NationStates Jolt Archive

Thats right, everybody here seems to be an expert on all aspects of everything, so I figure we can have yet ANOTHER humerous and slightly political topic.
Make sure to give a REASON for your selection.
HOWEVER:
The event in question must be from BEFORE the year 2000 (AD, for you picky people). Before you shout 'VIETNAM!' you might want to consider the OTHER 6,000 years of human history in which people have been killing each other and writing things down.
Yes, the time limit is to prevent a billion people shouting 'ZOMG! IRAQ!'

#1 - the Crusades.

After Atilla the Hun completely destroyed the Roman Army, he let himself be talked into just packing up and going back to Mongolia by the Pope. He could have owned the entire world.

I have to agree with Texpunditistan... I just can't think of anything dumber, militarily anyways.

Napoleon's army neglecting to take coats to Siberia seems like a bit of an oversight.

He was unstoppable, until he hit the Russian winter. Probably should've seen that coming.

I have to agree with Texpunditistan... I just can't think of anything dumber, militarily anyways.

I agree with Jorgalonia about agreeing with Texpunditistan...

JFK’s withdrawal from the pay of pigs It would have been successful if he had just provided air support, and now Castro would most likely be dead instead of continuing his oppressive regime in Cuba. Kennedy could have at least told the revolutionary Cubans that he wasn’t going to help, so they wouldn’t have gotten slaughtered, but his petty partisanship got the better of him.

Varus was a right dumbass. As was Lepidus (the one who lost the standards in Parthia, too man damn Lepidudses(Lepidi?))

Napoleon's army neglecting to take coats to Siberia seems like a bit of an oversight.

He was unstoppable, until he hit the Russian winter. Probably should've seen that coming.

Here's one:

Hitler's army neglecting to take coats to Russia seems like a bit of an oversight.

He was unstoppable, until he hit the Russian winter. Probably should've seen that coming.

Hannibal's sixteen year aimless roam around Italy was an interesting way to wear out many men and a few elephants.

After Atilla the Hun completely destroyed the Roman Army, he let himself be talked into just packing up and going back to Mongolia by the Pope. He could have owned the entire world.

Umm... Atilla went off to Northern Europe not Mongolia.

Just because the guy didn't feel like conquering Rome doesn't mean that he was going to give up the empire he had forged for himself (larger then both Romes combined) and return to his peoples ancient homeland abandoned by the Huns long before due to increasing pressure from competing tribes.

Now if he HAD that would have been an incredibly stupid military event.

That and I think world domination might be a slightly lofty goal for someone who, at best, controlled about half of Europe. The worlds second smallest continent.

Definitely the annhilation of three Roman legions in Teutoberg Forest as well as the reformation of the Roman legions from a conquering war-machine into a defensive pansy.

I forget exactly who this was, but it's one of my favorite stories. Takes place in Mesopotamia.

Apparently some king hired a group of mercenaries for a period of exactly 4 years. Well it's getting close to 4 years from the time he hired them and he hasn't yet used them, so he figures that he better attack somebody or his money will have been wasted. He picks a fight with a neighboring tribe known for it's ferocity (fairly sure they were Assyrians) and marches off with the mercs and his own personal guard. The battle takes place on the last day the mercs are indebted to him. Thing is... the mercs agreed to fight for EXACTLY 4 years, and they made the agreement at noon. So midday, just as the battle is about to get started, the majority of his army just up and leaves. As you can imagine the Assyrians won.

A reminder to always read the fine print.

Considering.

In the meantime:
Here's one:

Hitler's army neglecting to take coats to Russia seems like a bit of an oversight.

He was unstoppable, until he hit the Russian winter. Probably should've seen that coming.

With the "minor" exception of Smolensk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Smolensk_%281941%29). which held up the Army Group Centre offensive, allowed the Russians to solidify their defences further East, and effectively disrupted the blitzkrieg.

However, the overly ambitious objectives and lack of logistical planning in general (over the objections of German logistical and supply units) certainly was a big mistake.

Definitely the annhilation of three Roman legions in Teutoberg Forest as well as the reformation of the Roman legions from a conquering war-machine into a defensive pansy.
Y'know, I always won that battle in Rome: Total War. Its not that hard. Silly Romans :P

Anyway...
Im rather suprised nobody has brought up the charge of the Light Brigade.
Basicaly Britains lovely military (where most of the officers bought their rank, no earning required) went to war with the Russians (Crimean War, a fairly stupid war in of itself), the British commander decided to send his cavalry, unsupported, down a valley lined with Russians and cannons.
Needless to say, they were fairly well slaughtered, although the few that survived were basicaly made into saints and so forth.
I beleive the attack was made with almost 700 men (Forget the 'Into the Jaws of Death rode the 600' thing, its wrong :P), and something like 4 came out uninjured, with about 100 wounded.

Y'know, I always won that battle in Rome: Total War. Its not that hard. Silly Romans :P

Anyway...
Im rather suprised nobody has brought up the charge of the Light Brigade.
Basicaly Britains lovely military (where most of the officers bought their rank, no earning required) went to war with the Russians (Crimean War, a fairly stupid war in of itself), the British commander decided to send his cavalry, unsupported, down a valley lined with Russians and cannons.
Needless to say, they were fairly well slaughtered, although the few that survived were basicaly made into saints and so forth.
I beleive the attack was made with almost 700 men (Forget the 'Into the Jaws of Death rode the 600' thing, its wrong :P), and something like 4 came out uninjured, with about 100 wounded.

Sorry, but it's vastly over hyped, in part because of Tennyson's poem. Out of 673, only 118-157 were killed. And the attack on the Russian guns was apparantly a communication error, possibly compounded by animosity betwen commanders - Raglan's orders were to attack and seize a set of redoubts that he could see on the reverse slope of the left side of the valley. Unbeknownst to Raglan, Cardigan (and possibly Lucan) wasn't able to see those, and assumed he meant the guns at the end of the valley.

http://www.uea.ac.uk/edu/learn/braysher/charge.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charge_of_the_Light_Brigade#Events

Umm... Atilla went off to Northern Europe not Mongolia.

Just because the guy didn't feel like conquering Rome doesn't mean that he was going to give up the empire he had forged for himself (larger then both Romes combined) and return to his peoples ancient homeland abandoned by the Huns long before due to increasing pressure from competing tribes.

Now if he HAD that would have been an incredibly stupid military event.

That and I think world domination might be a slightly lofty goal for someone who, at best, controlled about half of Europe. The worlds second smallest continent.

Atilla controlled a lot more than half of Europe, before even entereing Europe, he unified Mongolia under himself, and defeated the Chinese Empire. He then rode west and defeated Scythia, Persia and Turkey. While he didn't directly control all of those regions, they paid him tribute and he had indirect control over them. There would have been nothing ambitious about completing the conquest of continental Europe.

Thats right, everybody here seems to be an expert on all aspects of everything, so I figure we can have yet ANOTHER humerous and slightly political topic.
Make sure to give a REASON for your selection.
HOWEVER:
The event in question must be from BEFORE the year 2000 (AD, for you picky people). Before you shout 'VIETNAM!' you might want to consider the OTHER 6,000 years of human history in which people have been killing each other and writing things down.
Yes, the time limit is to prevent a billion people shouting 'ZOMG! IRAQ!'

Actually, for the picky people, it should be 2000 CE... It was changed recently because AD is apparently politically incorrect, as it means "In the Year of our ('the,' really) Lord," and God forbid God have anything to do with dating.

