Hooray, thanks for another chapter! Manga continues to be really beautifully fleshed out vs the LN.
@Atrius
Yeah, this is actually quite believable. There are plenty of examples in history of widely differing world views between two sides causing a real failure to predict what the other would do.
@rrolo1
At the end of the day though without our historical knowledge or omniscient reader perspective none of this is so obvious on the ground. Nobody going into World War 1 actually intended it to turn out the way it did. Outdated historical modes of thought, tactics and strategy led to a disastrous domino effect. In this world Tanya has somewhat tipped the scales by leaking some knowledge of an alternate future, but she herself has a limited perspective and role and a huge theme of this series is how different winning a battle from winning a war can be, and how "winning the peace" can be an even more daunting issue. Like, what exactly do you expect High Command to do in that instant? They certainly will be considering the opposing leadership, but a country is a big place and everything up until that moment has been about thinking in terms of Total War resource consumption vs individuals. The enemy leadership could be hiding out in a bunker in the city and thus won't be found for a while, or have retreated to the edges of the country for the same result. What the Empire is thinking is that it doesn't ultimately matter because none of that will change the ultimate result with industrial capacity gone. Same vs notBritain, because that's a sea-based regime where the Empire is land based. They can stare each other down but that's it. Even with "the shape of the great war" future information leakage causing a stir amongst military leadership, that's just an interesting thesis paper to them not history. It's not going to inform their every action. And it may well be that not a single person outside the military has read it either.
Maybe Tanya should have written some other paper on "how a defeated enemy might stage an escape to colonies and manage to get foreign support" or something but that seems like a stretch, and she can't be everywhere at once, do everything, or take command above her position in the military structure. Maybe if they had had her in the rear she'd have been more productive on the strategy side, but of course if they'd done that they wouldn't have all the 203 fueled tactical victories either. It's a catch-22, the whole situation is a geopolitical trap, where military victory or defeat both tend to lead to bad things for the Empire since they don't have the diplomatic/political skill or capital to seek an exit with their winnings, and military victory itself causes diplomacy and political resources to wither. Summary of David Runciman's "The Confidence Trap" could be written for this even though it's about modern democracies:
@Atrius
Yeah, this is actually quite believable. There are plenty of examples in history of widely differing world views between two sides causing a real failure to predict what the other would do.
@rrolo1
At the end of the day though without our historical knowledge or omniscient reader perspective none of this is so obvious on the ground. Nobody going into World War 1 actually intended it to turn out the way it did. Outdated historical modes of thought, tactics and strategy led to a disastrous domino effect. In this world Tanya has somewhat tipped the scales by leaking some knowledge of an alternate future, but she herself has a limited perspective and role and a huge theme of this series is how different winning a battle from winning a war can be, and how "winning the peace" can be an even more daunting issue. Like, what exactly do you expect High Command to do in that instant? They certainly will be considering the opposing leadership, but a country is a big place and everything up until that moment has been about thinking in terms of Total War resource consumption vs individuals. The enemy leadership could be hiding out in a bunker in the city and thus won't be found for a while, or have retreated to the edges of the country for the same result. What the Empire is thinking is that it doesn't ultimately matter because none of that will change the ultimate result with industrial capacity gone. Same vs notBritain, because that's a sea-based regime where the Empire is land based. They can stare each other down but that's it. Even with "the shape of the great war" future information leakage causing a stir amongst military leadership, that's just an interesting thesis paper to them not history. It's not going to inform their every action. And it may well be that not a single person outside the military has read it either.
Maybe Tanya should have written some other paper on "how a defeated enemy might stage an escape to colonies and manage to get foreign support" or something but that seems like a stretch, and she can't be everywhere at once, do everything, or take command above her position in the military structure. Maybe if they had had her in the rear she'd have been more productive on the strategy side, but of course if they'd done that they wouldn't have all the 203 fueled tactical victories either. It's a catch-22, the whole situation is a geopolitical trap, where military victory or defeat both tend to lead to bad things for the Empire since they don't have the diplomatic/political skill or capital to seek an exit with their winnings, and military victory itself causes diplomacy and political resources to wither. Summary of David Runciman's "The Confidence Trap" could be written for this even though it's about modern democracies:
.In fact, the reason UK had ( and still has 
