs are not so different from the upper class twits Sun Tzu was writing for.
GpaSags
I wonder if ol' Musky's ever read it. Surely there's a couple pages advising against getting rid of everyone who knows how to do the things.
KinetoPlay
I'd bet $5 he'd tell you he has regardless.
ali4z
Maybe they are also the type of audience that needs to be told their "human resources" needs to eat.
astrangehop
They'd have been better off with miyamoto's five rings. He often specifies "this applies in all things" or "this is mostly only relevant if you're killing another man with a sword and you're outside"
ArkoneAxon
They STARTED with Musashi. American "yuppies" in the 1980s were convinced that Japan's "unstoppable economic superiority" was fueled by corporate Bushido - i.e. workers being prepared to work themselves to death to improve quarterly profits, executives with military discipline and command, etc. Then some of them drifted to Sun Tzu. Then... Japan's economy crashed, and American executives started looking into other ideas, like "downsizing."
astrangehop
Hmm. Yeah, along with several other novels that didn't age well, i remember Chriton writing one that insisted japanese economy would steamroll us in a decade.
ArkoneAxon
Sun Tsu and Musashi's books were nonfiction. But yeah, there was a TON of speculative fiction that assumed Japan would end up owning the world (And that the USSR would endure for at least another century). The cyberpunk genre was especially big on the concept, which is why a Japanese corporation, Japanese executives, and Japanese gang members are so ubiquitous in the game Cyberpunk 2077 (Which is based on Cyberpunk 2020, which was a tabletop RPG from the 80s).
frischcode
No dumb bastard ever won a war by going out and dying for his country. He won it by making some other dumb bastard die for his country. -- Patton
lrateyourrig
The English did this so well they substituted "other" with "*other*" and the second "his" with "*his*"
loismustdie
Quite right. Combine naval power with this geo-political and military-political strategy, and you create the world's biggest empire in history.
OddlyPacific
To die for your country does not win a war. To kill for your country is what wins a war.
whitefoxkei
"Rommel, you magnificent bastard, I READ YOUR BOOK!" -- Also Patton
TakeAChillPill16
Rommel would have been great and also revered today for his skill. You know, except for the whole German/Nazi thing. The respect Patton had for Rommel was impressive
MagnorCriol
Great line, great movie.
carrotsonfire
Also if you have PTSD you're a fucking coward! -- Also Patton
frischcode
I think they still called it shell shock at the time. War is hell.
carrotsonfire
Patton called it cowardice and beat his soldiers for having it.
TakeAChillPill16
Not a great look. But tbf, we didn't understand PTSD then like we do now.
frischcode
People die in wars. And many of his soldiers were conscripts. Obviously that wouldn't fly in the modern army, but he was a man of his time. "Son, only a pimp in a Louisiana whore- house carries pearl-handled revolvers. These are ivory."
carrotsonfire
It didn't fly even at the time. He was sacked.
notwhatyouknow
Common sense isn’t all that common
jherazob
GWJYonder
It's not just that, we've seen time and time again the power of checklists. Pilots, surgeons, anyone in a safety auditing role, etc etc etc. We don't need them because the things we need to do our necessarily complicated, every single thing on the checklist is probably pretty simple! But out human brains aren't great at immediately remembering a large number of things and being able to with 100% accuracy tell whether you already did them/took them into account. Having a reminder of the simple 1/
GWJYonder
things you need to do and have done is critical, especially in times of stress, sleep deprivation, or when doing a task that is very long or many times (sure I remember doing this, but is that because I remember doing it 2 hours ago the last time I did this?). Take babies, when you have a baby there are like 5 reasons that is will cry, but several times you'll need your partner to go "did you check their diaper", or "have they gotten the bottle yet" because you get fixated or forgetful.
haggerton
Modern nations keep starting wars they aren't 100% sure of winning. Sun Tzu is right in feeling that these words are needed.