Atilla controlled a lot more than half of Europe, before even entereing Europe, he unified Mongolia under himself, and defeated the Chinese Empire. He then rode west and defeated Scythia, Persia and Turkey. While he didn't directly control all of those regions, they paid him tribute and he had indirect control over them. There would have been nothing ambitious about completing the conquest of continental Europe.


I think you're confusing him with Genghis Khan.

How about every single time someone tried to off the jews? I mean seriously, they fuck up every single time and the Jews just keep on pulling through. The people that try to kill the Jews have to be the biggest fuck-ups in military history. That, or the Jews must have it right, and God's keeping them around on purpose.

Hannibal. He got his army all the way to the gates of Rome- and then stopped! He didn't bother attacking, so he got wiped out. Duh. :headbang: :sniper:

I think you're confusing him with Genghis Khan.

I've thought about it and looked up a few things.

The China part is something Genghis did.

But Atilla did control much more than just half of Europe.

How about every single time someone tried to off the jews? I mean seriously, they fuck up every single time and the Jews just keep on pulling through. The people that try to kill the Jews have to be the biggest fuck-ups in military history. That, or the Jews must have it right, and God's keeping them around on purpose.
Great one. My grandpa says that the theme of every Jewish holiday is "They tried to kill us. They didn't. Let's eat!"

Actually, for the picky people, it should be 2000 CE... It was changed recently because AD is apparently politically incorrect, as it means "In the Year of our ('the,' really) Lord," and God forbid God have anything to do with dating.

BCE/CE is a stupid designation, because it uses the exact same time scale as BC/AD does. I think we should just use a straight timeline--year 1 starting with the beginning of civilization as we know it with no breaks from then until now, or maybe an even longer timeline starting from the Big Bang (which would make this somewhere around the year 13,017,000,000. o_O).

You think historians would agree on that start date? I could offer you four perfectly valid ones right now.

BCE/CE is just a nicety. It allows us all to call it 2005 without any baggage. After all, it would be confusing if it were AD2005, the year 5765 for Jews, the year of the Rooster in China, 1425 to Islam. Even within Christianity there's no agreement on what year it is. So saying it's 2005 in the Common Era isn't that silly, it makes global communication easier and puts nobody out.

Hmm what do I submit...

Soviet army's attempt to invade Finland- world's largest and best equipped military of the time (the Germans, contrary to popular belief, were absolutely inferior to the Russians as far as tanks, artillery and small arms went) attacks a peaceful neighbor with a tiny military force, suffers casualties on almost 100:1 ratio and barely manages to secure a questionable victory, only to lose all the gained lands back a few years later when Finland allies itself with the invading Germany. The Russians, who of all people should have known a thing or two about cold winters, sent their troops to the most northern war in modern history during a -40 Celcius temperatures of the Finnish December without adequate winter clothes or weapon lubricants that wouldn't freeze. Doesn't get any more stupid than that, does it?

Hmm what do I submit...

Soviet army's attempt to invade Finland- world's largest and best equipped military of the time (the Germans, contrary to popular belief, were absolutely inferior to the Russians as far as tanks, artillery and small arms went) attacks a peaceful neighbor with a tiny military force, suffers casualties on almost 100:1 ratio and barely manages to secure a questionable victory, only to lose all the gained lands back a few years later when Finland allies itself with the invading Germany. The Russians, who of all people should have known a thing or two about cold winters, sent their troops to the most northern war in modern history during a -40 Celcius temperatures of the Finnish December without adequate winter clothes or weapon lubricants that wouldn't freeze. Doesn't get any more stupid than that, does it?

Yep, that's a good stupid one.

This thread is turning into a public-service announcement for buying coats and weather-blocking your cars.

Stupid nature. Someone should conquer that.

i hate the hippies who use CE and BCE

Why not use AD and BC

Bloody retards

:confused: :sniper:

i hate the hippies who use CE and BCE

Why not use AD and BC

Bloody retards

:confused: :sniper:

That's a very constructive addition to the debate.

How about the Somme in 1916. Boy that was such a big mess they even made a film about it


:eek: :gundge: :mp5: :sniper:

This thread is turning into a public-service announcement for buying coats and weather-blocking your cars.

Stupid nature. Someone should conquer that.
Oh I can submit something NOT weather related:

The Tsushima battle.

In July of 1904, Russian Admiral Rojdestvensky set sail with the Baltic fleet to replace losses incurred at the beginning of the Russo-Japanese war in the Pacific and to face the Japanese Admiral Togo in what would be hoped a decisive battle. Imagine the route alone: from the Baltic sea, around Africa, all the way to Japan, without maintenance. By the time the fleets had met, the bottom of the Russian warships was so heavily covered with marine growth that the fastest they could travel was more than 8 knots (half their normal top speed). The cannons and engines were malfunctioning, the crews grew discontent due to weariness and poor food. As a result, upon encountering the Japanese fleet, the Russian ships were slaughtered with ease. Of the 45 ships in the Russian fleet, only two destroyers and the light cruiser Almaz reached the Russian port of Vladivostock. Six other smaller ships reached neutral ports where they were interned. The rest of the fleet was either sunk, beached, or surrendered to the Japanese. The Japanese only lost three torpedo boats during the whole battle. Japanese casualties were approximately 600 compared to the approximate 6000 Russians killed.

Oh I can submit something NOT weather related:

The Tsushima battle.

In July of 1904, Russian Admiral Rojdestvensky set sail with the Baltic fleet to replace losses incurred at the beginning of the Russo-Japanese war in the Pacific and to face the Japanese Admiral Togo in what would be hoped a decisive battle. Imagine the route alone: from the Baltic sea, around Africa, all the way to Japan, without maintenance. By the time the fleets had met, the bottom of the Russian warships was so heavily covered with marine growth that the fastest they could travel was more than 8 knots (half their normal top speed). The cannons and engines were malfunctioning, the crews grew discontent due to weariness and poor food. As a result, upon encountering the Japanese fleet, the Russian ships were slaughtered with ease. Of the 45 ships in the Russian fleet, only two destroyers and the light cruiser Almaz reached the Russian port of Vladivostock. Six other smaller ships reached neutral ports where they were interned. The rest of the fleet was either sunk, beached, or surrendered to the Japanese. The Japanese only lost three torpedo boats during the whole battle. Japanese casualties were approximately 600 compared to the approximate 6000 Russians killed.

And an addition to that, which also wins on the stupidity scale:
Just after leaving the Baltic, the Russian ships were in heavy fog off the Dogger Bank (that's right beside England, for those who don't know). They saw some ships in the fog. For some reason, they thought the Japanese were attacking. In the North Sea. On the other side of the world from Japan.
Not only that, they killed two British sailors, and almost brought the British into the war. SMRT...

A bit of a british legend is the charge of the light brigade, which sent 600 running/riding into a large assortment of russian guns due to some botched orders. 200 or something died (not huge by world standards) and the rest ran away.

Until they realised what had gone on though, it was an incredible act of bravery and stupidity.

:) See my comments regarding the Charge of the Light Brigade above. :)


Kalmykhia, I wasn't aware of that little tidbit. Good one - or not, depending on your point of view. :)

Thats right, everybody here seems to be an expert on all aspects of everything, so I figure we can have yet ANOTHER humerous and slightly political topic.
Make sure to give a REASON for your selection.
HOWEVER:
The event in question must be from BEFORE the year 2000 (AD, for you picky people). Before you shout 'VIETNAM!' you might want to consider the OTHER 6,000 years of human history in which people have been killing each other and writing things down.
Yes, the time limit is to prevent a billion people shouting 'ZOMG! IRAQ!'
Perhaps Hitler forgetting that Moscow has a winter.

I wont give The Romans grief for losing the legions in Teutonfeld Forrest its not his fault he was betrayed.

