PDA

View Full Version : Most Pointless War in History



leib10
04 Oct 05,, 16:03
My vote goes to WWI. Started by an assasination by a member of a country that hardly participated in the actual fighting, escalated by a domino effect of entries into the war, made terribly bloody by trenches, machine guns and artillery, and ended on conditions that made possible a second, much bloodier war just 21 years later.

sparten
04 Oct 05,, 16:09
The Soccer War,

The Siachin Conflict


My vote goes to WWI
Would have happened anyway

Ray
04 Oct 05,, 17:00
All wars.

Shek
04 Oct 05,, 17:44
Any one that I start with my wife. The outcome is already pre-determined :mad:

Ray
04 Oct 05,, 20:21
Shek,

Very true in most cases and not you alone! ;)

In India, I believe someone has started a Society for Bashed up Husbands! :tongue:

BanliochFear
04 Oct 05,, 22:52
My vote goes to WWI.


WWI was bound to happen. There was so much more to it than simply Archduke Franz Ferdinand being gunned down in Sarajevo. The European countries were just circling each other waiting for someone to make a wrong move. As far as its reasonings, it was not a waste. As far as its loss of life, it was ridiculous. The nations had all these new toys to inflict massive casualties, yet they had not updated their strategies to accomodate them. That led to needless death and suffering on a massive scale. The end of WWI with the Brits and French humiliating Germany setup for WWII. They really handled that poorly. France was just ecstatic to finally be on the victors' side and mad about their loss back in the 1870s. Therefore, I would have to agree that WWI was a pointless war only because of how it was fought and how it ended. Had Germany won the war prior to our involvement or had the terms of Versailles been fairer, that nation would have remained stable in the ensuing years. Russia would have emerged as the bigger aggressor in the 1930s and 1940s. I'm probably oversimplifying, but that is how things have seemed to me.




Personally, I'd go for the Children's Crusade. They had a whole mess of kids to be sent to the Holy Land. All the kids who went died when their ships sank or were enslaved.

Officer of Engineers
05 Oct 05,, 02:30
Shek,

Very true in most cases and not you alone! ;)

In India, I believe someone has started a Society for Bashed up Husbands! :tongue:
Sir, is that what they call the nudie bar in India?

gilgamesh
05 Oct 05,, 02:44
My vote goes to WWI. Started by an assasination by a member of a country that hardly participated in the actual fighting, escalated by a domino effect of entries into the war, made terribly bloody by trenches, machine guns and artillery, and ended on conditions that made possible a second, much bloodier war just 21 years later.

WW1 was the war of Empires. Good riddance to empires!

smilingassassin
05 Oct 05,, 06:25
I'd have to say the Vietnam war. It cost thousands of American lives, millions of Veitnamese, Veitnam turned communist anyway (and in turn was invaded by another communist nation afterwords) and it is used by defeatists, Commie lovers and isolationists to predict just how every other war started by America (no matter how well intentioned) will finish.


Any one that I start with my wife. The outcome is already pre-determined

....well ok...I think this beats everything......I'd rather face of with Genghis Khan than an angry wife!

lemontree
05 Oct 05,, 08:59
All wars.
My choice too, of an answer to this question.

sparten
05 Oct 05,, 11:34
In India, I believe someone has started a Society for Bashed up Husbands!

Whenever I hear feminists talk about "opression" I have to say bullsh*t. :)

lemontree
05 Oct 05,, 12:56
Whenever I hear feminists talk about "opression" ...
Instead you can tell them this....
During courthship - the woman gets the flowers and chocolates.
Engagement - The woman again gets the hediously expensive ring.
During the wedding - She again gets all the presents.
At divorce - she gets the alimony.
And when you kick the bucket - she gets all your property.
...and people still call it a "man's world". :rolleyes:

sparten
05 Oct 05,, 14:10
Instead you can tell them this....
During courthship - the woman gets the flowers and chocolates.
Engagement - The woman again gets the hediously expensive ring.
During the wedding - She again gets all the presents.
At divorce - she gets the alimony.
And when you kick the bucket - she gets all your property.
...and people still call it a "man's world".


Certainly sir.

I was interning at a lawfirm and was assisting on a divorce case. The women (who we were representing) managed to get the house, the car, alimony, the kids (okay I think that is proper) plus 60% of the estate.

Repatriated Canuck
05 Oct 05,, 14:19
".

Certainly sir.

I was interning at a lawfirm and was assisting on a divorce case. The women (who we were representing) managed to get the house, the car, alimony, the kids (okay I think that is proper) plus 60% of the estate.


Makes you want to do what some dude did here in the UK. Wife was leaving and selling the boat they lived on so he sunk the bastard in the middle of the night. :biggrin:

Repatriated Canuck
05 Oct 05,, 14:22
The Vietnam war when the French where still in charge. French-Indo China I believe. They got an a$$ kicking.

Officer of Engineers
05 Oct 05,, 14:22
My choice too, of an answer to this question.

The only wars more pointless than the ones we lost are the ones we won. We know what we lost but we win never compensates the sacrafices we make.

Blademaster
05 Oct 05,, 15:29
The only wars more pointless than the ones we lost are the ones we won. We know what we lost but we win never compensates the sacrafices we make.

I strongly disagree. One word: Freedom.

Everytime we win a war, we keep our freedom. That is worth the sacrifices we make.

Officer of Engineers
05 Oct 05,, 16:22
I strongly disagree. One word: Freedom.

Everytime we win a war, we keep our freedom. That is worth the sacrifices we make.
And then we see the likes of Clinton, Chirac, Trudeau, and Chretien, and wonder why the hell did we even bothered to bleed.

Ray
05 Oct 05,, 16:34
Sir, is that what they call the nudie bar in India?

