News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Why Militaries Destroy Cities to Save Them. Parent comment

Re:Why Militaries Destroy Cities to Save Them by illys on Monday November 12, 2018 @04:40AM (#18431537)
About "Islamic State (or Viet Cong) didn't have to raze the same cities to the ground in able to 'occupy' them":

Those forces do not face an army when they take a city: they face a collapsing civilian state. When the restoring state or a foreign country sends a "liberation" army, the situation is very different: two armies are facing each other.

It was the same with nazis in the first phase of WWII: a prepared, determined and fanatic army faced unprepared troops. They took large chunks of Europe with little combats and destructions (Central Europe, France, Belgium...).

Then it took a hellfire to get them out.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Why Militaries Destroy Cities to Save Them by baud147258 on Monday November 12, 2018 @04:46AM (#18431560)
> They took large chunks of Europe with little combats

The amount of casualties taken by the French army in 1940 seem to indicate that there were some fighting. And the French army tried to counterattack multiple times (Arras, Stonne), even if they lost each time. The Polish lost also a lot of men.

[ Parent | on HN ]