I will not Criticise the Crusades
Whats wrong with wanting The Holy Land?

I will Criticies Henry The Dogge of Venice because hes an arse.
4th Crusade-Leave Byzantium alone.

Somme

I think Aldranin has a point now that the Jews have their own land its would be easeir to wipe them out in one go!
Oh you didnt mean that silly.

Dien Bien Phu-Dropping Paras into nowhere with only Airsupplies is dumb overlooked by hills which evidently Artillary could be brought up on is dumb added to the unforunate inability for the planes to land the supplies in the base instead of into VM hands.

Kursk
Somehow putting men into a situation where they have to break through 3+ defensive lines is never a good idea especially with untried tanks and also being outnumbered.

Mind you they didnt inflict more tank casulties but its still an err.

Singapore Fixed guns
Surrendering and as a result many Aussies just off the boat surrendering when the ships could have been turned around saving many lives and man power

Stirling bridgeor was it Falkirk?

Anyways English General gets forced into chasing Scots because the Money man kept complaining about expenses Vanguard gets cut at bridge Bad show for English

Soviet army's attempt to invade Finland- world's largest and best equipped military of the time (the Germans, contrary to popular belief, were absolutely inferior to the Russians as far as tanks, artillery and small arms went)...
You're thinking of the Russian army of 1943 or so. In 39/40 most of their officers had been killed or deported, their equipment was near non-existent, their morale was crap, the terrain bad and their winter clothing astonishingly little.
In 1939/40 the strongest military (numbers & technology wise) was probably France (maybe even Japan??? They already had experience).

A good one is the Austrian assault on Serbia at the beginning of WW1. Certainly somewhat of an embarassment.
Also good was Austria's initial offensive against Russia.
Then in WW2 there was Italy attacking today's Ethiopia, Italy attacking Albania and Greece and Romanian troops supposed to hold the line around Stalingrad (although they didn't have much of a chance there, so I guess it doesn't count).
Why does it always have to be Germany's allies? ;)

Romanian forces against 16 Divisions or something
Hungary and Italy were there too.
But Rumania and Hungary ont get along i wonder why that is?
IS it Vlad The Impaler's fault?
Or was one Christian and the other wasnt back in the day?

Well, General Custer springs to mind...

How do you call it in England, the Invincible Armada?

You know, that Armada that Filipe the Second of Spain sent against the Brits in the 16th Century.. that was absolutly anihilated by the British? That is very fun to read!

-snip the Spanish Armada-
Although the weather wasn't exactly to their advantage. But they did manage to squander Spanish world domination, so I say that qualifies as a blunder.

Romanian forces against 16 Divisions or something
Hungary and Italy were there too.
But Rumania and Hungary ont get along i wonder why that is?
IS it Vlad The Impaler's fault?
Or was one Christian and the other wasnt back in the day?
I don't actually know why they wouldn't like each other. I know one of them was a genuine ally, the other was invaded and a Nazi man installed. But I can't remember who was who.
And where was Bulgaria?

You're thinking of the Russian army of 1943 or so. In 39/40 most of their officers had been killed or deported, their equipment was near non-existent, their morale was crap, the terrain bad and their winter clothing astonishingly little.
In 1939/40 the strongest military (numbers & technology wise) was probably France (maybe even Japan??? They already had experience).


And that'd be why Japan won the Soviet-Japanese Border War in 1939, right?

It'd certainly explain Zhukovs rout at the Battle of Halhin Gol.

It would also explain why the "strike north" faction of the Japanese military trumped the "strike south" faction, and Japan seized Siberia.

No? That's right, no.

The Soviets kicked Japanese butt hard enough that they didn't bother them again. The Japanese military concluded the Red Army was too strong, and followed a southern policy, leading directly to the attack on Pearl Harbor. And Zhukov gained experience that directly contributed to his winning the Battle of Moscow, and his Siberian divisions gained experience that helped when they spearheaded the first successful Soviet counter-offensives against the German invasion during '41.

Equipment-wise, the T-34 was first introduced in 1940.

Docterinally, a good example of Soviet advanceedness would be the Airborne forces (1936).

Well, General Custer springs to mind...

Now there's a darn good choice.

Here's one:

Hitler's army neglecting to take coats to Russia seems like a bit of an oversight.

He was unstoppable, until he hit the Russian winter. Probably should've seen that coming.

Kind of drives home my belief that politicians are incapable of learning.

You're thinking of the Russian army of 1943 or so. In 39/40 most of their officers had been killed or deported, their equipment was near non-existent, their morale was crap, the terrain bad and their winter clothing astonishingly little.
In 1939/40 the strongest military (numbers & technology wise) was probably France (maybe even Japan??? They already had experience).
I am talking 1940, actually.

In 1939, the Russians had handed Japan its arse on a silver platter in the battle of Chalkin Gol. By 1939, the Soviet Union had the most advanced (and numerous) artillery in the world, the best tanks (both T34 and KV series were already in serial production, KV being the world's only heavy tank until as late as 1942), the best ground attack aircraft (IL2 Shturmovik), some radically new weapon systems not avaliable anywhere else (Katysha rockets) and much more, including the SVT rifle that was much better than the US Garand. Stalin's repressions did not weaken the army as much as it is commonly believed, as those arrested, killed or jailed were mostly from the political rank (the Comissars and the so-called politruks, "political guides"). However, where the Red Army indeed failed was troop training and weapons maintenance. The SVT rifle, a much valued weapon among the Axis soldiers who were lucky to capture it, was hated by the Soviets because, as any semi-auto, it needed more maintenance and care than the bolt-action Mosin-Nagant, so only the Russian Marines made real use of it. The excellent KV tanks, invincible to German tanks and anti-tank artillery in 1941 (all the Germans had to counter them with were 88mm flak cannons meant for anti-aircraft warfare), had suffered almost five times more losses to technical malfunction than to enemy fire. The soldiers' personal equipment and clothing were also very poor.


Jordan's entering of the 1967 Six Day war against Israel also probably ranks high on stupidity. A peaceful country with a fine, but modestly sized military watches two much larger armies-Egypt and Syria- armed to the teeth with the cutting edge Soviet weaponry, destroyed within mere days by the Israelis and STILL decides to take their chances. Predictably, they get their butt kicked till the eastern bank of the Jordan river, losing a substantial chunk of territory (granted, not their territory, but one illegally occupied and annexed by Jordan in 1948), losing Jerusalem, losing the status of the keepers of one of the holy places of Islam- the Al-Aksa mosque- for no good reason whatsoever. King Abdullah didn't even WANT to enter the war, he just took offense at the Arab league calling him "spineless".

Romanian forces against 16 Divisions or something
Hungary and Italy were there too.
But Rumania and Hungary ont get along i wonder why that is?
IS it Vlad The Impaler's fault?
Or was one Christian and the other wasnt back in the day?

Indeed Romania was just an inoffensive (albeit fascist, just like Poland, Greece, Yugoslavia and a handful of other allied nations) state that Hitler bullied into installing a quisling government while Hungary (under the government of the rather horrid admiral Horthy) was genuinely convinced that Hitler and the Nazis were the best option. Hungary was also Hitler's last European ally after Italy and the other Balkan axis states (whether genuine or not) had defected to the allied side. Bulgaria was quite a different story: they were historical allies of Germany ever since the Balkan wars of the 1900s and joined the war on the axis side because of historical ties with Germany as a country rather than because they liked the Nazis so much (which is not much of an excuse, of course). Bulgaria also had a historical quarrel with Greece over southern Thrace (that's the region around Alexandroupoli in Greece, nowadays) and was keen to invade Greece on the slightest excuse. Bulgaria was, however, not involved in the invasion of Russia.