;)

Now now, that will be telling.

I really would not be able to comment. As the WAB expert Asim who knows everything and then realises he knows nothing!

indianguy4u
05 Oct 05,, 16:36
How about 100 yrs war between Brits & french.

sparten
05 Oct 05,, 17:18
Makes you want to do what some dude did here in the UK. Wife was leaving and selling the boat they lived on so he sunk the bastard in the middle of the night.

Yes, I somehow feet that the courts would make him regret that.

NE Way People talk about divorce rates being high. Seriously with divorce laws as they are which women in her right mind would stay with her hubby?

Back to topic

I repeat, Siachin War.

Ray
05 Oct 05,, 18:15
Good reasons to feel that the Siachen Conflict is the worst! ;)

Many feel so.

I was there and found it quite exciting and great fun too!

Gets the adrenalin shooting!

Good for the heart! :cool:

sparten
05 Oct 05,, 18:32
I was there and found it quite exciting and great fun too!

Gets the adrenalin shooting!

Good for the heart!

You were there so you would know better sir, but fun in -65 C?

Ray
05 Oct 05,, 19:26
Clothing helps and so does movement.

Then the thrill of the shooting or the boredom of watching!

Life and Death!

Weather and no pangs of hunger.

The biting cold and the warm bukhari!

The mail! Weeks old!

Newspapers that tell of tales a month old!

The helicopter comes but goes back because of bad weather!

And yet.................

Millionaires cannot experience what one experiences!

Commando
06 Oct 05,, 00:55
The Cold war between the USA and the USSR.

sparten
06 Oct 05,, 04:42
Clothing helps and so does movement.

Then the thrill of the shooting or the boredom of watching!

Life and Death!

Weather and no pangs of hunger.

The biting cold and the warm bukhari!

The mail! Weeks old!

Newspapers that tell of tales a month old!

The helicopter comes but goes back because of bad weather!

And yet.................

Millionaires cannot experience what one experiences!

Thanks, but well sir I read in the Newspapers that PA sends proper cooked food to our troops instead of rations, to keep up morale. Wonder how much that costs?

lemontree
06 Oct 05,, 05:57
The only wars more pointless than the ones we lost are the ones we won. We know what we lost but we win never compensates the sacrafices we make.
Sir,
That is correct. Only those who have seen the senseless destruction of a war can understand its true horror. The worst to suffer are the civis that get stuck between two frothing armies.

Everytime we win a war, we keep our freedom. That is worth the sacrifices we make.
BM,
For victims of war like the one below, your statement is a cruel joke.
http://www.robert-fisk.com/burnedchild.jpg

Wraith601
06 Oct 05,, 06:05
How about the Crimean War?

lemontree
06 Oct 05,, 06:17
How about the Crimean War?
The brutality of the war had two most important by products - the creation of the "Red Cross" and (medical) Nursing as a profession.

Samudra
06 Oct 05,, 07:22
Millionaires cannot experience what one experiences!

Yeah,rub it in.... :frown:

Wraith601
07 Oct 05,, 06:32
The brutality of the war had two most important by products - the creation of the "Red Cross" and (medical) Nursing as a profession.

That's true, however the war was not bought in order to create the Red Cross, what did it accomplish on a political/international scale? If we assume Calusewitz was correct in likening politics to war than all wars must have some political motivation, comparing the cost of the war to the gains, if any, is a good barometer of how nessecary a war was. My knowledge of the Crimean War is quite limited but from what I know it really accomplished nothing.

lemontree
07 Oct 05,, 06:48
That's true, however the war was not bought in order to create the Red Cross,
If you read my post again, you will see that I mentioned that the Red Cross was a by product of the war.

what did it accomplish on a political/international scale? If we assume Calusewitz was correct in likening politics to war than all wars must have some political motivation,
War is political policy.

Wraith601
07 Oct 05,, 07:40
If you read my post again, you will see that I mentioned that the Red Cross was a by product of the war.

War is political policy.

Exactly a war can be pointless and still have important by products.

Ballguy
25 Dec 05,, 03:02
The Spanish American War and this current operation. I think we went in for the right reasons, stayed for the wrong ones.

leib10
25 Dec 05,, 04:01
Another one was the War of Jenkins' Ear. :biggrin:

giggs88
25 Dec 05,, 12:35
The Soccer War
A war over soccer, pointless?

Nevaarrrr!11 :tongue:

kNikS
06 Feb 06,, 22:06
...member of a country that hardly participated in the actual fighting... Do you have a clear idea what are you talking about?

gunnut
07 Feb 06,, 00:50
And then we see the likes of Clinton, Chirac, Trudeau, and Chretien, and wonder why the hell did we even bothered to bleed.

Was Paul Martin better or worse than Chretien? Do you think Steven Harper can steer Canada back from the left?

Officer of Engineers
07 Feb 06,, 03:58
Was Paul Martin better or worse than Chretien? Do you think Steven Harper can steer Canada back from the left?
Martin's tenure was too short and he was hampered by a strife within his own party to make any valid comparison to Chretien.

Harper is limited by a Minority Government. There is only so much he could do before the other side would force an election.

KPR
07 Feb 06,, 04:12
The Pig War (http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1030.html)

troung
07 Feb 06,, 05:17
Originally Posted by sparten
The Soccer War

The war was fought over far more then soccer. Illegal immagration, border issues and so forth.

kNikS
07 Feb 06,, 13:39
leibstandarte10, one more time, before I see anything similar to this statement:

...member of a country that hardly participated in the actual fighting... I’ll suggest you to read this:


…The Serbian army, coming up from the south of the country, met the Austrian army at the Battle of Cer on 12 August.

