The effective prosecution of any war requires a load of decisions at all junctures. Many times, commanders will blunder through misinformation, faulty intelligence, or a misreading of the tactical or strategic situation. We, safely ensconced here in the future can play Monday morning quarterback with the decision of the past often without acknowledging the fact that the commanders in question lack our brilliant hindsight; however, some decisions are simple unconscionable. One has to think that someone, somewhere had to look at this choice and say “God, this is stupid!” This list represents, in chronological order, ten of what I consider to be the dumbest decisions anyone ever made. Each of these decisions either resulted in tremendously unnecessary loss of men and materiel or it resulted in the ultimate loss or needless prolonging of the war in which it took place.
The only motivation I can fathom behind this idiotic blunder by a military genius is sheer boredom. To this point in his military career, Napoleon has known nothing but victory after victory. He’s conquered pretty much all of Europe that refused to ally with him and suddenly he was sitting around with the largest army ever gathered in Europe up until then with nothing to do. So Napoleon looks west, to Mother Russia.
We all know how it turned out but you have to think someone in that huge army knew it was a bad idea. In any event, he didn’t say anything and the rest is history. Napoleon invaded Russia with three quarters of a million men and didn’t fight much of a battle. The Russian retreated into the vastness of their country and burned everything in their wake. Result? Napoleon gets to Moscow only to find smoking ruins. Dejected at not getting to move his toy soldiers around on his big map, he turns the Grand Armee around and begins for home.
But then the real trouble began. Constant harassment by tiny, mobile Russian units. Constant hunger because the supply lines are cut in more places than Danish lace and, worst of all, winter sets in and the soldiers start freezing to death in droves. Three quarters of a million went in, but less than one in three would made it out.
Someone has remarked that the Alamo seems to show up on nearly every military list. Well, it’s a great story. Not the least great part about it was it was so totally unnecessary. All the Alamo consisted of was a tiny adobe walled mission in the middle of a prairie. Basically, Santa Anna, aka Napoleon of the West, decided the tiny garrison in the tiny fort had to be taught a lesson about Mexican politics by his great big army.
One just has to think that someone, some hard campaigning Sergeant in the Mexican force had to look around at the wide open prairie on both sides of the Alamo and think to himself, “Why don’t we just go around? We can even shoot at them as we go by, but let’s get to the rebel capital and put down the rebellion.”
Instead, mainly as a result of Santa Anna’s pride, the main Mexican army spends days and days held up attacking this insignificant little outpost. This needless delay gives the Texas government time to get organized, gives people time to flee, and gives the main Texan army time to get reinforced and into better position. The end result was the Battle of San Jacinto where old Santa Anna got caught napping – literally – and the Republic of Texas was born.
This one will be a little obscure to some, but in the grand scheme of things, it was a world-changing event. The cartridge in question was for the new Pattern 3 Enfield rifle that was to be issued to all the Empire’s troops and replace the older, less efficient models. On the surface this doesn’t seem like a big deal and to us, it probably wouldn’t be. However, in 1857, cartridges weren’t brass, they were paper, and to load them, one had to first BITE the end off the cartridge and pour the contained powder down the barrel of the muzzle loaded weapon. Again, no big deal, until one realizes one singularly important fact. The lubricating lard smeared on the cartridges was made from animal fat. This fat could be obtained from either pigs or cows. In and of itself, that doesn’t present a problem until one realizes that the vast majority of foreign troops in the British Empire were either Muslim or Hindu, especially in India. Now, pigs are unclean to Muslims and cows are sacred to the Hindus so the thought of putting a cartridge with lard into their mouths was anathema to both parties. It didn’t help matters much that the political climate in India was becoming a powder keg, but the lard cartridges proved the final straw – the match that blew the keg, so to speak.
