• @Anticorp
    link
    English
    188 months ago

    I doubt that this is even remotely accurate. Even the slightest bit of critical thinking quickly dismantles that “belief”.

      • @Anticorp
        link
        English
        198 months ago

        Why would he not realize that countries, generals, kings, and those in power would simply send more men to die? They will not send 2 guys with a machine gun and then simply accept that the battle was lost if their guy loses. No, they will send a million men, as many as are needed to take another foot of ground.

        • @BeMoreCareful
          link
          English
          398 months ago

          Colonialism was super popular, so a couple of dudes with machine guns could mow down a field of natives with much less risk.

          Plus a machine gun is much more impressive than some dudes with single fire guns. A platoon (or whatever fits on a boat or three) can be overrun. Throw a couple of machine guns in with a couple of brutal shows of force and you got yourself a colony.

          WW1 was still a ways off and it wasn’t really the target market for your Gatlings and Maxims.

          • @Anticorp
            link
            English
            248 months ago

            That’s actually a really good point. He must have meant that fewer “civilized” soldiers would die.

        • @[email protected]OP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          88 months ago

          ¯\_ (ツ)_/¯

          He was clearly not a stupid man by any means, but definitely seems like he was naive.

    • @FireTower
      link
      English
      358 months ago

      It’s the cotton gin logic. Eli Whitney thought his invention the cotton gin would reduce the need for manual labor on cotton plantations and reduce slavery. Instead it made cotton farming more profitable and revitalized slavery.