The Serbians occupied defensive positions against the Austrians. The first attack came on August 16, between parts of the 21st Austro–Hungarian division and parts of the Serbian Combined division. In harsh night-time fighting, the battle ebbed and flowed, until Stepa Stepanovic rallied the Serbian line. Three days later the Austrians retreated across the Danube, having suffered 21,000 casualties as against 16,000 Serbian. This marked the first major Allied victory of the war. The Austrians had not achieved their main goal of eliminating Serbia, and it became increasingly likely that Germany would have to maintain forces on two fronts…



The Battle of Cer (August 12-24. 1914) was one of the most glorious in the military history of Serbian people. Victory achieved by the Serbian Army in this battle was the first allied victory in the First World War (1914-1918). In the crucial part of the operation, on the Mt. Cer, Austro-Hungarian Fifth Army was defeated and pushed back across River Drina.

The Battle of Drina (September 6. - November 11. 1914) was the most difficult battle waged by the Serbian Army in WWI, particularly battles around middle flow of River Drina, battles of Gucevo and Mackov Kamen. It also stopped the second offensive of Austro-Hungarian Army on Serbia.

The Battle of Kolubara (November 16. - December 15. 1914) and the victory of the Serbian Army contributed to Serbian respect among the allies. In the final phase of the battle, in only 13 days, the Serbian Army managed to expel the enemy from the country and re-establish the fronts on Drina and Sava rivers.

The Battle near Mojkovac (January 6-7. 1916), in which Montenegrin Sandzak Army successfully defended itself against Austro-Hungarin offensive, significantly alleviated the operations of the Serbian Army, enabling it to withdraw its troops trough Montenegro towards Albania.

Albanian Golgotha - Retreat of the Serbian Army (November 1915 - January 1916), also known as "Serbian Golgotha through Albanian gorges" was carried out in the conditions of strong frost, hunger, fatigue, illness and almost every day battles against Bulgarians, Austria-Hungary and Albanians. Some 100,000 soldiers and refugees lost their lives during this legendary march-maneuver of the Serbian Army, which was compared by various historians with Napoleon's and Suvorov’s crossing the Alps.

Thessaloniki front (1916-1918) encompasses battles waged by the Entente forces against Central forces on the territory from the Orfan Bay, across Greece and Albania, to the Ionian Sea. In September 1916, the Serbian Army took part in the allied offensive, occupying Kajmakcalan after fierce struggle against Bulgarian forces.

Breakthrough of the Thessaloniki front and allied offensive in autumn 1918, in which the Serbian Army played a crucial role, belong to the most successful operations of the WW I.

Its participation in the WW I Serbia paid with around a million people (some 22% of the population) and Montenegro lost around 50,000 people (1/8 of the entire population).



The Battle of Kolubara was one of the greatest battles in Balkans during World War I. It was fought between Austria-Hungary and Serbia, and the Serbian army was victorious.

After the Battle of Drina, the Serbian army retreated on the right bank of the Kolubara river. The Serbian Army had 250,000 poorly equipped soldiers and the Austro-Hungarians had a well-equipped force of 280,000 men. On 16 November 1914, Austro-Hungarian Balkan Army group (5th and 6th Army), commanded by Field Marshal Potiorek, launched an attack over the river. Potiorek's goal was to take over the railroad that led from Obrenovac to Valjevo and to use it for supplying his troops instead of using muddy roads in Macva. The 5th Army, which held the northern part of the front, captured the town of Lazarevac which was held by the Serbian 2nd Army. In the south, parts of the 6th Army (15th and 16th Corps) attacked the 1st Serbian Army, captured Mount Maljen on 24 November, and put the Serbian left wing in a difficult situation. On the 25th November, 5th Army pushed back 2nd and 3rd Army, crossed the Ljig river and flanked the 1st Army.

Because the Serbian First Army was in difficult situation, its commander, General Zivojin Misic, wanted to abandon his current positions and retreat to the new position in front of Gornji Milanovac. His plan was to delay combat, rest his troops, and then launch the counteroffensive. Howewer, Field Marshal Putnik didn't approve that plan. He warned Misic that in that case other armies will also have to retreat, and Belgrade will have to be abandoned. But Misic firmly believed that his plan was the right one, and said to Putnik that the orders are already given, and that he will not change them while he is in command. In the end, Putnik accepted his plan.

When Belgrade was abandoned, Potiorek made a new plan. He wanted to amass the entire 5th Army in the Belgrade region and annihilate the 2nd army which was on the right wing of the Serbian front. Then the 5th Army would turn to the south, get behind the enemy and force him to capitulate. But Potiorek underestimated the offensive capabilities of the 1st Army in south. He thought that this army was too tired and weakened, and that it will stand and do nothing while his forces are maneuvering.

Austo-Hungarian soldiers were very tired even before this maneuver began. While they were marching, Serbian troops were resting in their new positions. On the 2 December, Misic finished all preparations for an attack. Putnik ordered the attack of the entire Serbian army on 3 December. That was the right moment, because the largest Austro-Hungarian formation, the Combined Corps, was out of combat, marching north.

On the 3 December, the 1st Army launched an attack against the surprised 16th Corps. The attack was supported by the Uzice army from the left wing. 16th Corps suffered heavy casualties and was pushed back. On the 4 December, 17th Corps tried to hold the advance of the 1st Army, but failed. Potiorek ordered an attack of the 5th Army so that he could complete his operation before the 6th army is defeated. Howewer, the Combined Corps was still on its march. On the 5 December, 1st Army captured Mount Suvobor, the main defensive position of the 6th Army. Meanwhile, the 3rd Serbian army didn't manage to push the 15th Corps off of Mount Rudnik, and Uzice army suffered heavy casualties. Howewer, these formations pressured the Austro-Hungarian forces and helped the 1st Army to achieve a breakthrough. In the evening, Combined Corps arrived on its positions, but it's soldiers were very tired.