What resulted is known to history as the Sepoy Rebellion or the Sepoy Mutiny. Basically, without going into the very involved, tense and delicate political situation, the Sepoys or Indian soldiers, refused to touch the cartridges which constitutes mutiny. When the first few were seen being punished by the British colonial overlords, the rest rose up and began a bloody rebellion that lasted 13 months and saw tremendous bloodshed and cruelty on both sides. The British severity in putting down the revolt – many leaders were tied to the mouths of cannon and blasted to bloody vapor — remained in the minds of the Indian people through the rest of the 19th century and through two world wars in the 20th. In many ways, the Indian Independence Movement lead by Gandhi can trace its roots to this one monumentally boneheaded decision.
During the American Civil War, one of the qualities that made General Robert E. Lee of the Confederacy so effective was the mysteriousness with which he moved and operated. His troops seemed to appear, fight, and melt away with uncanny speed. Now in reality, this was nothing more supernatural than very detailed and well-executed battle plans. Imagine what the Union generals could have done if they had only possessed a copy of one of Lee’s battle plans. In a wildly providential moment, that is exactly what happened on the eve of the Battle of Sharpsburg in September of 1862.
Union General George McClellan’s 90,000-man Army of the Potomac was moving to intercept Lee, and occupied a campsite the Confederates had vacated just a few days before. While setting up their tent, two Union soldiers discovered a copy of Lee’s detailed battle plans wrapped around three cigars. The order indicated that Lee had divided his army and dispersed portions, intending to bring battle near Antietam Creek. Everything was there in writing. It was a colossal blunder by some Confederate officer.
The outcome would have been even more disastrous for the Confederates had not McClellan waited about 18 hours before deciding to take advantage of this intelligence and reposition his forces. As it was, the Battle of Sharpsburg (or Antietam) would be the single bloodiest day of combat in American history with 23,000 killed and countless wounded before the sun set.
All that saved Lee was McClellan’s indecision. Still, the battle sapped numbers of soldiers that the Confederacy could ill afford to lose. More importantly, though, was the fact that England had been teetering on the fence of coming into the war to aid their cotton supplying Confederates, but with the outcome of Antietam, they decided to sit back for a little while longer, thus robbing the Confederacy of help it desperately needed. A different choice of wrapping paper could have made all the difference in the world to the history of North America.
It sometimes looks like Lee did have some sort of guardian angel; either that or the Northern generals before Grant were all monumentally stupid. The former is more romantic, but the latter is easier to prove. In any event, Meade’s decision to let Lee slip back to Virginia is another example of Lee’s luck and an opposing general’s horrendous decision making ability.
The Army of Northern Virginia was done. Three days at Gettysburg had reduced the proud rebels to a shell of their former strength. Devil’s Den, Little Round Top, the Peach Orchard, and, at the last, Pickett’s Charge up Cemetery Ridge had produced the High Water Mark of the Confederacy. With all his reserves spent, Lee was gathering his badly mauled forces and trying mightily to make it back to the relative safety of Ol’ Virginy.
In his way was the rain swollen Potomac River. On his flanks were the persistent if largely ineffectual Union cavalry pickets. The roads were a quagmire of mud. In all, the stage was set for the final crushing blow to be delivered by the Army of the Potomac, which had several reserves that had seen little if any fighting. They would sweep down on the defeated boys in grey like an avenging blue tide. The Army of Northern Virginia would be crushed and the Civil War would be all but over. All that remained was for General Meade to give the order to attack.
Well, the order never came. For reasons that, to this day, are unclear Meade was reluctant to follow Lee. Instead, he gathered his forces in strength and waited. No one is quite sure what he was waiting for, but when President Lincoln found out that Meade had literally allowed the end of the war to slip through his hands, Honest Abe was incensed. It was largely Meade’s indecision that resulted in General Grant being called east from Vicksburg and placed in command of the Army of the Potomac. Had Meade attacked the defeated rebels at that opportune moment, the Civil War probably would not have drug on in a morass of attrition for nearly two more years. Countless lives, Union and Confederate alike, could have been spared and the Reconstruction Period would likely have looked much different.
