Talk:Fabian strategy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
These two sentences appeared in a row: "...inflicting constant, small, debilitating defeats on the North Africans" and "Fabius won no victories." Isn't any defeat of an enemy technically a victory? I've gone ahead and changed it to "won no large-scale victories," but perhaps someone with more knowledge of military history could phrase it more precisely. --LostLeviathan 20:43, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Fabian/Guerilla warfare?
Could Fabian strategy be considered a form of guerilla warfare, or vice-versa? Aristotle2600 03:49, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
No, a guerilla war is fought between a regular army and opposing armed elements that are to weak to engage in conventional warfare. A guerilla army lacks the capacity to wage a conventional battle ("lack of ability"), whereas in Fabian strategy both sides are able to fight a conventional battle, but one side decides not to ("lack of will").
I also removed the reference to the war in Russia in WWII. The Red Army never engaged in Fabian strategy, quite the opposite is true. 84.59.142.160 19:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)