On 6 December, Potiorek ordered the retreat of the 6th Army on the left bank of Kolubara. Combined Corps finally attacked the 2nd Army, but the attack was easily stopped. Its soldiers were so tired that they had to wait until 8 December to launch some serious attack. Howewer, 2nd Army managed to hold its positions. Other units of the 5th Army were more successful, but it was too late. The 1st Army already captured Valjevo and was pushing north. Putnik reinforced the 2nd Army with fresh troops and ordered an attack before the Austro-Hungarians fortify their positions. On the 12th December, Field Marshal Stepanovic's 2nd Army attacked and defeated the 8th Corps. 5th Army had to leave Belgrade and cross the Sava River on 15 December. The battle was over.

The Serbian Army captured 43,000 enemy soldiers, and the number of Austro-Hungarian casualties was even greater. General Misic was promoted to Vojvoda (Field Marshal), while Potiorek was retired.

In 1914, Austro-Hungarian Balkan Army Group lost around 270,000 men, while the Serbian army lost around 160,000 men.


The Thessaloniki Front

During World War I, in order to alleviate the situation on the eastern and western front, the strategists from the Allied armed forces formed a south - Thessaloniki front handing over the Serbian army to guard, strategically speaking, and the most important direction. The Serbian Army forces were deployed between Vardar and Pelagonia. The French, British, Italian and Russian forces were also deployed throughout the Thessaloniki front. Their enemies were the Austro-Hungarian, German and Bulgarian forces. Serbia had 125.000 soldiers on the front assigned to six infantry and one cavalry unit.

The offensive of the Allied armed forces at Thessaloniki front started on September 11th 1916, with the Serbian forces assigned on the course of the main attack: Gornicevo-Bitolj. The Serbian and Bulgarian armies waged a hand-to-hand battle on Mt Kajmakcalan. After seizing Mt Kajmakcalan, the Serbian troops took Bitolj on September 19th making the Bulgarian forces to retreat. The Serbian army had already then lost 30.000 soldiers in battle.

After that the ceasefire followed at the Thessaloniki front until 1918 when more than 12,000 volunteers from the eastern front, as well as the volunteers from all parts of the world reached the front. The French Commander Franchet D'Esperey led all the allied forces troops at the front. On September 15th the offensive started under his command.

The Serbian Second Army units, under the leadership of commander in chief Stepa Stepanovic and the First Army units under the command of General Petar Bojovic, made a breakthrough of the Bulgarian front. The Bulgarian army was retreating before Serbian Second Army that reached Vardar valley on September 21st causing the final collapse of the Bulgarian front. While the French eastern forces were taking Prilep (September 23rd) and Skopje (September 29th), the Second Army units reached the Bulgarian border near Dzumrl and Custendil. Faced with defeat, the Bulgarians signed the peace treaty in Thessaloniki (September 29th 1918) which had a major influence on the future events.

The First Serbian Army also made a successful breach by defeating the 11th German Army near Nis on October 12th and liberating Belgrade on November 1st 1918. This army under the command of General Petar Bojovic fighting heavy battles crossed about 500 km in 90 days. Meanwhile, the Second Army units reached the Drina River liberating western Serbia. The French army liberated Pirot, Zajecar and Bor and its eastern wing Pristina, Kosovska Mitrovica and Novi Pazar. Parts of the Serbian army liberated Tirana, and the Italian cavalry Drac. The Yugoslav Division Adriatic troops together with the Montenegrin army liberated Skadar, Podgorica, Niksic and Kotor.

Three days after the liberation of the capital, the Supreme Command of Serbia made a decision that the Serbian Army should cross the rivers of Sava, Danube and Drina and continue pursuing the German and Austro-Hungarian forces. The remaining parts of the country were soon liberated from the Austro-Hungarian rule. Serbia and Montenegro suffered terrible casualties at the Thessaloniki front - almost every third man in Serbia died and around 20,000 Montenegrins.

Or google first major allied victory WWI, The Battle of Kolubara and Thessaloniki front.

Maxor
27 Apr 07,, 22:46
So yeah to sum up kNiks post the serbians did participate in WWI just a little bit.

Bigfella
28 Apr 07,, 13:53
I'm going to vote for the Vietnamese/Kampuchean war as possibly the DUMBEST war in history. It wasn't pointless, as it did remove Pol Pot from power, but thereafter it got pretty damned pointless. Allow me to elaborate:

It is 1977. You are Pol Pot. You have successfully warded off an internal challenge to your position & are happily wiping out 'untrustworthy' chunks of the population of 'Democratic Kampuchea' (DK). The outside world either doesn't know or doesn't care. What would you do next? Not what ole' Pol did.

He decided to renew a centuries old Cambodian claim to all of Vietnam from Saigon south. He does this by launching a series of bloody raids against the Tay Ninh region nth of Saigon (the 'parrot's beak' of Vietnam War fame). At the time Vietnam had the 4th largest Army in the world, and probably the most experienced. They also had a population almost 10 times that of Cambodia.

Vietnam decides not to go to war, but launches a large & punishing raid into Cambodia that brushes aside Kampuchean military units as if they weren't there. Now, a wise man might cut his losses & go back to mass murdering, but Pol wasn't a wise man. He decides that the reason for Vietnam's success was 'traitors' in the Easte of his nation (there have been some defections to Vietnam, largely motivated by the insanity of Pol Pot's policies). DK resumes & even steps up its attacks on Vietnam.