It is generally held to be a good idea among most military men that, when the latest and greatest weapons are available, they should be used. The newly patented Gatling Gun was the earliest machine gun and had completed its trials. Custer had two to four of the guns and abundant ammunition available when he set out to uproot a “small Indian village” on the bank of the Little Bighorn River. Custer’s reasoning behind not using them was that the Gatling guns would impede his march and hamper his mobility. More importantly, he also is said to have believed that the use of so devastating a weapon would “cause him to lose face with the Indians.” Considering reports of Custer’s vanity, this is not hard to believe.
These problems do not change the fact that the Gatling guns would have been a decided equalizer in the face of what turned out to be overwhelming Indian superiority, and that elsewhere in the Indian wars, the Indians often reacted to new army weapons by breaking off the fight. Instead, Custer led more than 250 doomed men of the famous 7th Cavalry into the Montana hill country. If he had taken the then greatly improved machine guns with him the outcome of the much-discussed Last Stand would surely have been very different.
What could have been going through Custer’s mind as he stood, the breeze whipping his famous golden hair behind him, his loyal men dead all about him, and several hundred Sioux warriors galloping towards him intent on making him a human pincushion? Could it possibly have been, “I really could use those Gatling guns right about now.”
By the start of 1915, the Great War had ground to a halt. The trench lines stretched from Belgium through Italy and neither side was making progress. The war had devolved into mad suicide rushes across no man’s land into the teeth of the new Maxim guns. Predictably, casualties were mounting daily and the war that “will be over by Christmas” seemed to have no end in sight. To make matters worse, Russia was getting their mess kits handed to them all up and down the Eastern Front and the tsardom was beginning to look shaky. The German navy had cut all the usual supply lines to accessible ports and any port safe from the German fleet was either icebound or entirely too far away to be of any practical use. Something had to be done and quickly.
Enter Lord of the Admiralty, Winston Churchill. Now Churchill is well know for his personal bravery as well as his usually keen mind. He is also known for being a fan of a good stiff drink and apparently, he’d had several when he thought of this plan. Churchill proposed that a third front be opened up in the western Mediterranean. Specifically, he planned an attack on the Ottoman Empire held Dardanelles. The attack on what he termed the “soft underbelly of the Central Powers” would open up a warm water resupply depot for Russia and effectively turn the flank of the vast trench network. It was a great idea in theory and on paper.
The Gallipoli Campaign took place at Gallipoli peninsula in Turkey from 25 April 1915 to 9 January 1916. The intent was for a joint amphibian attack by British Empire and French forces up the peninsula to capture the Ottoman capital of Istanbul. To put it mildly, the attempt failed miserably with heavy casualties on both sides. The whole operation was botched from the beginning. The planned invasion was tipped off to the Turks who reinforced the peninsula with heavy guns and additional troops. Once the invasion began, it quickly stalled on the beachhead, thwarted by the Turkish occupation of the high ground.
To make a very detailed and long story short, the allied forces, the bulk of which were Australians and New Zealanders (who ultimately had the highest number of dead per capita of all nations in the war), were essentially trapped on the beaches in the open for months. No real progress was ever made inland despite several dogged attempts all around the peninsula. Promised naval artillery support was cut short as soon as the Admiralty found out – by the sinking of two battleships – that German U-boats were in the waters. The whole event was an unmitigated disaster. Conditions were unreal. In the summer, the heat was atrocious, which in conjunction with bad sanitation, led to so many flies that eating became extremely difficult. Corpses, left in the open, became bloated and stank. The precarious Allied bases were poorly situated and caused supply and shelter problems. A dysentery epidemic spread through the Allied trenches. Autumn and winter brought relief from the heat, but also led to gales, flooding and frostbite.
In the end, Churchill was sacked as Lord of the Admiralty, several generals saw their careers ended but most of all; tens of thousands of men on both sides were killed for absolutely no gain whatsoever. To this day, Gallipoli is remembered as ANZAC Day in Australia and New Zealand in honor of all the brave ANZACs who gave their lives for a stupid decision.