theThousandHells
If only there were a current war to properly demonstrate that :/
ArkoneAxon
The War on Terror isn't meant to be won. All the massive amounts of treasure that Sun Tsu points out a war costs? The military-industrial complex knows that, and LOVES it - it's not about making anyone safe, it's about getting rich off the taxpayer's dime.
onlyhalfghost
pretty sure Thousand Helis means the invasion of Ukraine, which was supposed to end by my count one year, two months and a few days ago
onlyhalfghost
(at least by Russian plans that seem to have involved Kyiv being occupied within hours of invasion and a few days of cleanup)
theThousandHells
Correct! I suppose I should have said non-war peaceful military action or whatever the propagandists are calling it
AxelBeingCivil
It sounds very simple, but we are watching a real-life global power grind hundreds of thousands of its own people into hamburger meat because of basic failures in logistics and tactical organization. The lessons still have not been learned.
ArkoneAxon
Some leaders listen to Sun Tzu. Others listen to Zap Brannigan. "STOP EXPLODING, YOU COWARDS!"
TheFishFace
What do you consider an actual lesson from sun tzu that Russia hasn't learned? They've been doing poorly because their military is riddled with corruption and poor motivation and because they planned for a shorter war than they started. Not sure where sun Tzu said "don't let your officers sell off all your diesel to buy vodka" or "don't put your supply dumps in range of himars strikes".
AxelBeingCivil
Well, for a start, Sun Tzu did actually warn against corruption and allowing your military to have low motivation. The very first section, in fact, states that a corrupt leader and corrupt state (i.e. one deficient in "The Moral Law") will not be as capable in war as one that fights out of a genuine love for their nation and/or leader. It also recommends avoiding prolonged warfare; that if an aggressive action fails, it's better to withdraw than engage in a prolonged war, which hurts all (1)
AxelBeingCivil
involved more than any benefit. It's better to lose a little than lose a lot. (2)
TheFishFace
Reasonable. However, the allies fought a protracted offensive against Germany in WWII, and I don't suppose we'd have to look too hard to find examples of corruption in allied or later Western armed forces, even if to a lesser extent. It follows that such general lessons aren't just something Russia failed to learn - they have exceptions and challenges.
AxelBeingCivil
In the case of the Allies, it was a defensive war. The same logic doesn't apply when defending against foreign aggression. And the reason Sun Tzu wrote those lessons down is because they're fairly inescapable as a part of the existence of imperialist nations: The military inevitably becomes a source of corruption and perpetuator of imperial policy. But there's a level of degrees to which this exists and Russia is much further down the spectrum than the US, with the driving factors for it (1)
Fastjack2056
ExecutiveProducerWolfDyck
Damn it, and here I was feeling all smug because everything in that book seemed obvious when I read it as a teenager.
wormfood
It's like a Ted Talk, it's not exactly stupid
damogen
It's funnier when you remember all the modern busines leaders who hail it as a genius masterpiece that is still relevant today.
Calamarre
Four other things : it's translated, and I expect more rich in double meaning in chinese. it was shorten as much as possible as written on bamboo rolls. It made reference to known high society chinese background knowledge & stories. Thus could increase the double/triple meanings. At that time books were rare. this knowledge was rare, or learned through decades of experience. He condensed it.
willfulwizard
In my work as a software dev, it is painfully clear how many errors can be avoided by writing down things that seem obvious. Something seeming obvious doesn't mean you remember to account for every single thing that is obvious. Obvious to you is not the same as it obvious to everyone. (eg, A thing obvious to someone who works with horses is not obvious to someone who has never ridden one.) Writing it down is how you coordinate, and gives you a checklist to refer to for crunch time.
Ryanator50
Washing your hands and bathing also seems obvious to us in the 21st century.
RascalRodent
See that's what I thought until we had to do the whole "wash your damn hands" thing throughout the pandemic.
RabbitKnight87
The number of people walking around with shitfinger is astounding. Even more astounding is the number of dudebros wandering around with full on shitass.
fickeroffick
Same. Tried reading in my 30s and it was just not interesting. Thank you OP for the re-framing.