On Christmas Day 1978 Vietnam attacks. Kampuchean resistance collapses faster than the Vietnamese can advance. Within weeks they have taken over most of the country. The Khmer Rouge flee to Thailand, where military dictatorship that runs Thailand decides, with encouragement from China (which has now invaded Vietnam), to help Pol Pot reconstitute his movement to fight the Vietnamese. He is soon joined by non-communist Cambodian factions, the largest of which is run by Sihanouk, a man whose collaboration with Pol Pot allowed him to come to power.

For the next decade this coalition, supported by China, Thailand, the US & ASEAN, wages war against a Vietnamese army that is only in Cambodia because it fears Pol Pot returning to power. Joseph Heller would have been proud. Vietnamese losses end up being about the same as those of America in the Vietnam War. And all because China & the US in particular wanted to punish Vietnam.

There you have it folks, dumbness & pointlessness all wrapped up in one nasty big ole' war.

Bigfella
28 Apr 07,, 13:58
Contender two has to be the War of the Triple Alliance in Sth America.

Thats the one where landlocked Paraguay declared war on Brazil, Argentina & Uruguay. Paraguay undoubtedly had the most powerful military on the continent, and was able to inflict early losses on its enemies. Sheer weight of numbers & strategic position, however, told out in the end.

Paraguay ended up losing a huge chunk of territory. Out of a population of approximately 500,000 Paraguay lost 220,000. Virtually every male between the ages of 15 & 55 was killed.

Do we have a winner?

Stan187
28 Apr 07,, 22:04
I think lieb's point on Serbian participation was a relative rather than absolute one guys

zraver
28 Apr 07,, 23:08
The Kwarzim Empire vs the Mongols, if Shah Muhammad had simply honored his trade agreemtns the face of the modern world would be forever different.

Bob Jones
29 Apr 07,, 17:54
Thats still going on, only we invade their supermarkets on a beer run every weekend, shhh don`t tell em,

But to the question, its a diificult observation to make, why did we go to war over the Falklands, was it because, as some would say, the Prime Minister of the time, Good old MAGGIE, needed a boost in the popularity stakes????, if that where true, then how pointless was that war, Vietnam, all those lives sacrificed in order to prevent Communism and the end result was, the Commies won, the second Gulf war, and ensuing police action???, so my answer would have to be all wars,

leib10
29 Apr 07,, 19:52
I think lieb's point on Serbian participation was a relative rather than absolute one guys

Yep, it was.

glyn
29 Apr 07,, 21:34
Thats still going on, only we invade their supermarkets on a beer run every weekend, shhh don`t tell em,

But to the question, its a diificult observation to make, why did we go to war over the Falklands, was it because, as some would say, the Prime Minister of the time, Good old MAGGIE, needed a boost in the popularity stakes????, if that where true, then how pointless was that war, Vietnam, all those lives sacrificed in order to prevent Communism and the end result was, the Commies won, the second Gulf war, and ensuing police action???, so my answer would have to be all wars,


And had Mrs Jones favourite son been Prime Minister at the time, what would he have done on hearing that the Falklands had been invaded? Hmm?

Berkis
29 Apr 07,, 22:55
I would go for The Thirty Years war. Basically that was looting and the destruction of German states they could not recover from, for two centuries afterwards.

beka
30 Apr 07,, 03:54
World War I was the most pointless war in recent times, and it led to another war that cost more lives... It's also probably the reason Communism took a foot hold in Russia..

Sadly, though its true that it wasn't really about the archduke's assisnation. It was about all the rivalries and alliances that were being built...All it took was really a powder keg, and everyone got in...The reasons though (Britian worried about Germany's increasing military etc...) Germany wanting an empire (why it costs money?) was dumb/dumb/dumb reasons.

Sadly, the current Iraq war reminds me of it, as does the current powder keg situations in the world. I don't buy the concept of going to war with another country because they have weapons that they might use against you.. I think history proves that's a bad reason for going into war.
If there had been wise leaders in Europe perhaps said war could have been avoided. What's sickening is that the Germans wanted to make a truce with the British. But the British decided to no because they were promised by Wilson (who went against the American people's desire) that America would entire the war.

If America had stayed out of World War I, I think there's a good chance all sides would have well come to terms..Millions of lives would have been saved, and perhaps? we wouldn't have had the conditions that led to the Hitler's rise in Germany...

Big K
30 Apr 07,, 13:14
All wars.

i totally agree...

as a note: ww2 IS the continuance of ww1.

ExNavyAmerican
02 May 07,, 04:41
WW1 was definitely, imo, the most unnecessary war in history. What's so tragic is that the European monarchs were all related through Queen Victoria! King George V was Czar Nicholas II's and Kaiser Wilhelm II's 1st cousin! There is a telegram written between Nicholas, and Wilhelm proving how much nobody wanted war. It could have been resolved, but Russia has always had an itchy trigger-finger, and Britain has their double standards that say no one else can retaliate against a country except themselves. Austria-Hungary had every right to retaliate, and nobody could simply leave it alone.

What's ironic is that Archduke Ferdinand was a liberal who, aside from not even being liked by Emperor Franz, would probably have been lenient towards Serbia.

All this I think proves how unnecessary WWI was.

xerxes
06 May 07,, 16:45
It could have been resolved, but Russia has always had an itchy trigger-finger, and Britain has their double standards that say no one else can retaliate against a country except themselves.

I disagree with you, it was Germany and its Kaiser that needlessly gave the warmongers in Vienna the blank check. It was Germany and its Kaiser that was thinking a short war would not be that bad after all. It was Germany and its Kaiser that made the decleration that if Russia mobilise Berlin would declare war, eventhough it was clear that slavic Russia would at the very least do a partial mobilisation as a gesutre against the Habsburg. But I agree with you on the British double standard.