Honestly? See item 10. Replace “Napoleon” with “Hitler”, “Russia” with “Soviet Union”, and “Le Grand Armee” with “Wermacht” and you have the gist of the story. Operation Barbarossa was, without a doubt, the worst case of someone who failed to learn from history being doomed to repeat it. Adolf Hitler proved that it’s not only teenagers who think, “It can’t happen to me.”
Wars are best run by the professionals. Lyndon B. Johnson was President, but he was not a professional soldier by any means during the Vietnam War. That did not stop him from blowing what was a small insurgency with American “advisors” into an all out “police action” that would claim the lives of nearly 60,000 American soldiers, sailors, and airmen before it ended two Presidents later.
Johnson expanded American involvement on the ground in Vietnam as soon as he took office after JFK’s assassination. Unfortunately for the troops, LBJ watched opinion polls and it is hard to fight a war if you watch opinion polls. Basically, field commanders couldn’t attack certain high value targets without Johnson’s say-so and, given the distances and the time it would take to brief the President on each given situation, the men were fighting one step behind at all times. He also took fire from the press who said he was too cozy with the defense businessmen and the war was justification for increased defense spending to make these businesses rich. That speculation, like Johnson’s supposed involvement in JFK’s assassination, is better left to the conspiracy theorists.
What is a fact, however, is LBJ’s insistence on being a hands-on Commander-in-Chief seriously handicapped American efforts in the jungles of Vietnam. Ultimately, his decision to try running a war based on opinion polls proved his undoing and he dropped out of the 1968 Presidential elections.
For centuries, countries outside of Afghanistan – from the Indian Mughals, to the British Empire, to the Islamic fundamentalists – have tried to impose their will upon the Afghan people. As a result, the Afghans are a hardy bunch and they can fight like devils. The are experts at guerilla warfare and it is always a safe bet to assume that whoever is invading them has enemies all to willing to supply the natives with effective weaponry. That is over 1200 years of history totally lost on the Soviets in 1979 when they sent in a massive number of troops to prop up the unpopular communist government in Kabul.
What followed was a ten year blood bath of death among the rocks. For years, Soviet Hind helicopters would hunt in the valleys for any of the Afghan fighters. Upon finding them, the guerillas would be mown down by cannon fire from the craft they called “The Crocodile”. Then the CIA saw a chance to return the favor the Soviets had played on the United States during its involvement in Vietnam and began supplying the Afghan fighters with Stinger surface to air missiles. So much for Soviet air superiority. Stingers shot down 333 Soviet helicopters in the course of the ten year war.
The saddest part is the Soviets had just witnessed the USA’s horrific ten year quagmire in Vietnam, but, like other groups in history, they figured it couldn’t happen to them. They were wrong. The Soviets lost 15,000 men and billions of rubles worth of equipment to Afghanistan and they got nothing in return. For the Afghans, the country was left devastated and ripe for a group called the Taliban to take over.






























@GTT (101): I’m pretty sure you’re talking about the movie Gallipoli (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0082432/).
I would say the OCCUPATION of Iraq 2.0 is probably warranted in the list. With no confirmed exit strategy, it is a waste of money, resources and most horribly, life.
Otherwise, great list. Though I would reconsider the wording of Napoleons entry into Russia. You said it several times in your prose. BIG ARMY with NOTHING TO DO. Those guys were hungry, and with money being spent like mad to shape up his newly made empire, I’m sure Napoleon thought he could get a quick bite in Russia. Too bad he had to stick around for the winter.
And to #23 Russ, I think it is you my friend who have been watching to much Msnbc if you believe the so called ‘allied casualties’ are below 2000. What allies? What was that about monkeys sent to blow up mines?
No Teutoburg Forest?
@60..(pearl harbor)
Japan was building an empire in the pacific at that time. By destroying the only other formidable naval force in that theatre makes perfect sense. As to why (Hiromoto?) did not carry out the full attack plan,(thankfully) is beyond me. It would have taken years to replenish the lost vessels.
great list mate.
a wrong military decision was the invasion of crete during ww2.
also where is invasion of iraq and afghanistan in modern times?