Carl99
Also never assume that a stressed commander on the spot will necessarily remember all of the seemingly obvious things. Or that everyone will automatically know everything in there. The old saying about Common Sense not being common comes to mind.
Daskiel91
I do like his stance on spies. "Keep your spies happy and well paid, they know a lot of things about you and your nation, and could flee to the enemy side if the pay is a better promise"
Badprenup
It's true, but also pretty damn obvious lol
TheSwedishCryptid
You say that but spies defect even to this day
Rainbowdaesh
Omar Bradley: “Amateurs talk strategy. Professionals talk logistics.”
GravyEducation
Hmm I feel that in my bones. It has many names for me, calculus of effort, working in restaurants, arguing with my family. You don't win by throwing your body against walls
jethroismaxbaer5772
I think it was the Ancient Romans that tried to tell people that "an army marches on its stomach".
LuminoZero
I believe the Asian equivalent was "Good generals count swords, great generals count grains of rice."
RoutemasterFlash
Me, a genius: weighing the rice might be less time-consuming, no? Or counting sacks of rice, how about that.
unluckyandbored
Logistics run the world.
Skywatcher16
interestingly enough, this can apply to basically everything. not just combat and warfare. dry as it is, society RUNS on logistics.
IDontKnowWhatToDoAnymoreAndImTired
Part of the reason everything has been such a clusterfuck since COVID.
truemetalman
This is why you treat your supply chain team well in business.
crateo
"Operations" is what runs any business, no matter if it is the army, a hospital or a factory.
dohcohv
Your 40 ton tank is useless without fuel
LjubljanaJeNajlepseMestoNaSvetu
Not enturely. The gun still works, you can digg it in anf make a nice bunker..
GpaSags
Battle_of_the_Bulge has entered the chat
Rainbowdaesh
Ukraine is fortunate that Putin never learned that lesson.
badatediting
transientmind
Pay your quartermasters well. Pay someone to watch them anyway. Pay someone to ensure those two don’t make a deal.
transientmind
Also, keep an eye on procurement. For example: if you have a contract that means your military is effectively paying $15 per plastic toothbrush, immediately arrest everyone involved in that contract.
Toro1d
Or ammo. Or spare parts. Or the tools to repair/replace broken parts. Or people who know how to use those tools... etc.
myfirstandlastpostever
Bullets, beans and bandages, the holy trinity
MandalorianHybrid1
War tacticians fascinate me. I recently heard that historians suspect General Lee likely lost the Battle of Gettysburg due to severe diarrhea. The more you know.
TanithRosenbaum
Well, shit...
Youhavinagiraffe
In the Mexican war of 1848 it's estimated that for every American killed in battle a further 7 died of diarrheal diseases
Beezlebubble
American Revolution: Bunker Hill was lost due to supply line and reinforcement delays and chain of command breakdown, partially because General Ward was getting sick (he developed pneumonia later) but also because the militia isltself was just large and generally disorganized. The retreat info was not flowed down properly. Ward Later turned control over to Washington. Fun fact: I'm one of Ward's descendants, from my mom's side. Dad's side has some pirates (the last one hanged in Boston too!)
bunnyishungry
We now learn those in 4th grade because he dumbed it down so much. Much appreciated. Not fun, but was mandatory when I was young.
LeCoq1963
It would be nearly impossible to concentrate on a sound strategy when shitting your pants through a raw b-hole, so yeah, it would be a factor.
Irishda
Moreso that Lee just wasn't the tactician Lost Cause bullshit made him out to be. He relied heavily on Longstreet and Jackson, succeeded thanks to Union cautiousness in the early days, and basically made the biggest blunder of the war with Pickett's Charge. I'm fact, the south in general is notable for having a LOT of terrible generals contrary to popular opinion
Delathi
About renaming US Army posts, I think that Ft Bragg shoul stay because Braxton Bragg was so incompetent that he was a defacto Union asset.
ThePunishersVengefulBrother
Who was worse, Bragg or Luigi Cadorna?
