The lessons of history are simply guidelines, not laws of physics. One general's brilliant pincher movement is another's disastrous "dividing his forces". One commits his reserves too soon and squanders them, another too late and they cannot affect the outcome. There are advantages to both defense and offense, as well as disadvantages. An army on the advance is vulnerable in its supply lines and fighting on unfamiliar territory. One in retreat benefits from the opposite. OTOH, the defender loses the initiative and must choose the type of war the aggressor chooses. You can illustrate any military principle you want with multiple historical examples, but there is no shortage of counter-examples, either.

There is no formula for victory, although there are obviously lots of situations to be preferred or avoided. Hitler lost the war because of the invasion of Russia (that's where most Axis casualties, personell and materiel, occurred, the Western Front was a sideshow). But at the time it seemed to him a way to take advantage of his peaking strength and a temporary stalemate with a corned and dying Britain to eliminate the danger to the east once and for all. That, after all, was his primary objective from the start. He took a gamble and lost. Napoleon made the exact same gamble and lost too. Every general must make multiple tactical and strategic decisions on the basis of insufficient information, and usually against a desperate and determined enemy. And once committed, events often play out in totally unexpected ways. War is more like backgammon than chess.

But there is one military principle I do believe in: Amateurs discuss tactics and strategy. Soldiers worry about logistics.