To much of USA for such a short history.
NO U!
@ Krishna:
The Mughals were NOT descended from Afghan tribes at all- Babur the founder of the Mughal Empire was of turko-mongol descent, albeit his army invaded from their base in Kabul. Furthermore, from the time of Akbar the Great, all the proceeding Mughals were intermixed as they started taking local wives.
I agree that consideration should be given to Alexander’s boneheaded attempt to invade India. In the modern era, three words: George Bush Jr.
how come there be No Iraq, No Afghanistan US invasions??
The guy in number 5 is in Night in the Museum 2 =)
number 7 is more of unluckiness than of bad military decisions… it could’ve been his generals who let it slip out or what so ever…
@Peter S. (121):
That was it. Just reread the summary and relived the darn movie in my head. Now I´m depressed all over again… Why my teacher decided it was a good movie to show elementary school children is beyond me.
@GTT (131): Elementary school? Aw, that’s just wrong. I’m all for confronting hard truths, but that’s like putting a novice boxer in the ring against Mike Tyson, then telling Tyson the opponent just kicked Tyson’s dog.
No. 3 was – at the time – the most logical move for Germany. Their ultimate enemy, the one that Hitler had been foaming at the mouth about ever since the Armistice, were the “Marxists.”
The Molotov-Ribentrop (Sp?) pact was purely to buy time for the mighty Wermacht to deal with the Western Allies.
Hitler’s intention was *always* to invade “Russia”, it wasn’t the after thought of a bored military “genius.”
Really, if the 6th army had captured Stalingrad – which they were close to doing – and the southern army group (whatever it was called) had secured the oil in the Caucasus for the Reich, well, the land to the West of the Urals could very well belong to a Nazi controlled Germanic state.
Hitler only has himself to blame for the royal screw up that was Barbarossa. But he came so very, very close to being the most powerful man in the world.
The greased cartridges with pig and cow fat was indeed a rumour. And it was widely spread to gather support for mutiny. There were also reports of mutinous sepoys using the controversial cartridges captured from ammunition depots.
However… the tallow used in the grease was unspecified, and that no extraordinary precaution was, at the beginning, taken to ensure the absence of any cow or pig fat.
Before the cartridges were ever even issued or a shot fired by any Indian forces, sepoys and their Indian officers objected to their use at the Dum-Dum depot. After this incident, Colonel Birch, the Military Secretary ordered that all depots were to be issued free of grease and that the sepoys were to be allowed “to apply, with their own hands, whatever mixture for the purpose they may prefer”. The Inspector-General of Ordinance informed Birch that from now on strict orders were to be given for the exclusive use of sheep or goat fat, if it was decided that some form of tallow was necessary. This was all before a regiment even mutinied.
I believe also that orders were given that sepoys could rip open their cartridge papers, instead of biting them off.
INVADING IRAQ!!!!!!!
Giggity
Nice list! As an european, I know few about American History, but it seems very interesting nevertheless.
Napoleon, and WW II stories are always fun, since we already know who will lose eventually. Imagine if Operation Barbossa was successful!
I would also mention the argentinian attempt to recover the Falkland islands from England in 1982. The military goverment thougth UK would not react: the islands are so small and distant!! And they also thougth USA would support Argentina…
Actually, Napoleon invaded Russia because dispite a treaty of alliance, they continued to trade with Napoleon’s mortal enemy, England.
TOP FIVE ARMIES!!!!
1st.RUSSIA
2nd. PAKISTAN
3rd. BRITISH
4th. USA
5th. GERMANS
The difference between Napoleon and Hitler, is with Napoleon, it was a genuine mistake. Hitler was a megalomaniac, who believed that he was invincible, and didn`t have to listen to anyone. Britain`s 3 invasions of Afhganistan, were disasters, and Scotland`s attempted invasion of England, where 10,000 Scots, and their king being killed, was a fiasco!
Worth to mention that the swedes made the same exact mistake as Napoleon and te Nazis.