Austria-Hungary had every right to retaliate, and nobody could simply leave it alone.

Austria-Hungary had every right to retaliate, yes, but the point is that Serbia gave in all the demands of the duel monarchy. War happened because the Habsburg were itching for war. The fault is theirs. Their downfall was theirs as well. Though even in war, Serbs manage to beat all the Habsburg incusion, untill help came from the Germans.

Bob Jones
06 May 07,, 20:44
Glyn I would have invaded Argentina, and banned football

JAD_333
06 May 07,, 20:46
All wars.

Depends on whether you're the agressor or the defender, wouldn't you say.

Blackleaf
17 Oct 07,, 20:54
The most pointless war in history was the Anglo-Zanzibar war between the mighty British Empire and tiny Zanzibar (now part of Tanzania in East Africa) in 1896 - which was the military equivalent of Manchester United VS my local pub team in football.

The war (not a battle, an actual war) was so one-sided that it started at 9:00 am on 27th August and 45 minutes later it was over.

http://www.state.gov/cms_images/map_tanzania.gif
Zanzibar, a tiny island off Tanzania, was part of Britain's empire in East Africa.

In the tradition of the British beating soundly an opponent with numerical advantage, the 900 strong British whalloped the 2,800 strong army of Zanzibar, and took just 45 minutes to do so (though the British were backed up with ships from the mighty Royal Navy: HMS Philomel, HMS Thrush, HMS Sparrow, HMS Racoon, HMS St George).

The war broke out after Sultan Hamad bin Thuwaini, who had willingly co-operated with the British colonial administration, died on 25 August 1896, and his nephew, Khalid bin Bargash, seized power in what amounted to a coup d'état. The British favoured another candidate, Hamud bin Muhammed, whom they believed would be easier to work with, and delivered an ultimatum ordering Bargash to abdicate. Bargash refused, and instead assembled an army that consisted of about 2,800 men and the former Sultan's armed yacht H.H.S. Glasgow anchored in the harbour. While Bargash's troops set to fortifying the palace, the Royal Navy assembled five warships in the harbour in front of the palace (three modern protected cruisers, the Edgar class HMS St George, the Pearl class HMS Philomel and the Archer class HMS Racoon; plus the two gunboats HMS Thrush and HMS Sparrow). The British also landed parties of Royal Marines to support the "loyalist" regular army of Zanzibar, numbering 900 men in two battalions led by General Lloyd Mathews, formerly a Royal Navy lieutenant.

Despite the Sultan's last-minute efforts to negotiate for peace via the U.S. representative on the island, the Royal Navy ships opened fire on the palace at 9 am on 27 August 1896 as soon as the ultimatum ran out. The Glasgow was soon sunk, and, with the palace falling down around him and escalating casualties, Bargash beat a hasty retreat to the German consulate where he was granted asylum. The shelling stopped after 45 minutes.

The British demanded that the Germans surrender the erstwhile Sultan to them, but he escaped to sea on 2 October 1896. He lived in exile in Dar es Salaam until captured by the British in 1916. He was later allowed to live in Mombasa where he died in 1927.

As a final act, Britain demanded payment from the Zanzibar government to pay for the shells fired on the country

The British defeated the Zanzibarians and hardly broke sweat.

To this day, the Anglo-Zanzibar War of 1896 holds the record of being the shortest war in history.


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b7/AngloZanzibarWar.jpg/300px-AngloZanzibarWar.jpg
Sultan's harem after being bombarded by the Royal Navy, 1896

BD1
17 Oct 07,, 21:16
What happened to the Harem ?

gunnut
17 Oct 07,, 22:03
Very interesting, Blackleaf. Thank you for that piece of history.

I had heard of a war that lasted no more than an hour but never found out what it actually was.

Blackleaf
17 Oct 07,, 22:15
What happened to the Harem ?

I forgot to say that the sultan's harem and the sultan's palace were two buildings next to each other. The Royal Navy destroyed them both.

The harem was rebuilt but the palace wasn't. I found a photograph of the rebuilt harem taken in 1880 but it's too big to post on here.

It's probably still standing.

Blackleaf
17 Oct 07,, 22:31
This is off-topic for the most pointless war in history thread, but as I've mentioned the shortest war in history I may as well mention the longest. It also involved Britain and, strangely, despite being the world's longest war also had the fewest casualties!

The longest war in history was the Three Hundred and Thirty Five Years' War which also involved the British - or, to be more precise, the Scilly Isles, a group off islands of the south western tip of Britain that are a part of the English county of Cornwall. It was an ofshoot of the English Civil War in the 17th Century and ended on 17th April 1986!........


Three Hundred and Thirty Five Years' War - The World’s Longest War

The Three Hundred and Thirty Five Years' War (1651–1986) was a war between the Netherlands and the Isles of Scilly (part of the English county of Cornwall). It is said to have been extended by the lack of a peace treaty for 335 years without a single shot being fired, which would make it one of the world's longest wars and the war with the fewest casualties. Despite the uncertain validity of the declaration of war, peace was finally declared in 1986.


Origins

The origins of the war can be found in the Second English Civil War, fought between the Royalists and Parliamentarians from 1642 to 1652. Oliver Cromwell had fought the Royalists to the edges of the Kingdom of England. In the West of England this meant that Cornwall was the last Royalist stronghold. In 1648, Cromwell pushed on until mainland Cornwall was in the hands of the Parliamentarians.

The Royalists' major asset was the Navy, which had declared itself for the Prince of Wales. The Royalist Navy was forced to retreat to the Isles of Scilly, which lie off the Cornish coast and were under the ownership of Royalist Sir John Grenville.


