LOL, no. That's just a horrible caricature of some modern (U.S.) American mythology.Originally Posted by slapout9
Being the by far biggest Western country and shielded by two oceans is what makes it exceptional.
Meritocracy (aside from being suboptimal*) is not much more at home in the U.S. than in plenty other countries.
In fact, the American idea of how to create a lieutenant is stuck in the 18th century when the ancien rgime supposed that nobles were by birth suitable for serving as officer and didn't need proper training or practice. It's a laughingstock in comparison to most other developed countries' ways of creating lieutenants.
The German way (to let them serve as a special kind of NCO first and educate/train them before they get commissioned) goes back to Carnot during the French revolution and isn't exactly fresh, but at least not stuck in the ancien rgime.
*: Now about how and why meritocracy is suboptimal:
Peter principle, that's why.
Losers and undisciplined men shouldn't be promoted, but other than that promotions should be done based on potential. A very good colonel may be a horrible general. It's thus wrong to promote all very good colonels. It's correct to promote some mediocre colonels who show much potential for the General's job while holding some very good colonels back in their rank.
The German army accepted this shortly after the First World War and invented what's today known as assessment centre. The impetus was that it was forced to enlist men for 12 years only (and as minimum) and was very much restricted in size.
Not macht erfinderisch.
(~"Necessity is the mother of invention." More accurately: Distress drives you to be inventive.)
The had to get the very best candidates for the job, so they paid more attention to candidate selection than an other army.
Bookmarks