Let’s see i think this was the one were we won a massive battle by call it strategy or luck but we decided to continue on which of course ended up in starvation and people freezing to death.
I don’t think Gallipoli is quite fair because it seemed like a very good idea and it would have been if the initial ships hadn’t been lost and Mustafa Kemal had listened to his commanders and not made his heroic stand to die for reinforcements.
You forgot to tell that with Afeganisthan invasion USA created Al-caeda and trained Osama!
Great list hitler should be #1 and afganstan shouldn`t on the list
@edu (143): You are retarded…
Hi
Great list. Two things to consider.
1. For the Alamo – It wasn’t important for Santa Anna to have the Alamo, but it might have been important to make sure the Texicans (sp?) didn’t have it. A military force in the rear area can pick off your supplies and reinforcements. It wouldn’t have been a factor given the war was over so quickly, but they didn’t know that then. I would still call it a mistake, but probably not one of the 10 greatest of all time.
2. Meade not attacking Lee. Lee was greatly weaken at Gettysburg, but he still had a sizeable army, powder and short range cannon shot. In the Civil War era a force behind entrenchements (which Lee, the old engineer was very good at building) could hold off a much larger force. Most current Civil War historians will agree that Lincoln was underestimating Lee’s army, and many think Meade made the right decision. For the record, I think that he should have attacked.
You could make a whole top ten with just military blunders from the American Civil War. I can’t recall right this moment if it was Meade or McLellan who insisted on those stupid pontoon bridges at Fredricksburg, when the Army could have forded the river just a mile upstream. Instead the CSA was able to dig into the hills above town and just slaughter the Federals. Then of course, there’s the peninsula campaign when McLellan was unwilling to listen to his intelligence and move his army around to intercept, engage and pursue the CS army. So many instances of inept military leadership on the Federal side, it’s just shameful when you consider these were the heros of the Mexican American war just 20 years prior.
What? No one quoting Eddie Izzard’s take on Hitler’s view of Napoleon?
“I’ve got a better idea, I’ve got a better idea! . . . Oh, it’s the same idea, it’s the same idea.”
No Major General Edward “Ned” P. King, Jr. surrender?
i dont know if it has already been mentioned but ide say the charge of the light brigade in the Crimean war has to be one of the most pointless waste of humans in military history. even though it was about 400 that died (much less than Gallipoli and others) the sheer bravery of the cavalry men to proceed a full charge on the Turkish front line of artillery with just their sabres..knowing that it was literally a charge into the valley of death is unfathomable to me…i dont know how some people can be that couragous.
I love this list. Very interesting, and thought-out
For those who have stated that Israel received arms from the US in the 48 war….wrong. The US did not begin arming Israel until during the 73 war. Opinions are nice, but facts are nicer.
One could argue though that the decision by Egypt and Syria (and then later Jordan) to attack Israel in 67 (the Six Day War) was one of the dumbest military decisions ever.
No.1 needs some fact checking…..
The Democratic Republic of Afghanistan (DRA) created a secular country where women had equal rights as men, there was land reform allowing the poorest members of their society to become self sufficient.
Alas, this wasn’t popular with the Hard-Core Islamic mujahideens who loved living in the stone age and trteating women as items to be owned….They turned to terrorism and violence to bring about the end of the Socialist government, helpfully funded by the USA who saw any attack on ‘commies’ as a good thing….
The Soviets were asked to provide support for the DRA and end the terrorism that was destroying the country….
So, the USSR provided troops, the USA threw money at the terrorists and the seeds of the place we find ourselves in were sown.
And who did LBJ have advising him? The leftovers from moron kennedy. Also, it is interesting to hear the arabs narrative of the USA invasion of iraq (2003). It appears that one of the reasons the muslim community and the left are so incensed about that military action is that it netted the USA a whole bunch of intelligence that the above mentioned group would rather the USA did not have.
Ignorance on parade here. How about the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor? How about Varus in Germany? How about resistance to the Mongols, Huns, etc. How about Cannae? How about Tours/Poitiers? This list obviously is to make a tendentious political point, if Afghanistan is the best it can do. If you’ve never heard of the battles I mention, perhaps you should refrain from contributing to this list until you know history a little better.
