A story of everyday experts - HAFs beware!

I am engaged (a suitably military expression for this particular post, as you will see) in a vigorous debate, now reaching in excess of 180 comments, over at Deltoid on the subject of AGW. " 'AG' what?" you might demand to know, and I don't blame you but reading these discussions is like opening a thousand cans of alphabet soup.  Anyway, AGW is Anthropogenic Global Warming.  It's a hot subject (boom, boom!)  and HAFs (see, more abbreviations, this time 'a poor thing but mine own meaning Hot Air Fanatics) become exceedingly irritable, not to say downright enraged, if you so much as question their 'scientific' methods and conclusions.  They are enormously, and suspiciously, quick to fall back on the old rhetorical line that they are 'qualified experts' and you are not.  All of which brings me to ponder on 'experts' and their hubris.

During the Napoleonic wars, Prussia was utterly humiliated by the French.  Their former 18th c., Frederickian  'power and glory'  was reduced to defeat and vassalage.  Eventually, and with a little help from their 'friends', they wriggled from under Napoleon's heel and helped win the battle of Waterloo.  Four Prussian officers of the time realised that the great days of the Frederickian military system would never return and indeed, Waterloo, and 'Boney's' shaky conduct of it, had demonstrated that the age of the single 'Great Captain'-type of commander was also at an end.  These four; Scharnhorst, Gneisenau, v. Grolman and the most famous (infamous?) of them, v. Clausewitz , realised that a new military system was needed that would avoid undue reliance on single commanders, particularly if they tended to be chosen by the King on the basis of favouritism!  Thus was born the Prussian General Staff, later, the German General Staff.

The idea was simple and revolutionary.  Officers, irrespective of their class background, would only gain admittance to the Staff by competitive examination.  The Staff itself was divided into three geographical areas matching the position of likely enemies, that is, France, Russia and the Austrian Empire.  There were two departments that were also part of the Staff; one dealt with maps in all their complexity as well as studies of the geopolitics of different regions and nations.  The second, and considered by many to be of prime importance was the study and rigorous analysis of military history.  Part of this department's duties was to arrange extremely sophisticated war games in which various strategies and tactics could be worked out.  Later in the 19th c., a third department was opened, in effect, to take control of all German railways and transport systems.  Officers who entered the Staff as juniors were continually tested and assessed.  They held staff positions either at the supreme Staff HQ in Berlin or in the various subordinate formations such as army HQs, Corps or Divisional HQs where they learnt the details of Operations, Intelligence and Administration.  The most senior held the appointment of Chief of Staff (CoS) to the commander of whatever formation to which they were attached.  It meant that whatever a commander might propose it was the CoS who disposed! The result was a 'Brotherhood' of totally dedicated men who, almost monk-like, set themselves to the life-time task of studying and applying the very highest standards of military excellence to every level of, first the Prussian, and then the German army.

This ruthless pursuit of excellence reached its apogee a hundred or so years later when the mantle of Chief of the General Staff, and in effect the commander of the entire German army, fell upon one of its most austere disciples, Alfred v. Schlieffen.  Tragically for him, his beloved wife had died very young and v. Schlieffen turned away from the broader life to dedicate himself entirely to the military life of Germany.  Some commentators complain, incorrectly, that he, and his brilliant and amazing plan was the cause of WWI.  Single causes simply do not exist in human affairs and WWI might, or might not, have occurred irrespective of whether the Schlieffen plan existed.  Nevertheless, it was, if you like, the 'Plan of Plans'.  Not just the product of one mind, but supported down to the last and tiniest details by a team of total experts, the greatest accumulation of military intellectualism the world has ever seen.

It failed!  Yes, yes, I know it wasn't the original Schlieffen plan that was put into operation in 1914 (by which time he was dead) but it was close to it and even now greater experts than me doubt that it would have worked even if it had not been tampered with.  I give talks from time to time on military history (book me, I'm very cheap and entertaining!) and I give one with the snappy title of:  "How the Germans Lost WWI in the First Eight Weeks and then Took Four Years to Own Up!"  which just about sums up the whole murderous, tragic story.  What has all this to do with the HAFs and global warming?  Simple - never just accept the word of an expert without question, particularly if he makes a point of constantly reminding you that he's an expert!

