Force Ratios (the old 3-to-1 rule)

[Infanteer]

Guderian seemed to be happy with what Fuller and Liddell-Hart propoosed as can be seen from his book General Der Panzertruppen Heinz W Guderian Memories... so maybe it was more a case that the British were half asleep?

From what I can tell, interwar German facination with Liddell-Hart's writings have pretty much been debunked as a post-war sleight of hand by Sir Basil while working with the German generals on their memoirs.

[JMA]

From what I can tell, interwar German facination with Liddell-Hart's writings have pretty much been debunked as a post-war sleight of hand by Sir Basil while working with the German generals on their memoirs.

Difficult to accept the obvious?

Stick with what Guderian wrote. That is enough. Fuller and Liddell-Hart provided the spark... no more... no less.

[Granite_State]

From what I can tell, interwar German facination with Liddell-Hart's writings have pretty much been debunked as a post-war sleight of hand by Sir Basil while working with the German generals on their memoirs.

Yes, John Mearsheimer wrote the book on that, I think it was called Liddell Hart and the Weight of History.

Liddell Hart wrote and said some interesting things, but he was also all over the map. He, along with many others, drew the wrong lessons from the Spanish Civil War, and was opposed to a continental commitment until pretty late in the game.

[JMA]

Yes, John Mearsheimer wrote the book on that, I think it was called Liddell Hart and the Weight of History.

Liddell Hart wrote and said some interesting things, but he was also all over the map. He, along with many others, drew the wrong lessons from the Spanish Civil War, and was opposed to a continental commitment until pretty late in the game.

There were no positives in Liddell-Hart's contribution?

[William F. Owen]

There were no positives in Liddell-Hart's contribution?

Some. His work on Infantry Doctrine in the early 1920's was good. Some was a bit blue sky and stating the obvious, but never really wholly misleading. Having said that he copied and plagiarised Foch's ideas and then sort to destroy Foch's reputation.

After 1945, Liddell-Hart allied himself with the "blitzkrieg" and basically re-invented himself. - BUT, if you read his work, little he says is either insightful, original (not required) or really useful.

There is a far larger issue, that men such as Liddell-Hart, Fuller, and I would also include T.E. Lawrence and Boyd, were masters of gently walking the limelight path, in a way to ensures the actual content of their ideas is never really subject to investigation. MOST Military Theory is rubbish, and that includes the stuff that has come out in the last 10 years.