The people of Afghanistan are Afghans not Afghanis. The afghanis is the currency of the country.
The rifle you have pictured as the one responsible for the 1857 Indian Mutiny is terribly wrong. The Enfield Rifle pictured is a “modern” firearm which wasn’t manufactured until some 50 years after the mutiny. (Note the magazine, which of course was impossible in an 1850′s muzzle-loading black powder weapon.)
The Enfield rifle you want is the 1853 Enfield found here: http://www.indianetzone.com/photos_gallery/8/Enfield-P-53_15633.jpg
This is a huge error which badly undermines your credibility as an authority on “worst military blunders”. Perhaps you think it hyper-critical to say that it is impossible for a person qualified to give such a judgment to have been in ignorance of the correct weapon. But I assure you the difference in the appearance of an 1853 muzzleloader and a 1910 magazine-fed bolt-action rifle is so very basic that a elementary-school-aged child only moderately interested in military history could have immediately pointed out the error.
@jum1801 (157): It’s not meant to be the exact, absolute type of rifle they used at that period of time and would have been used during the mutiny. It isn’t really even meant to be vaguely that gun.
It’s [the picture included] meant to be a rifle, just a rifle.
“…This is a huge error which badly undermines your credibility as an authority on “worst military blunders”…”
Lol, are you serious?
lol, I wonder why the American invasion’s of Iraq & Afghanistan haven’t made this list? They are still ongoing, I know, but they are still going to lose as history teaches us
…
Also,
“Gallipoli is remembered as ANZAC Day in Australia and New Zealand in honor of all the brave ANZACs who gave their lives for a stupid decision.”
With the above quote, cant we relate this to any war? As in, all wars are stupid? Just a thought..
@l to the t (159): Not all wars are stupid. If a country declares war on another for something they did that was belligerent or generally bad – think the UK in ’39 – then I don’t think that war counts as “stupid” so much as necessary.
@Mark (160): They are really when you consider the loss of innocent life involved. Not to mention the seeds of hate it sews for generations to come? Then there’s all the bs reasons & lies politicians use to send people to war i.e propaganda..
I’m sorry, but war is totally immoral.
@l to the t (161): War is not immoral, it is necessary. I’m not a consequentalist, I’m a realist. I don’t think that the ends necessarily justify the means, what happens in the middle is what life is about. But sometimes what happens in the middle isn’t the optimal choice, or even one that’s “right”, as those with a strong moral compass would tell you. But I believe there are degrees of wrongness, and letting a big country push a little one around falls farther from the middle than going to war with said country if you ask me.
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t believe that war is cool and I’m not a militaristic or nationalistic person. I don’t even think that war is the right way to be solving problems. But when you’ve got no other choices, you do what you can. That bravery shouldn’t earn you contempt.
@Mark (162): Defending yourself when you’re being attacked or invaded, I totally understand. Everyone has the right to defend themselves.
It’s when you look at history and you see it repeating itself time & time again? *I dont want to go into detail* That’s the most frustrating part.
Isn’t life also about learning from your own & other people’s mistakes?
Anyway, all in all, I see where you’re coming from mate. Back to work for me.
@l to the t (163): I don’t necessarily mean just the cliches of being invaded and having to fight. I mean, sometimes a pre-emptive strike may be necessary to quickly destroy a potentially dangerous enemy. If you kill less civilians doing that than a full blown war – just a little, quick one – then isn’t that the right choice?
In my opinion everything needs to be considered on relative merits, I don’t like absolute moral statements like “war is bad”. I appreciate that you can see where I’m coming from, as I can appreciate your side of the argument.
P.S. Mate? Another Australian
I’m not so sure on the pre-emptive strike. You’d have to be very careful for every action there is a reaction.