Dutch Navy alliance

The navy of the United Provinces of the Netherlands was allied with the Parliamentarians. The Netherlands had been assisted by the English under a number of rulers in the Eighty Years' War (1568–1648), starting with Queen Elizabeth I of England. The Treaty of Münster (January 30, 1648) had confirmed Dutch independence from Spain. The Netherlands sought to maintain their alliance with England and had chosen to ally with what seemed would be the victorious side in the Civil War.

The Dutch Navy was suffering heavy losses from the Royalist fleet based in Scilly. On 30 March 1651, Admiral Maarten Harpertszoon Tromp arrived in Scilly to demand reparation from the Royalist fleet for the Dutch ships and goods taken by them.

According to Whitelocke's Memorials (cited in Bowley, 2001), a letter of 17 April 1651 explains: "Tromp came to Pendennis and related that he had been to Scilly to demand reparation for the Dutch ships and goods taken by them; and receiving no satisfactory answer, he had, according to his Commission, declared war on them."

As most of England was now in Parliamentarian hands, war was declared specifically upon the Isles of Scilly.


Royalist surrender

In June 1651, soon after the declaration of war, the Parliamentarian forces under Admiral Robert Blake forced the Royalist fleet to surrender. The Netherlands fleet, no longer under threat, left without firing a shot. Due to the obscurity of one nation's declaration of war against a small part of another, the Dutch forgot to officially declare peace.


Peace treaty

In 1985, Roy Duncan, historian and Chairman of the Isles of Scilly Council, wrote to the Dutch Embassy in London to dispose of the "myth" that the islands were still at war. Embassy staff found the myth to be accurate and Duncan invited Ambassador Jonkheer Rein Huydecoper to visit the islands and sign a peace treaty. Peace was declared on April 17, 1986, 335 years after the war began. The Dutch legate to the signing of the peace treaty joked that it must have been harrowing to the Scillonians to know that the Dutch could have attacked them at any time.

wikipedia.org

glyn
17 Oct 07,, 23:27
[QUOTE=Blackleaf;417017]

The Three Hundred and Thirty Five Years' War (16511986) was a war between the Netherlands and the Isles of Scilly (part of the English county of Cornwall

Cornwall is not an English county. They are 'shires'. Cornwall has its own history, language and identity and was (and legally IS) one of the 5 nations that make up Britain. Recent wide-scale DNA testing has confirmed that we have Celtic ethnicity. The national curriculum imposed by the London based Minister Of Education is pushing out a travesty of history that is part of the dumbing down process so much in evidence today.

Shamus
17 Oct 07,, 23:29
[QUOTE=Blackleaf;417017]

The Three Hundred and Thirty Five Years' War (16511986) was a war between the Netherlands and the Isles of Scilly (part of the English county of Cornwall

Cornwall is not an English county. They are 'shires'. Cornwall has its own history, language and identity and was (and legally IS) one of the 5 nations that make up Britain. Recent wide-scale DNA testing has confirmed that we have Celtic ethnicity. The national curriculum imposed by the London based Minister Of Education is pushing out a travesty of history that is part of the dumbing down process so much in evidence today.:cool: :)

Dwarven Pirate
20 Oct 07,, 07:19
Cain vs Abel. (the first one)

Bluesman
20 Oct 07,, 07:56
Cain vs Abel. (the first one)

Murder isn't war.

ExNavyAmerican
20 Oct 07,, 10:34
glyn;


The national curriculum imposed by the London based Minister Of Education is pushing out a travesty of history that is part of the dumbing down process so much in evidence today.

Now you know how homechoolers feel about the public school system. ;)

Ironduke
22 Oct 07,, 08:54
Recent wide-scale DNA testing has confirmed that we have Celtic ethnicity.
Glyn, I'm under the assumption that the most of the genetic stock for all people in Britain is Celtic -- that the native Celts in Britain adopted the language of and mixed to a small degree with the Germanic invaders, being a case where the native majority culturally assimilated into a foreign minority. I believe most of Germany, as well as France and Spain and northern Italy are of majority Celtic ancestry as well... the Germanic people are originally from Gotland/southern Sweden and gradually spread out over Europe. France being a country where the Celtic majority assimilated into the Roman minority, as well as Spain with its Celtiberians. Northern Italy (Cisapline Gaul) was Celtic during the days of the Roman Republic. Basically the majority of Western Europe being of originally Celtic stock.

By the way, does anybody have any information on the languages spoken in what is now England during the time of Anglo-Saxon conquest? I've read about the "thin veneer" of Roman culture, and I've also read articles refuting that. My guess would be that the cities were Latin-speaking as was the countryside in the south and east, whereas in the north and west there would be a Latin-speaking urban elite with Celtic language being predominant in the countryside. Straying a bit, but I've always thought if not for the Anglo-Saxon conquest England would have ended up with a Romance language, as would have been the case with Illyria if not for the Slavic conquest.

gunnut
22 Oct 07,, 09:29
I saw a recent show on the History Channel talking about "barbarian tech," specifically weapons used by various tribes throughout history. A segment was talking about Celtic weapons. It mentioned the Celts pretty much had free run over western Europe at around 600 BC, gradually retreating back to the Isles when the Germanic tribes and the Roman Empire pushed them out. I would never have guessed the Celts were the dominant people in Eurupe during that period.

Ironduke
22 Oct 07,, 11:05
I'm not sure if they retreated at all -- I think they were just assimilated into the cultures that conquered them.

clackers
15 Nov 07,, 14:30
Glyn, I'm under the assumption that the most of the genetic stock for all people in Britain is Celtic -- that the native Celts in Britain adopted the language of and mixed to a small degree with the Germanic invaders, being a case where the native majority culturally assimilated into a foreign minority.