It may also be noted (as we're also talking of Jews) that, after the war, both Romania and Bulgaria claimed to have joined the axis cause in order to protect their Jewish communities... Thus, they did succeed in keeping most of the allied wrath at bay.

This is, however, only a small part of the reason why Hungary and Romania don't get along these days (and have, indeed, never got along very well). The idea basically goes back to the 17th century (and, indeed, beyond), when the frontier between the Austrian and Turkish empires (or their spheres of influence) ran bang across modern Romania: Transylvania and the Banat (western Romania) were under Hungarian and later Austrian influence, while the rest of the country was under the Turkish boot. The Turks were not that bad in their domination of the country and pretty much left the local people to do their own thing, but the Hungarians deliberately de-romanized and catholicized their part of the country. As a result, large numbers of ethnic Hungarians still live in Transylvania.

Upon the independence of 'Turkish Romania' in the late 19th century, its government's most important issue was the so-called recovery of Transylvania. This is also the prime reason why Romania entered World War I on the allied side: fighting against the Austrians, still holding Transylvania. They succeeded: the Austrians lost the war and Transylvania was annexed by Romania. Needless to say, the ethnic Hungarians living there did not like this very much, but additional clauses of the peace treaty stated that they were not allowed to emigrate to Hungary. With the past roles reversed, the Hungarians of Transylvania were now victims rather than perpetrators of oppression.

In comes Hitler, and to please Horthy he bullies Romania into accepting the so-called Berlin dictate: large swathes of Transylvania are to be ceded to Hungary again. This situation is again reversed at the end of the war, but the Transylvanian question is still rather sensitive in both Romania and Hungary. Recently there was another jolt of trouble when the Hungarian government planned to bring in a law granting Hungarian citizenship to anyone of Hungarian ethnicity, wherever they lived. Needless to say, the leaders of Romania nearly choked on their coffee when they heard about this, and Hungary was forced to repeal the law.

After this rather lengthy and slightly off-topic contribution, I will bring on a number of historical military stupidities as well...

I am talking 1940, actually.

In 1939, the Russians had handed Japan its arse on a silver platter in the battle of Chalkin Gol. By 1939, the Soviet Union had the most advanced (and numerous) artillery in the world, the best tanks (both T34 and KV series were already in serial production, KV being the world's only heavy tank until as late as 1942), the best ground attack aircraft (IL2 Shturmovik), some radically new weapon systems not avaliable anywhere else (Katysha rockets) and much more, including the SVT rifle that was much better than the US Garand. Stalin's repressions did not weaken the army as much as it is commonly believed, as those arrested, killed or jailed were mostly from the political rank (the Comissars and the so-called politruks, "political guides"). However, where the Red Army indeed failed was troop training and weapons maintenance. The SVT rifle, a much valued weapon among the Axis soldiers who were lucky to capture it, was hated by the Soviets because, as any semi-auto, it needed more maintenance and care than the bolt-action Mosin-Nagant, so only the Russian Marines made real use of it. The excellent KV tanks, invincible to German tanks and anti-tank artillery in 1941 (all the Germans had to counter them with were 88mm flak cannons meant for anti-aircraft warfare), had suffered almost five times more losses to technical malfunction than to enemy fire. The soldiers' personal equipment and clothing were also very poor.


Jordan's entering of the 1967 Six Day war against Israel also probably ranks high on stupidity. A peaceful country with a fine, but modestly sized military watches two much larger armies-Egypt and Syria- armed to the teeth with the cutting edge Soviet weaponry, destroyed within mere days by the Israelis and STILL decides to take their chances. Predictably, they get their butt kicked till the eastern bank of the Jordan river, losing a substantial chunk of territory (granted, not their territory, but one illegally occupied and annexed by Jordan in 1948), losing Jerusalem, losing the status of the keepers of one of the holy places of Islam- the Al-Aksa mosque- for no good reason whatsoever. King Abdullah didn't even WANT to enter the war, he just took offense at the Arab league calling him "spineless".

Good to see ya HW.
:D
The undeclared war seems to have been forgotten.

But T-34s didn't enter production until '40, AFAIK.

Thats right, everybody here seems to be an expert on all aspects of everything, so I figure we can have yet ANOTHER humerous and slightly political topic.
Make sure to give a REASON for your selection.
HOWEVER:
The event in question must be from BEFORE the year 2000 (AD, for you picky people). Before you shout 'VIETNAM!' you might want to consider the OTHER 6,000 years of human history in which people have been killing each other and writing things down.
Yes, the time limit is to prevent a billion people shouting 'ZOMG! IRAQ!'


Oooooh, mine comes in just under the wire.


The stupidest military event?

1999, The Danish Army

It became apparent that an upgrade in certain military equipment was needed by the danish forces, so - as with all thing military - it went through the proper sequence of event from requrements specification, needs analysis, tendering, purchase, and distribution. And, of course, being the military the equipment was standardized to ensure conformance to specification.

The problem? What they were requisitioning was cammo bras for their female soldiers, and the standardized assessment that the bulk of their female soldiers fit into a C-cup prooved to be either woefully inadequate (or over-adequate) in many circumstances. This decision had, of course, been largely driven by the military supply chain when the manufacturer assured the purchasing officer that this one single bra size would suit 90% of his female comrades.

The blowback in the way of morale, unit cohesion, and just plain fucking funny editorial cartoons rendered this decision a hilarious classic in the annals of milita stupidity.

I think, anyone attacking Russia is just plainly stupid.

Sadly, we can only go up to 2000 AD, CE whatever.
Anyways, another good one:
In the 1683 siege of Vienna. Turkish forces waited outside Vienna, while they could have overrun it. So, 300,000 turkish soldiers besiege a city of 16,000 defenders. In July, they started the siege. 2 months later, September 1683, they were overrun by 70,000 Polish, Bavarian, (German) Imperial troops.
They breached Viennas walls, but decided not to use them. Stupid.
Outnumbering the defenders 30:1, breaches in the walls, the best combat engineers of the time, cannons galore, and they don't charge? WTF.
Maybe not the stupidest thing in military history, but damn close.

Rumors go, that they wated for the black plague to break out in Vienna. Who knows.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Vienna

Oooooh, mine comes in just under the wire.


The stupidest military event?

1999, The Danish Army

It became apparent that an upgrade in certain military equipment was needed by the danish forces, so - as with all thing military - it went through the proper sequence of event from requrements specification, needs analysis, tendering, purchase, and distribution. And, of course, being the military the equipment was standardized to ensure conformance to specification.

The problem? What they were requisitioning was cammo bras for their female soldiers, and the standardized assessment that the bulk of their female soldiers fit into a C-cup prooved to be either woefully inadequate (or over-adequate) in many circumstances. This decision had, of course, been largely driven by the military supply chain when the manufacturer assured the purchasing officer that this one single bra size would suit 90% of his female comrades.

The blowback in the way of morale, unit cohesion, and just plain fucking funny editorial cartoons rendered this decision a hilarious classic in the annals of milita stupidity.

Good one!

:D

Good to see ya HW.
:D
Nice to see you too. :)

But T-34s didn't enter production until '40, AFAIK.
Actually, now when I think of it, I recall that both the T34 and the KV indeed appeared in 1940 (the first KV1 was battle tested in the beginning of the Finnish war alongside KV100 and SMK prototypes). But I should also add that even without these two, the Soviets had the BT series- world fastest tanks with which they defeated Japan- and the heavy tanks like T35- inferior to the KV yet superior to anything the rest of the world had.