WinstonSmith101
And Napoleon’s piles were playing up at Waterloo, so…
allcattywampus
Napoleon was in terrible health at Waterloo
loismustdie
Tolstoy discusses Napoleon having a cold and thus failing in his invasion of Russia.
Icanhearwhatyouresayingandtheanswerisno
His entire army “had a cold”
RhymingEverything
to be fair, he would have needed to win 20 waterloos in a row before all the other countries would even consider letting him stay in power
crateo
Not really. He was already in power and the plan was the best given the circumstances. Winning Waterloo would have meant the dissolution of the coalition and the dismissal of Wellington. It would not have given him much territorial gain, but he would have very much remained in power, as long as he stayed in France. It was a huge gamble, but Napoleon didn't have many options.
secretdpp
Still what a comeback tour
PrastaryOrk
tinctures
Or how the battle of Agincourt was won by the English because horses don't run great in a foot of mud.
Fastjack2056
Isn't that how most invasions of Russia end, too?
adognamedpumpkin
The French’s “pre-victory party” the night before didn’t help.
ThePunishersVengefulBrother
At Agincourt, the French also kept their archers in reserve for some reason. Probably go gain glory for the nobility is my guess.
tinctures
The moral of the story: don't clown on your opponent, especially before you've actually won.
PrastaryOrk
Lee lost that battle because Confederates tried to assault Union army occupying strong defensive position with inferior numbers and without any coordination whatsoever. Lee was a competent general, but he chose to fight an uwinnable battle - Union army had all the advantages, the numbers, high ground, superior artillery, central position. Every breakthrough was countered by Union reserves. The only way for Confederates to avoid defeat at Gettysburg was to withdraw.
GigiDundas
Yes, we all know the facts of the battle dumbass, the conjecture isn't about his battle tactics but about what stressors caused him to make such poor command decisions about those battle tactics and trying to command an army through a 3 day slobber knocker of a fight while simultaneously trying not to shit your pants in front of your subordinates sounds like it could lead to some piss poor decision making.
Thisusedyet
Lee may have pulled back if he wasn't going in blind because his cavalry was off joyriding
alcaray
OTOH Lee had no reason to suspect that Union forces would not be incompetently lead. The South got away with a long list of gambits because the Union did not follow through (Chancellorsville) or only partly did in pieces (Antietum), etc. In this case Meade and his Corp commanders (with one notable exception) did a very good job.
RhymingEverything
True, but he wasn't trying to win so much as break the resolve of the Union. He was hoping to get Lincoln out of office by increasing anti-war sentiment, prior to the upcoming election, iirc. He was also steadily running out of supplies as the South's economy was crumbling because of the naval blockade and needed some kind of a decisive battle.
stankginchfurbuger
Don't fight battles to win political objectives of the moral of that story. Fight battles to win military objectives. Once you've won those, you get to make the politics
ThePunishersVengefulBrother
He was also trying to make a good enough show that foreign nations would recognize the Confederacy as a legitimate government, getting aid.
Badprenup
Nothing quite breaks the resolve of your enemies like getting your ass beat by them... Wait...
PrastaryOrk
And yet he recklessly wasted his resources and men by throwing them in fruitless attacks. The while concept of "decisive battle" was simply wrong, at that point - and with the fall of Vicksburg - the situation was hopeless for the Confederacy and i doubt that one Pyrrhic victory would change that.
ArkoneAxon
Atun-shei did a video about that. On the question of whether the Confederate officers were really as good as has been claimed. TLDR: "They were great at brilliant tactical maneuvers, but those brilliant moves kept wasting resources that they couldn't afford to lose."
A3rdParty
"Great at battles, terrible at wars."
RhymingEverything
Yeah, I am with you there that it was a lost cause at that point, like Napoleon in the other comment he would have had to win a bunch of Gettysburgs. Less than 20+ like Napoleon though; if he won a handful, there was a chance that Lincoln could've lost the election and then you never know.