5 ms·
The argument as I've seen it presented was that a large part of the army was already moved up close to the border and in attack positions, and not set up for de
by bzbarsky 7y ago
The argument as I've seen it presented was that a large part of the army was already moved up close to the border and in attack positions, and not set up for defensive operations. Which is why, the argument goes, there were so many soldiers to surround and cut off.
I'm not endorsing the argument, note; I haven't looked into this enough to have anything resembling a useful opinion.
- gdy 7y ago"I haven't looked into this enough" And yet you rushed to disseminate it.
- squiggleblaz 7y agoYou have to rush to disseminate it. If you don't, the topic drops off the front page and eventually it gets locked. Hacker News has many pros, but it doesn't exactly facilitate slow, careful and thorough discussion. (Old fashioned mailing lists might've I guess, but I'm not aware of any contemporary platforms that do.)
- bzbarsky 7y agoNo, I commented why the counterargument given is not actually a counterargument against the thing it claims to be arguing about.
- gdy 7y agoFair enough
- vl 7y agoThis is absolutely funny how balanced unopinionated comment providing additional information gets downvoted. If this is not monoculture then I don’t know what is.