Comments

[N.I.B.]

Unless his name is David Duff and he's directing a play you're in.

[David Duff]

Of course! It goes without saying, 'NIB' but we can all rely on you to say it anyway.

[Planeshift]

So who do we listen to instead?

[David Duff]

To your own *judgement*, freely reached to the best of your ability with an awareness that you could be wrong!

[N.I.B.]

So why are you telling us what to do?

[barry bananas]

Yeah fuck you, Duff! What if I wanna listen to the expert? Who put you in charge? Goddamn thought police.

[David Duff]

I'm not telling you, 'NIB', it was 'Planeshift' who asked.

Barry, watch your language! I'm anything but a delicate, little flower, myself, but I don't like constant, witless obscenities. Any more and I'll tell your Mum!

[N.I.B.]

Oooh, he's gone sulky now.

I was referring to the 800+ word article you posted up there above these comments earlier today. I know that was a long time ago, but you can still read it even if your memory has gone hazy. The last sentence clearly tells 'us' how we should behave. Here it is:

"never just accept the word of an expert without question, particularly if he makes a point of constantly reminding you that he's an expert!"

Unfortunately this comes at the arse-end of 800-odd words where you tell us that you are some kind of expert on World War I, and how some story dredged up from your pool of specialist knowledge this means we should never trust the, er, experts on some other unrelated subject.

But yeah, you're Commissar Duff, so the odd exception must be made...

[David Duff]

There is a difference, a whole wide world of difference, between offering up an opinion which readers can take or leave, and issuing edicts and orders backed by the state 'apparat' and based on rubbish science. That difference obviously escapes both you and 'Bananas'. Why am I not surprised?

[barry bananas]

"Oooh, he's gone sulky now."

Well, by their bannings shall you know them, and all that.

"I'm anything but a delicate, little flower, myself, but I don't like constant, witless obscenities."

Duff, you are the only constant, witless obscenity around here, and if my one solitary f-bomb above sets your knees atremble so, then you're also a decidedly delicate flower, albeit most probably not so little.

[N.I.B.]

Indeed there is a world of difference - but since you're just arguing with some commenters on a blog, why do you bring it up?

It couldn't possibly be that attempting to tar them with some kind of 'evil statist' brush because they dare to disagree with you, the Mighty Commisar Duff, could it?

I wonder - if they, 'they' being the dangerous types who secretly rule the world by issuing edicts and orders in the comments sections of blogs - were to start issuing edicts and orders *that you agree with*, would you automatically change your opinion on principle? Even if the edicts were based on ideas put forward by (spit) experts?

Oh, wait, I know the answer to this one: "Would I bollocks!"

[N.I.B.]

Or, to put it another way, Shorter Duff: "People who disagree with me have come to the wrong conclusions for the wrong reasons. And they're probably evil."

[Tim Baste]

I know I'm just thinking out loud here, but does anybody else suspect that Commandante Duff would be quite happy to listen to any expert, no matter how self- and oft-proclaimed, provided only that said expert was telling our host exactly want he wanted to hear?

[Planeshift]

Well David, you certainly appear to have changed your mind from December 20th 2006 when you nominated Mr Joseph Stalin as the stupidest statesman of the 20th century because of his constant ignoring of his own experts employed in soviet intelligence (http://duffandnonsense.typepad.com/duff_nonsense/2006/12/index.html). Now you want us to believe that Stalin was entitled to ignore his own experts, particularly the ones who told him they were experts. Which is it?

Should statesmen adopt the precautionary principle when it comes to dealing with matters their own experts (not to mention others outside) consider to be grave threats to the security of the nation, and take measures to deal with the threat?

Or should they listen to a bunch of paid lobbyists from the oil and motoring industry, Internet conspiracy theorists who can’t tell the difference between a web-site and a peer reviewed journal, and ex-revolutionary communist party documentary makers who assure us that everything is fine, the Germans are not invading and we can carry on screwing the planet.

