the question is, in your opinion, who did the battle -- ofwho did the better job doctrinal development, and which side came closest to developing the method that would be most successful in world war ii? dr. faulker: we love the germans. we are guilty of this at fort leavenworth, but the germans sort of have a propensity for war. we overstated. a lot of that has to do with -- and a lot of that has to do with geography, but i think we overstate that. the germans are really good at some of the tactical stuff, but when it comes to making strategy, they are a basket case, and the disasters you will see in world war ii are presaged by the disasters strategic decisions they make in world war i, and i think we also overemphasized the german tactical acumen. what they do have is an official army system for capturing honestly and openly the mistakes made trying to systematically put systems in place, but at the same time, the allies know the advantages they have and are playing them as best they can and a lot of the storm trooper tactics you see are also being done by the british and french on