> You have an extremely shallow understanding of military history. Actually I'm a pretty serious amateur historian who has given briefings to some pretty impor

> You have an extremely shallow understanding of military history. Actually I'm a pretty serious amateur historian who has given briefings to some pretty important people in the US on historical topics. > it was "Blitzkreig" - mobility on a scale never before seen. Nazi Germany didn't really pioneer much at all with blitzkreig. Industrialized fast movement warfare in the German tradition was developed under von Moltke, who had been a close observer of what Napoleon got right and integrated railroads, telegraph, and decentralized command -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helmuth_von_Moltke_the_Elder https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helmuth_von_Moltke_the_Elder http://www.amazon.com/Moltke-Art-War-Selected-Writings/dp/0891415750 http://www.amazon.com/Moltke-Art-War-Selected-Writings/dp/08... Of course, the French were very aware of both of those eras, given that Napoleon was dominant until he eventually couldn't stop expanding, and Moltke and Bismarck overran France and proclaimed the German Unification in Versailles. Meanwhile, the maneuvers into France from Belgium just followed von Schleiffen's plans pretty closely with a lot of commitment. The French should have been better prepared, given that they were the ones to declare war. There were significant changes in hardware, but blitzkreig's strength was not in the hardware, but in the flexible orders style and deep penetration behind enemy lines... which in itself wasn't new and was modeled on Napoleon and adapted by Moltke to industrialization. Rocketry and airplanes saw huge advances, but most of why the Germans were fast was in logistics, communications, and intangibles around Auftragstaktik type stuff -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mission-type_tactics#Origins https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mission-type_tactics#Origins > If it were altruistic, you'd see a lot more engagement in Africa. It's damned if we do, damned if we don't. They tried in Mogadishu, there was no strategic interest there for the US. Serbian campaign was anti-strategic for the US, done for human rights. It's tough. I'm glad I don't have to make foreign policy. As for counter terrorism and intellectual property, these are again complicated. I don't claim the US is perfect, but I think the US does okay in these areas. I do stand by what I said in that I don't think there's any world hegemon in history as generally benevolent, cooperative, and pro-social as the US has been.