Military History 2025

One may wonder why the title of this site has been called Military History 2025. It would be a good question since the number 2025 could represent anything. However, in this case, it was selected for a very specific reason.

Though true history cannot be changed no matter the genre, its interpretations can be modified as new evidence come to light. And though the famous baseball player of the 1950s and 1960s, Yogi Berra once just as famously said that “It’s tough to make predictions, especially about the future.”, someone actually did and quite presciently to the extent that the world we are living in today, practically the exact set of our circumstances, was foretold quite a while ago.

A long time ago before there was an Internet, before personal computers and smart devices were a natural part of our daily landscape, a book was written in 1985 by author Hal Stryker titled, NYPD 2025…

This book won no awards, at least not to my knowledge, and it was not even considered a well written story even for the science-fiction genre. However, this story was not just a science fiction yarn but more importantly a critical social statement of where our world was headed given the trends back in the early to mid 1980s.

Continue reading

Current US political trauma may have been the plan to spur government dissolution…

Author’s Note:

Though this site is dedicated to military history, the following piece is predicated upon military analysis in the political realm…


The ongoing trauma that US politicians, military leaders, and intelligence bureaucrats have been fostering as it regards the current Trump administration and its alleged ties to Russian influences that are also alleged to have interfered with the 2016 US presidential election has overtaken the US political infrastructure to such an extent that the federal government appears now to be totally paralyzed in accomplishing anything substantial. No doubt the Democrats in Congress have been quite substantial in fostering this upheaval while allowing the Republicans to accelerate their own continued self-destruction; people who have been working for longer and more ardently to bring the United States to wrack and ruin. Democrats maybe doing the same but their excuse is stupidity while for Republicans it is simply pure, degenerate malice.

It has now been nearly seven full months since the new year with Trump taking office in the latter half of January 2017 and the venom (much of it deserved) thrown at him from all corners of the US establishment have taken on a life of their own. Late night television and talk radio hosts appear to have had a steady stream of black humor and discussion that even at this late date seems to have no end in sight.

Not since the American Civil War/The War for Southern Independence in the 1860s has one issue become so overwhelming and polarizing that all other federal functionality has seemed to cease.

No doubt that without the current emphasis on Russian election hacking, the Trump administration would still be facing similar opposition from an entire spectrum of honorable progressives and conservative groups and organizations. A recent Jeffrey St. Clair essay ( provides a basic glimpse into the dysfunction of the Trump family in general. Too stupid even for the sophistication of a Greek tragedy, the St. Clair piece describes in essence a situation so foolishly concocted that one wonders how any of this could have come to pass. A simple understanding of basic law (something no doubt most of the Trump family has little interest in) should have prohibited most of it from ever happening.

Unfortunately, Donald Trump and his supporters (which does not include those who simply voted for him out of desperation) appear to be a mirroring of what the United States has become; a nation filled with ignorant people who have long ago abdicated any sense of civic responsibility to their country.

Continue reading

Who Started World War I

Author Notes:

Most historians have a difficult time dispensing with their biases when writing historical treatises. They are after all merely Human, so this tendency is quite natural and should be expected from their readers. As large, complex events such as World War I are studied in great deal historians, researchers, and other interested parties tend to migrate to what are known as “schools of thought”. Each school believes it has found the answer or answers that explain the reasons for why such events have happened. In many cases these schools are also politicized to support prevailing political ideologies in a society and\or encourage a group-thing among a society’s citizens. None of this means that the research such “schools of thought”, which has been popularized in the mainstream, is necessarily inaccurate or wrong. However, under such circumstances it is easy for a veil of deceit and subterfuge to become the surface of such studies and in some cases replace good research with inept conclusions for various agendas.

World War I was a horrific conflict and unlike World War II after its conclusion, was allowed to be studied from a variety of quickly released resources that the second war’s researchers did not enjoy. However, as one historian as already noted, the documents released soon after the first world war’s conclusion were done so with the added intention of legitimizing the claims in the war made by each country’s release as well as with their to claims to innocence of any involvement towards initiating the conflict.

Such documentation has of course led to much debate over the actual reasons behind this cataclysm in world history; most of it being quite honest attempts since it did not have the overlying concerns of the “Holocaust” or the “European Jewish Question” to contend with. However, some will still claim that even the Jews in 1914 and before it were responsible for this event. Whatever their influence at the time it certainly was not in the various political groups that made up the leadership of the belligerents; at least not to the extent that they are given credit for.

The short answer to this decades’ old question is that they were all responsible due to their miscalculation of the expected consequences of their actions and there were specific reasons for these miscalculation the answer to which will be provided in the conclusion to this paper.

Continue reading

Pyrrhic Victory – A Book Review

Author: Robert A. Doughty

In Pyrrhic Victory, General Robert A. Doughty, formerly an instructor of military history at West Point for 20 years, writes an excellent, detailed history of the French Army’s strategies and operations during The Great War from 1914 to 1918. He meticulously covers every single major engagement on the Western Front through these years and provides what some have called the definitive, analytical study on the subject.

That being said, this is not a book for the casual reader of military history. In that it deals specifically with the analysis of combat operations during World War I, the focus of the book is narrowly focused on this area of study alone.

For such a study, Doughty does provide some very illuminating areas in his research but only a few times does his prose generate a sense of excitement over the subject matter. As a former West Point history instructor, one gets the feeling that his book was designed as a text for The Point as much as it was for commercial distribution. As a result, his writing at times becomes pedantic and dry at points. However, this should not lessen anyone’s interest in reading this text if combat operations is what you are interested in studying. No doubt, despite the failings of the prose at times, this book will definitely provide the reader with an in-depth look at how the French Army performed in these years.

The problem with the way the book is written is its inherent lack of color. Doughty appears to have written such a text as clinically as possible with little background information about the major actors on the battlefield in this tragic event. His intent is to only cover strategy and operations.

However, The French Army did not fight in a vacuum. Many complex factors provided the reasons why the French were on the battlefield in the first place; most importantly their loss in the Franco-Prussian War in 1870, a conflict the French initiated, though some historians are of the opinion that Otto von Bismark, then chancellor of Prussia, provoked. France’s loss in the conflict forced them to concede Alsace and Lorraine to the Prussian Army, which incensed French politicians and the public at large right through 1918. And though Germany would later attempt to formulate its own security through several alliances with surrounding nations, France sought to literally surround Germany with an alliance with Russia, making Germany far more concerned about her security than she would have been had such an alliance not been developed.

Continue reading