A little off topic, but do you remember Beslan? Do you know why the man leading that massacre, did what he did? It was because a Russian helicopter had come to his village & killed his wife & children in a pre-emptive strike. Accident, I know, but this is the sort of thing I was talking about war sewing the seeds of hatred for generations to come.
lol, yeah mate.. I’m Australian.
@l to the t (165): ***** ups happpen. No matter what, they’re going to happen. Just like war, without it Germany would never have united and there would never had been the feverish race for technology that has been occuring since the discovery of calculus.
Without stuff like that, what type of world would we live in?
True, war did unite Germany, but war also seperated her again afterwards.
That was the industrial age for you. Such a big step was taken in technological advancements in the way of fighting over land, sea & air & we sure found plenty of new & interesting ways of killing each other *And still are till this day *Dammit**, but how many of these inventions during WWII benefit us as a society with our day to day lives?
There’s a new list right there! =P
“Churchill proposed that a third front be opened up in the western Mediterranean. ”
Isn’t Turkey in the eastern Mediterranean?
Excuse me if someone else caught that. I glanced over 167 comments, and I don’t think anyone did.
Also, although it was not a formal war or strategic decision, America’s obsession with communism cost her dearly. There was Vietnam. There was the creation of the Taliban to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan.
In the seventies, Iran was crawling with CIA. And yet, the Islamic revolution was a total surprise. The spooks were there to spy on the Soviet Union. Meanwhile, The Shah was laying the groundwork for his own dismissal, which caught us by surprise. Then the Ayatollah took over and the embassy hostages were taken. Saddam Hussein was recruited to invade Iran. When Kuwait tried to collect on its war debt, Iraq invaded them. and on and on it goes.
Hitler had to delay his attack on Russia in order to save Mussolini in Greece. Otherwise he would have conquered Russia before the winter set in.
Oh, how I love history. ^-^
Germanys invasion of russia was not a blunder. Hitler feared (and quite rightly) that in a year or two russia would enter the war and invade their eastern territories. Using the Blitzkrieg tactic he decided to seize the oppurtuinty while the western front was tied down and russia were unprepared for war and attack quickly. You have to remember that they very nearly pulled it off and it was only the ruthless leadership and bravery of the russian soldier that slowed them long enough for the winter to set in and halt their progress entirely. Yes ideally you would never try to invade russia (in those days anyway) and hitler was in fact very reluctant to inavde russia but his hand was effectivley forced and tbh the german army did staggeringly well before the battle of stalingrad.
@Jangby (171): Yes, but he still failed spectacularly, didn’t he?
It doesnt matter if they failed(and whether it was a spectacular one is arguable), i am contesting it being considered a military blunder in terms of the decision making. It was absolutley the right decision in the circumstances irrespective of the likelehood of success. In fact i would consider it a very different scenario to the Napoleons decision to invade, with an entirely different set of circumstances.
Using Napoleon as an example, he failed in that he lost the battle of waterloo but most people consider his decision making as to where and when to meet wellingtons army and the decision to split the prussians from the british/allies to be pretty much spot on in those circumstances.
Good point. I’m just reluctant to let Hitler to get anything remotely like praise.
lol im Jangby btw, logged in on my blog account.
Dont get me wrong, im no lover of hitler or anything and i dont consider him a military genius or anything but i just disagreed with the list maker as to the blunderness of operation barbarossa.
I could figure that out, you were typing like it a reply.
commnet#62 Yawyack
I don`t think at the time anyone including Churchill himself, ever heard the name M.K.Ataturk before.
@Charlie (RE #100-shovel-shields) EXCELLENT suggestion for an honorable mention-I gathered from the list itself that the idea was to include military decisions that, like Custer’s refusal to use Gatlin guns, were intensely stupid in their own right, and although some of them MIGHT be stretching a tiny bit (e.g., #7, like McClellan’s indecision, perhaps unsure as to the validity of the “found” plans), the plan to use these “shovel-shields” as they were intended was immensely retarded in it’s own right.
Great list. I can also think of The Charge of the Light Brigade at the Battle of Balaclava. “Yes! Let’s charge the cannons, they cannot hurt us.”