[David Duff]

Oh God, why have I got that 'deja vu' feeling all over again! Please, everyone, including 'PS', read what I write carefully, as in:
"never just accept the word of an expert without question".

The last two words are a clue!

Also, my reply to *YOU*, 'PS', when you asked who you should listen to:
"To your own *judgement*, freely reached to the best of your ability with an awareness that you could be wrong!"

Honestly, why do I bother ...

[Hank_F_M]

David

The real value of the GS system was shown in 1914 in the east where several levels of command looked at the situation, decided what the Eighth Army would be ordering and before the Russians even knew they had a problem. They were ready when the order came of even jumped the gun.

There is a difference between the German GS and the HAF people. Alfred v. Schlieffen had a good idea but not the means, the HAF’s are lacking on both.

But your point is good.

[David Duff]

Hank, it was truly an amazing system, both utterly brilliant and dreadfully flawed.

I take it from your comment that you think Schlieffen's plan would never have worked. I'm not so sure. I think Moltke's decision to appoint von Bulow as both an Army commander and an Army Group commander thus making decision-making trebly difficult was a huge factor. Mind you, who can cater for total unknowns such as silly, old Sir John French going backwards and forwards with the BEF and then wandering (I use the word advisedly) into the gap between the German 1st and 2nd Armies at the Marne causing them to panic. Ah, the 'ifs, buts and maybes' of war!

I am reading an American historian at the moment, Robert M. Citino and his "The German Way of War: from the Thirty Years' War to the Third Reich". Excellent!

[Hank_F_M]

David

The dreded ifs:

The German soliders were issued two new pairs of boots at the beginning of the campaign and by the time they far right made contact there was no leather on the soles of either pair If the had been issed a third pair. (My feet hurt just to write that)

Of course if you Brits had stayed out of the war the Germans would have waltzed (well maybe hobbled) around the French flank.

If the German First Army had another corp and of course the road space to move it.

If

If

If

I think the big one is basic logistics. The horse drawn supply wagons moved at the same speed at the infantry and never really caught up. They Germans were starting to replace them with trucks which could deliver supplies return and bring some more. (Or bring up the new corp) My understanding is that if there had been a modest increase in trucks vs horses concentrated to support the far right most of the other problems would have resolved themselves. The GS knew from the start that transportation would be a critical problem and worked hard to resolve it but could never get around the “speed” problem until the they had trucks. Maybe in 1915 or 1916 they would have had the trucks. At the time it was first conceived I think it was short the means. But if the GS make the prudent assumption that the French army was as good as the Germans or the British did they have another choice?

I just finished http://www.amazon.com/Quest-Lost-Roman-Legions-Discovering/dp/1932714081/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/002-9364916-1620006?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1175776319&sr=8-1>The Quest For the Lost Roman Legions: Discovering the Varus Battlefield. Very interesting though the recreation of events is very speculative.

[Hank_F_M]

David

If for the sake of argument the HAFs are right, the only means to accomplish a reduction in emission large enough to make a difference would be to abrogate or ignore the Genocide treat and reveal Pol Pot for a kind humanitarian fur ball in comparison. But I doubt they could plan as well as the GS and would mess it up. I sure hope they never get the means.

[David Duff]

Hank, two points that your fellow American makes clear in his excellent book - see above.

First, that the ancient German(?) tribes, living as they did in an area of NE Europe surrounded by potential enemies and that possessed no natural defences such as big rivers or mountain ranges, quickly realised that the best form of defence was attack and evolved their grand tactics accordingly. This mode of thinking re-appears consistently through Prussian and then German history.

Second, he thinks that even the Molke version of the Schlieffen plan came within a whisker of victory as early as Aug 24th at the battle of Namur where the French left wing was bent back on itself defending the less than right angle junction of the Sambre and the Meuse. A mixture of fatigue and operational confusion, not lack of men or material, allowed the French to escape. But *if* the Germans has bagged the French 5th army then Schlieffen's dream of rolling up the entire French line and crushing it against the Swiss frontier would have come to pass. As he puts it, "What might have gone down in history as 'the Namur campaign', the greatest German victory in German history, would instead end on the Marne - badly."