The Stupidest War in History?

[Kommandoria]

WW1, WW2 or Vietnam.

WWI was not stupid:
1. It opened the world's eyes and made them realize that chemical warfare is an uneccessary element of war and should be outlawed.
2. The world needed to see that secret alliances between nations needed to end.

WWII was not stupid:
1. Hitler's atrocities against the Jews, homosexuals, Catholics, handicapped, etc. needed to be stopped.
2. Hitler's aggressive actions (land-grabbing early in the war) in Europe were resulting in the deaths of hundreds, if not thousands.
3. So America was supposed to accept what happened at Pearl Harbor and not do anything against Japan?
4. Japan committed atrocities in China, such as the Rape of Nanking.

[The Murtunian Tribes]

Hm, all this talk about stupid wars and how WWI is usually considered the dumbest (at least by the majority of posters so far) has gotten me in the mood for a third world war. Why stop at two? If we are going to go about murdering everyone is vast swathes over petty differences, we might as well go all out.

"i do not know what world war three will be fought with- but world war four will be fought with sticks and stones" Albert Einstein.

Kim Jong-Il dying actually may set the stage for ww3, if his runt invades the south, causing China and SE asia Vs. America and allies.

I HIGHLY doubt China will trash it's own economy entering a war against the U.S. China will most likely stay neutral, occasionally bitching at the neighbors to turn the volume down.

[Wanderjar]

Hm, all this talk about stupid wars and how WWI is usually considered the dumbest (at least by the majority of posters so far) has gotten me in the mood for a third world war. Why stop at two? If we are going to go about murdering everyone is vast swathes over petty differences, we might as well go all out.

"i do not know what world war three will be fought with- but world war four will be fought with sticks and stones" Albert Einstein.

Kim Jong-Il dying actually may set the stage for ww3, if his runt invades the south, causing China and SE asia Vs. America and allies.

The very idea of such a scenario is frankly just silly. If Dun did invade, hypothetically, it would be smashed by the ROK Armed Forces quite quickly, and then would be an unpleasant memory. China, if it were involved at all, would be more inclined to assist the US in a hypothetical invasion/intervention, than oppose us. And I'm not really sure why you threw "SE Asia" in there, since Vietnam has, for example, become a major US trade partner and frankly despises China.

[Odins Scandinavia]

The Emu War

he won the game.

[/thread]

[Aequilibria]

WW1, WW2 or Vietnam.

WWI was not stupid:
1. It opened the world's eyes and made them realize that chemical warfare is an uneccessary element of war and should be outlawed.
2. The world needed to see that secret alliances between nations needed to end.

True.

But considering that more than 30 million people died effectively because of one incident involving Austria-Hungary (which was falling apart anyway at this point) in goddamn Serbia of all places makes it pretty damn stupid, in my opinion.

[Odins Scandinavia]

The war on drugs

Seconded.

thirded.

[Daistallia 2104]

I don't really think that the churches one had that big of an impact, since religious matters were really never affected by the British, and many of the enlightenment thinkers of America were actually not particularly keen on independence. Bejamin Franklin for example was not particularly thrilled about the war, in fact I recall reading he was saddened by it, though this may have been because his son was a colonial governor. Republican sentiment seems to have had little impact on the rhetoric of the times until the war had been well under way.

I will conceed that you are right about the first point, however. I hadn't recalled it, though in a way it does play into my comments on the British restriction on American economic freedom. Individuals wanted to go west to create land estates and the British denied them that. One of the biggest creators of wealth in the US was its vast store of land ownership.

Like I said, we could argue about the details, but Fedeledland's characterization of it as stupid has more than adequately been shown to be unfounded.

[Wanderjar]

WWI was not stupid:
1. It opened the world's eyes and made them realize that chemical warfare is an uneccessary element of war and should be outlawed.
2. The world needed to see that secret alliances between nations needed to end.

True.

But considering that more than 30 million people died effectively because of one incident involving Austria-Hungary (which was falling apart anyway at this point) in goddamn Serbia of all places makes it pretty damn stupid, in my opinion.

Austria-Hungary was already going to invade Serbia, that was clear. Arch-Duke Ferdinand's death simply gave them a convienient cassus-belli. And the reasons for the war were the sum result of an arms race that had begun in 1871.

[Britennene]

WW1, WW2 or Vietnam.

WWI was not stupid:
1. It opened the world's eyes and made them realize that chemical warfare is an uneccessary element of war and should be outlawed.
2. The world needed to see that secret alliances between nations needed to end.

