Uncle Thor's Magazine Online

Were you to walk down 14th Street in the early morning, back in the mid-1980s, you would likely see the Mayor of Hoboken standing on his porch. Tom Vezzetti talked with the locals and greeted passers-by. He had a reputation as something of a character, being named by Parade Magazine as the “Wackiest Mayor in America.”

When Tom mentioned any disputes with his political adversaries, he would throw in the line: “Is it because we are that good, or are they that bad?” I thought it an amusing phrase at the time. A few years later, I came to appreciate it as something more.

Have you ever wondered if your success against an opponent was due to your own ability, or to their mistakes? Take a football game, for example. Did you win because your team was playing better, or because the other team was fumbling and making mistakes? Is it one or the other, or a little of both? Did you win because you played a great game, or did you win because they lost? It brings back the question: Are you that good or are they that bad?

This dilemma comes up frequently in historical discussions. It is at the heart of many controversies. A current one among military history buffs is the conduct of the war in North Africa in World War II. At one point, the British enjoyed superior equipment and numbers. Nonetheless, the smaller Axis forces under General Rommel defeated them again and again. The conduct of those battles is well-documented. We know with some precision where the troops attacked and with what. One salient fact is that the British forces used their armor and other assets in a fashion that was doomed to failure. Tactically and strategically, they were inept. Any advantage held by numbers and superior equipment was negated by the poor tactics.

Rommel was something of a bogey man to the Allies. He seemed undefeatable as he handily turned back British attacks time and time again. He was a dynamic leader who was constantly moving around the battlefield. Though his tanks and equipment were inferior to that of the British, and his Italian allies were in far worse shape, Rommel owned North Africa.

The quandary for military history buff is this: did the Germans succeed due to their own efforts, or was it British ineptitude that gave the Axis victory?

It was not until the British changed their tactics and strategy that they had a decisive victory over the Axis. General Montgomery was able to eliminate the bad tactics and to overhaul the entire command structure. At the same time, the German force he encountered was tired, poorly supplied and depleted. Once again we get the dilemma. Were the British so good, or were the Germans so poor?

There are many of these paradoxes in history. You will find them in the Civil War, Revolutionary War, Napoleonic Wars, and even as far back as the Assyrians, the Greeks and the Romans. They are found outside of military history, too.

It is more than an amusing paradox. It is a lesson to those who heed it. Whatever we do, we have to be our best. While it would be nice to have an opponent lose through his own bumbling, it would be better if we win because we earn the victory. Winning by default is easy, but most opponents will not let that happen. We have to be the side that can win regardless of how the opposition performs.

If a conflict has you saying, “Are we that good or are they that bad,” then let it be a warning to you. It means that you need to improve yourself. Never should you have to depend on the other side to err, in order for you to win. Only then can you say, “As good or bad as they were, we are better!”.

There is More!

See Our Websites:

Click here to return to the main page

Copyright 2008 T. Sheil & A. Sheil All Rights Reserved

The Trollwise Press