Speaking of the KV- another stupid episode. The year is 1941, Germany invades the Soviet Union. A single Soviet KV1 tank (yes, ONE TANK) makes a stand near a strategically important road by the small town of Ostrov and delays the advance of the entire GERMAN TANK ARMY (approx. 25% of the total German tank force on the Eastern front). The German generals, proud Aryans that they were, refused to believe that their "world best" technology couldn't deal with one tank built and commanded by the inferior Slavs, so they continued to send more and more forces into the battle. Result: during the day the Nazis had lost 7 PZ III tanks (the best they had), an entire anti-tank artillery battery, 4 "Hanomag" halftracks an 12 trucks. The KV was destroyed only the day after, when the alarmed Germans finally decided to bring in their biggest guns- 88mm AA flak cannons and 105mm howitzers. Even this fight did not go bloodless for them, however: one 88mm cannon and its entire crew were lost before the KV could be immobilized with a direct hit to a track from a howitzer shell and became target practice.

The war between Paraguay and Bolivia over a postage stamp.

In the 1871 Paris Commune, the communards managed to capture three prize cannon of the Imperial army and take it to their encampment. Then, they celebrated the event and got drunk. The Imperial soldiers simply crept in and recovered the cannon while the communards were sleeping.

The year before (1870), the Prussians decided that they needed an external enemy to prove to their fellow Germans that unification (under the leadership of Prussia) was necessary. They picked France. Knowing that there were no grounds for a war against France, chancellor Bismarck devised a cunning plan: he openly called for a relative of the Prussian King to succede to the vacant throne of Spain and subsequently sent out a Prussian contingent to prove his point. French Emperor Napoleon III was outraged and wanted to invade Germany right away, but his ministers warned him that it was probably a trap (it was). Diplomacy succeeded in chasing the Prussians out of Spain, but Napoleon III sent a telegram to Berlin, asking for an apology. Bismarck cried out loud that he would not present an apology, "invade us if you dare". He dared. The ensuing war left France completely crippled, Germany united and Napoleon III on the run from his own people. Not a very good idea, that was.

The same Napoleon III, still in 1870, also decided that he wanted to protect the Pope and his rump state against Italian encroachment: he sent the foreign legion out to defend the Papal States. The Italians laughed generously and wiped out the foreign legion. Result: the foreign legion was no longer available for the German war...

The war between Paraguay and Bolivia over a postage stamp.

That sounds stupid... what are the details?

Hmm what do I submit...

Soviet army's attempt to invade Finland- world's largest and best equipped military of the time (the Germans, contrary to popular belief, were absolutely inferior to the Russians as far as tanks, artillery and small arms went) attacks a peaceful neighbor with a tiny military force, suffers casualties on almost 100:1 ratio and barely manages to secure a questionable victory, only to lose all the gained lands back a few years later when Finland allies itself with the invading Germany. The Russians, who of all people should have known a thing or two about cold winters, sent their troops to the most northern war in modern history during a -40 Celcius temperatures of the Finnish December without adequate winter clothes or weapon lubricants that wouldn't freeze. Doesn't get any more stupid than that, does it?

Ah yes but you forget to mention the state of the Soviet command. Most of the expeirenced officers and generals had been ruthlessly purged by Stalin, leaving a ragtag of sycophants and little else. Indeed just prior to the Second World War, many of Stalin's close council were still advising him to use calvary charges rather than tanks. The one man who stood up to this folly was quickly purged.

militarilly stupid.

1. Spanish Armada 1588 - Hey lets throw a bunch of ships all lashed together up a small channel with unpredictable weather, and not coordinate our forces, and then lets make the ships huge! um, didn't the persians try this long ago, yes they did, and what happened? they were trounced.

2. Operation Market Garden, a good plan, but they ignored intelligence reports, weather reports, and materiel limitations in favour of getting the mission off. And they failed

3. Russo- German non aggression pact, "So Mr Hitler, you say all my generals are plotting to overthrow me," Said Commrade Stalin, "I will have them killed immediately! For I know you would never attack me, even though your troops are training on my land, and using our factories to rebuild your military might, and your exercises are all against my forces, and we've stayed behind technological advancements, at your request" He continued.

4. Quintilius Veras, possibly the first example of allowing the son of someone important, who went AWOL from military service to lead an army against a determined enemy, without an exit strategy. Gotta wonder if there was an Vie Appia (Appian Way) memo?

5. 4th Crusade, the Children's crusade, what happened, the entire army got sold into slavery, always read the fine print on the contract, and don't deal with priates.

6. Dien Bien Phu, set up a base in a valley, which depends on air support for resupply, real smart.

7. Little Big Horn, 1879, one big SNAFU after another, and on top of it all, they were lead by a Prima- donna, George Armstrong Custer, LtCol, USA.

That's about it for the biggest, most far reaching militarily stupid events, there are many more political actions, which impacted the military, such as the treaty of Versailles which were monumentally stupid, but they were not strictly speaking military actions.

That sounds stupid... what are the details?
Paraguay published a stamp with a map of it's country on it - and a little bit extra from Bolivia. Bolivia got pissed off, published another stamp doing the same thing, and then it got worse and worse and worse and led to war. Not a big one, mind. But still loss of life.

During the Hundred Years War, at at least two separate occasions, the English had practically won the war. Each time, they managed to get blown away by a storm...

Also from the Hundred Years War: at Crécy the French had seen the English knights on foot, leading their horses down the hillside and leaping astride them when they came down for the full charge. At Poitiers, the French decided they could do the same: their knights gallopped down to the foot of the hill the English were occupying, then leapt off and attacked the English positions on foot. Needless to say, this trick does NOT work uphill.

And another one: at Crécy the French had been trounced because the English longbows, contrary to the French crossbows, could also be used in case of rain. At Agincourt, the French had learnt their lesson and stood, proud as peacocks, clutching their precious longbows. Unfortunately, this time, the English had guns...

The Sicilian Wars, or the Wars of Carthage and Syracuase as they might be known, were a series of confrontations fought between the Greek City States of Magna Grecia (Sicily) and the Carthaginan-Phoenician-Siculi Allies beginning with the battle of Himera in 480 B.C.E. After a complete century of fighting and territorial see-sawing, Carthage was only victorious in returning the status quo. No side gained any territorial advantage, and the only thing accomplished was the weakening of the island's powers just before the arrival of the Roman Empire.

The Carthaginians remained in control of Northwestern Sicily, the Greeks maintained their states on the eastern coast, and the Phoenecian-Siculi were left to their cities in the south. Syracause was replaced by Agrigento as the dominant Greek state, and the hegemony of the region was shifted toward more domestic rulers.




Certainly not the stupidest, but pointless nonetheless

Ah yes but you forget to mention the state of the Soviet command. Most of the expeirenced officers and generals had been ruthlessly purged by Stalin, leaving a ragtag of sycophants and little else. Indeed just prior to the Second World War, many of Stalin's close council were still advising him to use calvary charges rather than tanks. The one man who stood up to this folly was quickly purged.


You missed where he addressed that above.

Hogsweat, how about the Soccer War? That was equally stupid.

Dominus Gloriae: Market-Garden - ohhh, good choice.

During the Hundred Years War, at at least two separate occasions, the English had practically won the war. Each time, they managed to get blown away by a storm...

Also from the Hundred Years War: at Crécy the French had seen the English knights on foot, leading their horses down the hillside and leaping astride them when they came down for the full charge. At Poitiers, the French decided they could do the same: their knights gallopped down to the foot of the hill the English were occupying, then leapt off and attacked the English positions on foot. Needless to say, this trick does NOT work uphill.