I think you're right, Ironduke, as far as the genetics go. However, Ireland, Cornwall, Wales, Scotland, etc have tried to hold on to "Celtic" culture while England went through various Anglo-Saxon, Danish and Norman stages ...


By the way, does anybody have any information on the languages spoken in what is now England during the time of Anglo-Saxon conquest? ... straying a bit, but I've always thought if not for the Anglo-Saxon conquest England would have ended up with a Romance language, as would have been the case with Illyria if not for the Slavic conquest.

I don't know what percentage would have spoken Latin, or what its effect might have been on modern English if history had been different, but there are some clues:


Administrators and the ruling class would have spoken it, but not necessarily the general population. After the Norman invasion, for instance, French (spoken in Government) and Latin (Academia/the Church) failed to replace English as the common tongue

The Bretons are Brits who fled to France at the time you're interested in (the Anglo-Saxon invasions), and they actually spoke a Celtic tongue, rather than a Roman one

If Latin had been widespread, it ended up forming almost nothing of Old English ... nearly all that extensive Latin vocabulary of ours came into the language from after 1066, rather than before 400AD ...


PS Just to return to the topic, what about the Falklands War? Described by novelist Jorge Luis Borges as "a fight between two bald men over a comb" ...

Silent Hunter
15 Nov 07,, 18:08
What was really quite pointless was Germany invading Belgium in 1914.

Skull6
15 Nov 07,, 20:43
Shek,

Very true in most cases and not you alone! ;)

In India, I believe someone has started a Society for Bashed up Husbands! :tongue:

Sir, is this an international Society? If so, you wouldn't happen to know the phone number for the American branch, would you?

I really should sign up for this soon! :))

Low-tech
07 Dec 07,, 08:14
if there is any validity that the iliad was based on a similar war where some ruler's wife ran off with the king of troy's son.


well, that would at least be in the top ten.

clackers
10 Dec 07,, 04:51
You've seen Troy, Low-tech ... you'd run off with Dianne Kruger, wouldn't you? Wouldn't it be worth copping a thousand ships in retaliation? :P

Repatriated Canuck
10 Dec 07,, 06:26
How about the war of independence??

You didn't really need to leave the commonwealth you know. :) :P

JAD_333
10 Dec 07,, 07:10
How about the war of independence??

You didn't really need to leave the commonwealth you know. :) :P

Would you be speaking of the American revolution? I ask because there was no commonwealth at the time. :) Anyway, we got rid of that horrid tax on tea, and here we are, the losers with no teatime for afternoon relaxation.:(

silverstar
15 Jan 08,, 02:38
I think the shift began with Prince Edward, who became
King Edward 7th in 1902.
Victoria was pro German, with family links there, but Edward became pro France
(maybe because of the phenomenal growth of German industry and power being a threat to the Empire ?)
Traditionally we had always been allied with Germany in the form of Prussia.
Like the Americans in ww 1
Blucher and his Prussians saved our bacon at the Battle of Waterloo.
The mighty French army that had dominated Europe for 20years had to stand and watch as Wellington, Blucher and the allied armies entered Paris as victors.
(No wonder the French voted Abba 'nul point' at Eurovision !)

BD1
15 Jan 08,, 18:18
ABBA was swedish ;)

1idvet
15 Jan 08,, 19:20
War of 1812 had to be the most pointless. Nothing gained, nothing lost, other than blood and treasure.

Arnold123
19 Mar 08,, 14:07
Purhaps we should ask what was the most pointless peace. I would nominate Zimbabwe.

rj1
19 Mar 08,, 20:28
Here's the ones that have always struck me as pretty pointless:

-Falklands War between Argentina and Britain (from the Argentinian point)
-Iran-Iraq War (8 years for the status quo)
-Mussolini's Invasion of Ethiopia (dumbest way to prop up national morale ever)
-the battle over Toledo between Ohio and Michigan (more amusing than anything, this was in the period right before Michigan became a state)
-Spanish-American War (damn you Hearst)

dave lukins
21 Mar 08,, 21:15
[QUOTE=Blackleaf;417017]

The Three Hundred and Thirty Five Years' War (16511986) was a war between the Netherlands and the Isles of Scilly (part of the English county of Cornwall

Cornwall is not an English county. They are 'shires'. Cornwall has its own history, language and identity and was (and legally IS) one of the 5 nations that make up Britain. Recent wide-scale DNA testing has confirmed that we have Celtic ethnicity. The national curriculum imposed by the London based Minister Of Education is pushing out a travesty of history that is part of the dumbing down process so much in evidence today.

The Cornish Language, known in its own language as Kernewek, is one of the Brythonic group of Celtic languages which includes Welsh, the Breton language and, originally, Cumbrian. The Celtic languages of Scottish Gaelic, Irish and Manx are known are part of the separate Goidelic group. In terms of similarity of Cornish to the other existing Celtic languages, it shares about 80% basic vocabulary with Breton, 75% with Welsh, 35% with Irish and 35% with Scots Gaelic.

no wonder we can't understand them:))

FSV
22 Mar 08,, 05:36
Sir, is this an international Society? If so, you wouldn't happen to know the phone number for the American branch, would you?

I really should sign up for this soon! :))

Look for the listing of "The Husband Protection Association"

Pioneer
05 Apr 08,, 08:55
All wars.

Very wise words!

But saying this, the one that has always been in my mind would have to be World War One!

I have always been distressed by the colonial wars against often hapless and innocent indigenous / natives people of nations that were taken by force, in the name of religion, King and country and riches.
If their bullets and cannons did not kill them, the introduced diseases would


Regards
Pioneer