The Strategy of warfare applied to relationships # 2

TrueLife

https://www.paypal.me/Truelifepodcast?locale.x=en_US

Transcript:
https://app.podscribe.ai/episode/53289973
Speaker 0 (0s):

Speaker 1 (14s): Well, listen it up. Pilgrim. You say you and your man over there, I've been to come in to my house and take my things. Well, you might be able to maybe, maybe after you eat the peanuts out of my s**t, how's that for a John Wayne impression, I got to work on a Dona. I know, I know. I'm trying.

What are you going to do? He's the Duke, he's hard. He's often replicated, but never duplicated. All right. But I'm trying, we are going to work some more on Strategy applying battle field techniques and strategy to every day. Life situations are the most complete and happy victory is this to compel one's enemy to give up his purpose while suffering no harm oneself, but a serious by indirections find directions out.

Shakespeare Hamlet act two scene one. The whole art of war consists in a well-reasoned and extremely, extremely circum. SPECT defensive followed by rapid and audacious attack. Napoleon all military action is permeated by intelligent forces and there are effects Clausewitz. A clever military leader will succeed in many cases in choosing defensive positions of such an offensive nature from the strategic point of view that the enemy is compelled to attack us in them, Golan fellows, these soldiers, they always go for the thickest place in the fence.

Admiral de Robeck. Well, lets jump into you. You guys remember when we left off at him, we left off with the Hitler and German armies advancing. They were utilizing the strategy of the indirect attack. For those of you just tuning in, or you may not have listened to these in sequence. Let me catch you up to speed here. The true purpose of strategy is to diminish the possibility of resistance and from this follows another Axiom that to ensure attaining and objective one should have alternative objectives and attack that converges.

On one point she would threaten and be able to diverge against another. Only by this flexibility of aim can, Strategy be attuned to the uncertainty

Speaker 2 (3m 7s): Of war

Speaker 1 (3m 10s): Exploiting the weak points of the Weimer Republic playing on human weakness, alternatively playing off capitalist and socialist interest against each other, appearing to turn first in one direction and then in another. So that by successive indirect steps, he approached his goal. Let's think about that particular piece of Strategy they're the first one in those two paragraphs is to ensure attaining an objective one should have alternative objectives and attack that converges.

On one point she would threaten and be able to diverge against another. Only by this flexibility of aim, can strategy be attuned to the uncertainty

Speaker 2 (3m 56s): Of war.

Speaker 1 (3m 59s): So you should have multiple attacking points and one battle should lead you,

Speaker 2 (4m 7s): Right?

Speaker 1 (4m 7s): Two multiple avenues. Your next year, this strike you make. Now it should open up two more strikes depending on what the person does. It's the same thing in a conversation. If your, if your going to be in a crucial conversation, if your going to find yourself at a table or in a meeting or some sort of debate, you should have pregame do what you are going to stay in your mind and you should have, or you should understand that what you say is a lead up to the next thing you say, and that each verse or each argument you make should have a few followups.

You should be able to attack this point. If your talking about a specific situation that happened, you should be able to bring up that situation. And regardless of what the person says about that situation, you should be able to tack attack it in two different ways. Let's say, for example, you're speaking with a teacher or someone at your kids school and they are talking about the topic of diversity and that topic comes up a good strategy.

They're would be for you to say something like all. Can you tell me the difference between diversity and inequality and then just kind of watch them for awhile? And if they're smart, they'll catch on what your doing. They probably won't. However, you, you ask them that question. What's the difference between diversity and inequality and they'll think for a minute and they will give you some answer and then you would follow it up with Okay regardless of what they say, you would follow it up with something like this.

Okay if I put five balls out in front of me and I filled each bowl up with a different level of water, would those bulls be a diverse group, have bowls? Or would they have a diverse amount of water or would they have an equal amount of water? And at that point in time, it should Dawn on the person that it's the same exact word. It's just that people who want to use it in a specific way will choose which words they want to use. If its a negative connotation or a positive connotation.

It's a good way of thinking about the particular Strategy we were talking about. The battle should lead you to multiple avenues of the next battle depending on where you want to take it. Alright, so let's, let's dig a little bit further into this particular book and read a little bit more about what happened in the original plan. The main effort was to have been on the right wing by box army group, but early in 1940, the plan was radically changed and the center of gravity shifted following the arguments of general Von Mon steam, chief of staff at Rood steads army group that a thrust through the art in things would have a much better chance of success being the line of least expectation.

The most significant feature of the Western campaign was the German commands care to avoid any direct assault and its continued use of the indirect approach despite superiority and modern means of attack. It did not attempt to penetrate the Mae got line instead buy a baited offensive against the, to small neutrals Hollande in Belgium. It managed to lure the allies out of their defenses on the Belgian frontier.

Then when they had advanced deep into Belgium, their March began deliberately unimpeded by the German air force. It struck in behind them with a thrust at the uncovered hinge of the French advance. This deadly thrust was delivered by a striking force that formed only a small fraction of the total German army, but it was composed of armor divisions. The German command had been shrewd enough to realize that for any chance of quick success, it must rely on mechanics rather than on mass even.

So this spearhead was so small that the German generals were far from confident that the stroke would succeed, that it did was chiefly due to the recklessness or perilous convention reality convention conventionality excuse me, of the French command and concentrating almost the whole of their left wing for a massive advanced to offer battel in Belgium while a few second rate division's to guard the pivotal sector facing the Artinian is a wooded, a hilly area, which they are assumed to be too difficult as a line of approach for a mechanized.

Division's the Germans by contrast in exploiting its possibilities for a surprise had shown their appreciation of the oft taught lesson. That natural obstacles are inherently less formidable than human resistance in strong defenses. Let me just read that part again for you, because that is something that the majority of people will never know in exploiting its possibilities for surprise, the Germans had shown their appreciation of the oft taught lesson.

Tha...