And another one: at Crécy the French had been trounced because the English longbows, contrary to the French crossbows, could also be used in case of rain. At Agincourt, the French had learnt their lesson and stood, proud as peacocks, clutching their precious longbows. Unfortunately, this time, the English had guns...

They had guns at Agincourt? Don't remember that one, although I'm not a medivael history expert...

Oh, and since I'm still sitting her putting 'em down, my own contribution:

(probably out of the OP's given timeline, and certainly subject to lots of debate)

The moment when Og the Caveman picked up a rock and hit Thok the caveman. ;)

Not sure about for all of history, but for the Civil War, I gotta say Pickett's Charge, and the rest of Gettysburg for that matter were complete failures for the Confederacy.

3. Russo- German non aggression pact, "So Mr Hitler, you say all my generals are plotting to overthrow me," Said Commrade Stalin, "I will have them killed immediately! For I know you would never attack me, even though your troops are training on my land, and using our factories to rebuild your military might, and your exercises are all against my forces, and we've stayed behind technological advancements, at your request" He continued.

The Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was actually far worse for the Germans than the Soviets. The Pact handed Stalin the Baltic States and about half of Poland, allowing the Russians to march two hundred km closer to Berlin. The drive of the Army Group Center toward Moscow was halted 40 kms from its goal, with advanced patrols within line of sight of the Kremlin. Had the German forces jumped off from a line two-hundred kms closer to Moscow, they would have engulfed the Russian Capital, deposed Stalin, and won the campaign before the first flake of snow fell on the Smolensk road. At that point it is entirely possible to conceive England making peace. The German fourteenth Army advanced into Southeast Poland, far further than the Russian lines and were forced to withdraw because the land was promised to Russia.

The Germans gave away half of a country they could have easily conquered on their own. The biggest critic of the Pact was General Armin von Roon, a member of the German Armed Forces Operation Staff and author of "World Empire Lost".

During the Hundred Years War, at at least two separate occasions, the English had practically won the war. Each time, they managed to get blown away by a storm...

Also from the Hundred Years War: at Crécy the French had seen the English knights on foot, leading their horses down the hillside and leaping astride them when they came down for the full charge. At Poitiers, the French decided they could do the same: their knights gallopped down to the foot of the hill the English were occupying, then leapt off and attacked the English positions on foot. Needless to say, this trick does NOT work uphill.

And another one: at Crécy the French had been trounced because the English longbows, contrary to the French crossbows, could also be used in case of rain. At Agincourt, the French had learnt their lesson and stood, proud as peacocks, clutching their precious longbows. Unfortunately, this time, the English had guns...

Seeing as *cannon* weren't sucessfully employed until the Battles of Formigny (1450) and Castillon (1453), and Handgonnes weren't even in extensive use until in the Hussite wars of 1426-32, no.

Not sure about for all of history, but for the Civil War, I gotta say Pickett's Charge, and the rest of Gettysburg for that matter were complete failures for the Confederacy.

Yeah, JEB Stuart's running around not doing hids job, and Lee's failure to take the high ground were bad decisions.

Ah yes but you forget to mention the state of the Soviet command. Most of the expeirenced officers and generals had been ruthlessly purged by Stalin, leaving a ragtag of sycophants and little else.
I have addressed that.


Indeed just prior to the Second World War, many of Stalin's close council were still advising him to use calvary charges rather than tanks. The one man who stood up to this folly was quickly purged.
LOL! This is a classic misconception, almost as classic as the supposed Polish cavalry attacks on tanks (which is based on a German propaganda film). In reality, Stalin's purges got rid of the "old guard"- people who had achieved high ranks by being "revolutionary heroes", suppressing peasant rebellions against the Bolsheviks. The guy you are referring to as "quickly purged", Tuchachevsky, was one of them. He wrote lots of bombastically written strategic theories, but the truth is that his military "talent" was demonstrated by the total failure of the Bolshevik campaign against Poland in 1920, which I also submit as one of the stupidest military events. The glorious First Cavalry army made a lightning fast advance into the Polish territory...leaving behind those useless slow carts with supplies, food and ammunition. The Poles quickly exploited the error, cutting the Communists off their supplies and forcing them into forest combat where cavalry was not much use. Soon, the Russians ran out of ammo, ate most of their horses and hurried back home. Priceless, really.

Many of the "cavalry generals", by the way, became some of the best military leaders of World war II, successfully applying cavalry tactics to tank advance (which was exactly what they were suggesting from the get go). Voroshilov was the most famous of them, but I could name some others.

The Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was actually far worse for the Germans than the Soviets. The Pact handed Stalin the Baltic States and about half of Poland, allowing the Russians to march two hundred km closer to Berlin.
More importantly, the Pact handed Stalin the Bukovina area in Romania (present day Moldova), placing the Soviet forces within a cannon's shot from Germany's only source of oil, the Ploeshti oil fields.

You think historians would agree on that start date? I could offer you four perfectly valid ones right now.

BCE/CE is just a nicety. It allows us all to call it 2005 without any baggage. After all, it would be confusing if it were AD2005, the year 5765 for Jews, the year of the Rooster in China, 1425 to Islam. Even within Christianity there's no agreement on what year it is. So saying it's 2005 in the Common Era isn't that silly, it makes global communication easier and puts nobody out.

True, but for better or for worse, have one that is agreed upon:

The UN and every nation on earth uses AD/BC for international diplomacy and trade. The Islamic, Chinese, Burmese, Jewish and any other calendars are also-rans, just like "Metric Time" or "Paris Time".

And what do you mean about within Christianity there is no agreement? It's 2005! The Orthodox calendar is 13 days different from the Catholic/Protestant one.
http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/ea_calendar.aspx

<snip>

And another one: At Agincourt, the French had learnt their lesson and stood, proud as peacocks, clutching their precious longbows. Unfortunately, this time, the English had guns...

EEK!!! :eek:

* There was exactly one gun at Agincourt, and it was being used by the French.
* The French didn't have longbows, the Welsh serving with the English did.
* Most of the French at Agincourt were actually Italian mercenaries.

Pickett's charge:

Pointless and resulted in the absolute slaughter of a Confederate division.

After Atilla the Hun completely destroyed the Roman Army, he let himself be talked into just packing up and going back to Mongolia by the Pope. He could have owned the entire world.
He took with him several thousand pounds of gold as a ransom. And he didn't go back to Mongolia but to Hungary.

The first battle of Bull Run

Although very vicious and bloody, each side made tons of mistakes and in turn caused such. Mostly due to inexperience.

Though off the top of my head I can't remember if it was Cyrus or Darius, one of them sure fucked up when he decided he wantwd the Masagetae's land.
The Masagetae were a semi-nomadic tribe ruled by Tomyris, It's not like the Persian Empire really needed that little scrap of lame, but it was there, so they had to have it. Cyrus? first proposed marraige to Tomyris, but she saw though it and refused. He marched his troops to he border and she went out to parley. Supposedly she told him "Rule your own lands and be content to watch me rule mine."
While parley was going on Tomyris' son was in a gruop of youngsters harrassing the Persians. After Tomyris left her son was captured by Darius/cyrus. He committed suicide in captivity.
Now the fight was really on. In spite of having the most powerful military in the world the Persians got their asses handed to them I really think it was Darius, but I'm not sure. Anyway, he was killed in battle and Tomyris captured his body. Apparently earlier in their discussions she had told him if he persisted he would have "all the blood he could drink." She used a funnel to totally fill his corpse with blood. And ruled her folk quietly for the rest of her days.

Don't mess with us girls, especially not the Mamas. :D


EDIT: Found it! It was Cyrus the Great.

