Sarah Paine

So Britain has access to those places.

And then there's a separate cancer in Asia, where Japan's trying to work its magic.

And I say separate because the Axis never coordinated these two theaters.

So...

This is looking at the world from a maritime perspective.

What you're looking at is all the oceanic routes that connect everything.

So Britain's problem is how to leverage the miracle of sea transport that basically can access you the whole world versus in the logistical nightmare of land transport where you have to, you can only drive through countries that'll let you drive through.

The seas give you mobility.

They give you access to theaters, markets, resources, allies.

And they also give you sanctuary at home if you're surrounded by them.

It makes it harder for people to invade.

So Britain's trying to leverage all of that against the armies of the continental armies by it's going to try to strangle them economically, diplomatically, and militarily.

Now, the generation that led World War II in Britain, and not just Britain, but elsewhere, they were the conscripts of World War I, which was supposed to end all wars, and they knew full well as they're in the midst of World War II that it did not remotely achieve that promise.

And so they learned a whole series of lessons, and I'm going to do a comparison of what was done in World War I versus World War II.

And they are the greatest generation, not their children who claim the title.

Lesson number one is don't go beyond the culminating point of attack.

What's that?

The terminology comes from Clausewitz.

Carl von Clausewitz, who is a Western guru on conventional land warfare, which means is if you're attacking in a battle, if you go too far, you'll weaken yourself because the enemy will counterattack, send you further backwards than you would have otherwise.

In the case of World War I, you're sending young men over trenches into ongoing machine gun fire.