Although this really isn't a military event, it was a key part in a war so here it is:

The Treaty of Versailles:

Didn't solve any problems.
By putting all the blame on the Germans it made them resentful and poor, which in turn made them desperate, which helped one Adolf Hitler rise to power.

How about the British loss in the American Civil War?

It seems to me that this is the most quatifiably HUGE military mistake ever. The US now has an economy that is over 4 times the size of its parent country's!

I would have invested a little more in the defence, or recuperation effots, and kept the colinials subdued.

God save the Queen.

How about the British loss in the American Civil War?

It seems to me that this is the most quatifiably HUGE military mistake ever. The US now has an economy that is over 4 times the size of its parent country's!

I would have invested a little more in the defence, or recuperation effots, and kept the colinials subdued.

God save the Queen.


considering we still owned the rest of the world it really didnt seem that important at the time

How about the British loss in the American Civil War?

It seems to me that this is the most quatifiably HUGE military mistake ever. The US now has an economy that is over 4 times the size of its parent country's!

I would have invested a little more in the defence, or recuperation effots, and kept the colinials subdued.

God save the Queen.
Are you refering to the American Revolution, or the Civil War from 1861-1865? Because the British do have different names for our wars.

Although this really isn't a military event, it was a key part in a war so here it is:

The Treaty of Versailles:

Didn't solve any problems.
By putting all the blame on the Germans it made them resentful and poor, which in turn made them desperate, which helped one Adolf Hitler rise to power.


it was their fault...why shouldnt they have been blamed?

it was their fault...why shouldnt they have been blamed?
Partially. You see, other countries were involved too, Austria, Hell, what about the one the war started out with, Serbia?(Or was it that other one? Whatever)

Partially. You see, other countries were involved too, Austria, Hell, what about the one the war started out with, Serbia?(Or was it that other one? Whatever)

yes but it was germany who supproted austria in its invasion of serbia, if they had just let the russians and austrians just slog it out it wouldnt have been much of a problem..then i suppose you have to recognise the powder keg theory...either way ww1 was un-avoidable

The March of Folly : From Troy to Vietnam
by BARBARA W. TUCHMAN

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/0345308239.01._PIdp-schmooS,TopRight,7,-26_PE32_SCMZZZZZZZ_.jpg

A great read, certainly more of a page turner than your average history text. (From the woman who gave us "The Guns of August".) Anyway, the book has 4 parts: the Trojan War, the breakup of the Holy See provoked by the Renaissance Popes, the loss of the American colonies by Britain's George III, and the United States' persistent folly in Vietnam.

I found the Papal stuff slightly dull, but the American Revolution and Viet Nam chapters were each amazingly better. The American Revolution is taken almost entirely from the British POV, which was a very welcome change. :)

This is my favorite Tuchman book (after Guns), and I've read them all except for the one on Stillwell in China.

The Soccer War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soccer_War). Two Central American countries invade each other over a soccer game.

yes but it was germany who supproted austria in its invasion of serbia, if they had just let the russians and austrians just slog it out it wouldnt have been much of a problem..then i suppose you have to recognise the powder keg theory...either way ww1 was un-avoidable
Exactly. And due to the Treaty of Versailles, 21 years later, on Sept. 1, WWII starts up.

The Soccer War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soccer_War). Two Central American countries invade each other over a soccer game.
Amen!

Another pointless war was over a dog.

Partially. You see, other countries were involved too, Austria, Hell, what about the one the war started out with, Serbia?(Or was it that other one? Whatever)

A
Serbian anarchist assasinated the heir to the Austro-Hungarian Empire's throne. Austria declared war on Serbia. Russia declared it was the protector of all Slavic peoples and jumped in on Serbia's side. The Kaiser then felt compelled to leap to the defense of Austria, them being Germanic and Wilhelm being a twit. And so on and so on and so on.

it was their fault...why shouldnt they have been blamed?

Having Germany accept blame for the war would have been acceptable.

Having them PAY for the thing was just plain wrong.

Exactly. And due to the Treaty of Versailles, 21 years later, on Sept. 1, WWII starts up.

ah yes now think about what if the traty had never existed...what would have happened?.....the german people would still have been in depression and hitler stilll would probably have come to power

A
Serbian anarchist assasinated the heir to the Austro-Hungarian Empire's throne. Austria declared war on Serbia. Russia declared it was the protector of all Slavic peoples and jumped in on Serbia's side. The Kaiser then felt compelled to leap to the defense of Austria, them being Germanic and Wilhelm being a twit. And so on and so on and so on.

Kaiser Bill wasn't really a twit, but he was a bombastic man that had to help his only ally on the continent. There's a great passage in one of my books about the Kaiser being snubbed by the French and never being invited to Paris, which he always wanted. Some surmise that a state visit in 1910 or even as late as 1913 might have made WW1 into more of a regional thing, like the Crimean War.

Having Germany accept blame for the war would have been acceptable.

Having them PAY for the thing was just plain wrong.

Someone had to pay for it...i dont think germany should have paid for all of it, but being the main nation in the equation i think that they should have paid more than anyone else

The March of Folly : From Troy to Vietnam
by BARBARA W. TUCHMAN

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/0345308239.01._PIdp-schmooS,TopRight,7,-26_PE32_SCMZZZZZZZ_.jpg

A great read, certainly more of a page turner than your average history text. (From the woman who gave us "The Guns of August".) Anyway, the book has 4 parts: the Trojan War, the breakup of the Holy See provoked by the Renaissance Popes, the loss of the American colonies by Britain's George III, and the United States' persistent folly in Vietnam.

I found the Papal stuff slightly dull, but the American Revolution and Viet Nam chapters were each amazingly better. The American Revolution is taken almost entirely from the British POV, which was a very welcome change. :)

This is my favorite Tuchman book (after Guns), and I've read them all except for the one on Stillwell in China.

Does it mention the Rules of Engagement?

Someone had to pay for it...i dont think germany should have paid for all of it, but being the main nation in the equation i think that they should have paid more than anyone else

Why? Victors forcing the loser to pay for wars was not standard practice for most of mankind's history.

Sure, you might loot his cities/treasury and/or enslave the enemy, but leaving the state alive but in deep debt generally didn't happen.

The American Revolution, WW2, the Korean War, the Viet Nam war, the Boer War, the Russo-Japanese War, the Russo-Turkish War, the Crimean War, the War of the Roses... it was only for a very brief period that making the loser pay outright was done.
To whit, I can only come up with WW1 and the US Civil War... can you or someone come up with others?

Does it mention the Rules of Engagement?

Huh? :confused:

Everything the Hungary-Austrians did in WW1.

Everything the Italians did in WW2.

Huh? :confused:

For Vietnam. Examples:

1.Enemy MiGs couldn't be bombed while they were on the runway, but only after they were in the air, had been clearly identified, and showed "hostile intent." Even then, its base couldn't be bombed.

2.SAM sites couldn't be bombed while they were under construction, but only after they were operational.

3.Villages could never be bombed from the air, no matter how superficial their appearance.

4.Enemy trucks that wandered more than 204 feet off the Ho Chi Minh Trail could not be bombed.

5.Enemy forces couldn't be pursued into Cambodia, Laos, or North Vietnam.

6.At least 70% of the areas the Joint Chiefs of Staff recommended bombing were prohibited from being bombed.

7.Communist ships delivering supplies to the enemy couldn't be attacked, even if they shot at you.

8.Soldiers couldn't fire at the enemy until fired upon (provided the enemy missed).

9.Truck depots located more than 200 yards away from the road couldn't be bombed.

10.Hanoi and Haiphong were safe from bombing.

11.Haiphong Harbor couldn't be mined.

12.Most soldiers were equipped with severely out-dated weapons, uniforms, etc. (many of them older than the soldiers using them).

13.Airplanes were often seriously undersupplied, as were the troops. In one example, an entire platoon was issued only one rifle cleaning rod.

14.If a South Vietnamese forward air controller was not on an aircraft, it was forbidden to bomb enemy troops during a fire fight even though the Reds were clearly visible and were being pointed at by an officer on the ground. The aircraft's bombs were dumped in the ocean.

Are you refering to the American Revolution, or the Civil War from 1861-1865? Because the British do have different names for our wars.

Oops typo - yes I did mean the American Revolution/Civil War of 1861-1865. Poorly played, really.

Hitler not taking Gibraltar.

LOL Daistalla, and there was that one where the US nearly declared war on Canada because a Canadian pig crossed the border and ate potatoes...

Oh, and Jordan's entering of the 1967 Six Day War, as Womble said, was also very stupid.

Hitler declaring war on the US.

The Kaiser then felt compelled to leap to the defense of Austria, them being Germanic and Wilhelm being a twit.
Correction:
German diplomats urged the Austrians to back off.
German militaries told the Austrians they could count on German support.
Then later the Emperor said that he'd honour the alliance.

Just as France honoured its' alliance with Russia (so it could win back lost ground from 1871)
Just as Britain honoured its' alliance with Belgium (so it could keep its' place as the world's primary power)

Don't blame Germany anymore than you blame Russia or France (or even Britain for that matter).
Oh, and Belgium had the chance of just letting the Germans pass through, all expenses paid. They didn't want that either. It worked just fine in Luxembourg.

Although the weather wasn't exactly to their advantage. But they did manage to squander Spanish world domination, so I say that qualifies as a blunder.


I don't actually know why they wouldn't like each other. I know one of them was a genuine ally, the other was invaded and a Nazi man installed. But I can't remember who was who.
And where was Bulgaria?
In case no ones answered.

Bulgaria were Fervent but switched sides
Rumania had a Puppet regime after the King was killed(?)
Hungary stuck to it they were Nazi Nazi.

Oh, and Jordan's entering of the 1967 Six Day War, as Womble said, was also very stupid.
Not smart, but maybe they did it out of principle and solidarity. Afterall, the Israelis started it...

Don't know if this one has been mentioned yet, haven't read every post for 7 pages but it is kinda funny. During World War I, when chemical warfare was pretty new, the French were using some gas on the trenches and they gased themselves. Serious military blunder, that one is...

LOL Daistalla, and there was that one where the US nearly declared war on Canada because a Canadian pig crossed the border and ate potatoes...

I had forgotten about the The Pig War (http://www.nps.gov/sajh/Pig_War_new.htm) and had to go look that up. :) It was a bit more complicated than that, but still a stupid one.

"It would be a shocking event if...two nations should be precipitated into a war respecting the possession of a small island..."

--From the instructions to
General Winfield Scott, September 16,1859

It makes me give second thought to something I said in the thread about Wap Plan Crimson: that the US wouldn't invade Canada over land unless the US populaion growth rate was way higher. The US could always try to reassert it's claims in the North West.

Fifty-four forty or fight!

:D

And since the Soccer War and the Pig War have been mentioned, I cannot help but bring up the one and only War of Jenkins' Ear (http://www.usahistory.com/wars/jenkins.htm)

Like the first two, there were very real underlying tensions, but the casus belli was equally stupid.

And since the Soccer War and the Pig War have been mentioned, I cannot help but bring up the one and only War of Jenkins' Ear (http://www.usahistory.com/wars/jenkins.htm)

Like the first two, there were very real underlying tensions, but the casus belli was equally stupid.

Didn't that give rise to the expression "you are as stupid as the war" in france?

Didn't that give rise to the expression "you are as stupid as the war" in france?


No idea, but it sounds good to me.

No idea, but it sounds good to me.

Well don't quote me, but it sounds familiar. I think it is mentioned in HESP.

(So maybe churchill made it up).

I liked it when the British were trying to defend some place, and they pointed all the guns out to sea because no army could get through the jungle, and the Japanese army went through the jungle.

Khubla Khan(sp?)

Japanese Invasion. 50,000 ships(I do believe), the largest fleet in history(a couple times larger than that used in Normandy). Sent them to assault Japan. Massive Tropical Storm came out of no where, destroyed the entire fleet, and thus caused the fall of the Mongolian Empire. Moral of the Story: Don't mess with Japan. The crazy Japanese have some wicked Shinto Magic.

How can the French preparation for WWII be ignored in this?

If I can remember this correctly, there was a snafu with politics in the French High Command, and it led to the Marshall being fired, politicos resigning in protest, another Marshall stepping down, a ton of infighting... and then the Germans walk right around (and flew over), the Maginot Line.

Belgium, again. Who woulda' thunk it?

And France's command structure looked like a Picasso work.

I liked it when the British were trying to defend some place, and they pointed all the guns out to sea because no army could get through the jungle, and the Japanese army went through the jungle.

Singapore. And some batteries did have full traverse, but were only issued armor peircing rounds that weren't very effective against infantry.

Don't know if this one has been mentioned yet, haven't read every post for 7 pages but it is kinda funny. During World War I, when chemical warfare was pretty new, the French were using some gas on the trenches and they gased themselves. Serious military blunder, that one is...
At the time they only had big bottles of gas that they could open and hope for the wind to go towards the enemy.
Both sides ending up gassing themselves all the time, until they managed to put the gas into grenades.

Everything the Hungary-Austrians did in WW1.

Everything the Italians did in WW2.

Er... as a point of order, the Austro-Hungarian Empire was the only beligerent in WW1 to actually succeed in all of it's war aims. It kept the Italians on the other side of the Alps, took/kept control of all of the future Jugoslavia, and (with a LOT of German help) kept the Russians at bay.

I'll grant you that the AH army by mid-1915 was basically a well tailored version of a German militia, but hey...

For Vietnam. Examples:

1.Enemy MiGs couldn't be bombed while they were on the runway, but only after they were in the air, had been clearly identified, and showed "hostile intent." Even then, its base couldn't be bombed.

2.SAM sites couldn't be bombed while they were under construction, but only after they were operational.

3.Villages could never be bombed from the air, no matter how superficial their appearance.

4.Enemy trucks that wandered more than 204 feet off the Ho Chi Minh Trail could not be bombed.

5.Enemy forces couldn't be pursued into Cambodia, Laos, or North Vietnam.

6.At least 70% of the areas the Joint Chiefs of Staff recommended bombing were prohibited from being bombed.

7.Communist ships delivering supplies to the enemy couldn't be attacked, even if they shot at you.

8.Soldiers couldn't fire at the enemy until fired upon (provided the enemy missed).

9.Truck depots located more than 200 yards away from the road couldn't be bombed.

10.Hanoi and Haiphong were safe from bombing.

11.Haiphong Harbor couldn't be mined.

12.Most soldiers were equipped with severely out-dated weapons, uniforms, etc. (many of them older than the soldiers using them).

13.Airplanes were often seriously undersupplied, as were the troops. In one example, an entire platoon was issued only one rifle cleaning rod.

14.If a South Vietnamese forward air controller was not on an aircraft, it was forbidden to bomb enemy troops during a fire fight even though the Reds were clearly visible and were being pointed at by an officer on the ground. The aircraft's bombs were dumped in the ocean.

Briefly, but that's not what the book is about. It's more about how governments sometimes do things that aren't in it's best interests.
It goes into impressive detail about Kennedy and the French, for example.