WWII was not stupid:
1. Hitler's atrocities against the Jews, homosexuals, Catholics, handicapped, etc. needed to be stopped.
2. Hitler's aggressive actions (land-grabbing early in the war) in Europe were resulting in the deaths of hundreds, if not thousands.
3. So America was supposed to accept what happened at Pearl Harbor and not do anything against Japan?
4. Japan committed atrocities in China, such as the Rape of Nanking.

WW1.
1. It was used after.
2. Secret Alliances were made later.

WW2. 1.It could've been stopped, if Hitler would have become the artist he wanted to be.
2. Read part 1.
3. Japan was crazy. True.
4..... Don't remind me of Nanking D:>

[Wanderjar]

I don't really think that the churches one had that big of an impact, since religious matters were really never affected by the British, and many of the enlightenment thinkers of America were actually not particularly keen on independence. Bejamin Franklin for example was not particularly thrilled about the war, in fact I recall reading he was saddened by it, though this may have been because his son was a colonial governor. Republican sentiment seems to have had little impact on the rhetoric of the times until the war had been well under way.

I will conceed that you are right about the first point, however. I hadn't recalled it, though in a way it does play into my comments on the British restriction on American economic freedom. Individuals wanted to go west to create land estates and the British denied them that. One of the biggest creators of wealth in the US was its vast store of land ownership.

Like I said, we could argue about the details, but Fedeledland's characterization of it as stupid has more than adequately been shown to be unfounded.

This is true. I was more discussing the matter further because I'm bored and felt that you brought up good points.

[The United Good]

Any of the wars Bolivia and Paraguay fought against their neighbors and each other during thr 19th century. They lost - even against each other.

[The Murtunian Tribes]

Ah, here's a good candidate.

[Mike the Progressive]

1.Iraq
2.afghanistan
3.Vietnam

Yes, I agree the Russian invasion of Afghanistan was pretty stupid.

But the more recent ones? Probably, Vietnam and Iraq (the Second) for the US. Or that war started by Thatcher which just showed how ill-equipped the UK was.

[Anitgrum]

WW1, WW2 or Vietnam.

WWI was not stupid:
1. It opened the world's eyes and made them realize that chemical warfare is an uneccessary element of war and should be outlawed.1
2. The world needed to see that secret alliances between nations needed to end.2

WWII was not stupid:
1. Hitler's atrocities against the Jews, homosexuals, Catholics, handicapped, etc. needed to be stopped.3
2. Hitler's aggressive actions (land-grabbing early in the war) in Europe were resulting in the deaths of hundreds, if not thousands.
3. So America was supposed to accept what happened at Pearl Harbor and not do anything against Japan?
4. Japan committed atrocities in China, such as the Rape of Nanking.

1 Poison gas e.g chlorine gas mustard was outlawed in the Hague Peace conference in 1899 and even after the three other treaties banning chemical weapons since then they have still been used in warfare.
2 It was obvious to ever that that Germany and Austria-Hungary were allies . Although the general public didn't know Germany and Austria-Hungary knew that there was a Russo-Franco alliance. Not to mention the way they fought early on was stupid slowly marching in single file into a machine gun fire will only result in everyone begin slaughtered and Austria-Hungary idiotic strategy of sending a large of chunk of their army to attack Serbia then they decided to invade Russia at the same time. All that resulted in was the Russiasn destroying the attacking armies and launching a counter offensive into Galicia while Austria-Hungary got their asses whooped in Serbia .
3 They most certainly did but that does make they way Hitler waged they war any less stupid thinking he could take on the USSR the U.K and the U.S at the time was moronic.

[Dallsiph]

World War I by far. The excuse was that some Austrian prince got murdered by a Serbian, and because of all the alliances tied with Serbia, and Austria, shit happened in Europe and a giant war began.

Most wars were p damn pointless, but that one was a war that was so big, but had the worst excuse. And yes, World War I opened our eyes to the modern world, and how modern warfare would have to happen, but it still was p damn stupid

[Daistallia 2104]

Like I said, we could argue about the details, but Fedeledland's characterization of it as stupid has more than adequately been shown to be unfounded.

This is true. I was more discussing the matter further because I'm bored and felt that you brought up good points.

Heh - it is rather more interesting.

[The Archregimancy]

Any of the wars Bolivia and Paraguay fought against their neighbors and each other during thr 19th century. They lost - even against each other.

That would be the 1879-1883 War of the Pacific (Peru & Boliva lose to Chile) and the 1864-1870 War of the Triple Alliance (Paraguay loses against Brazil, Uruguay, and Argentina).

The first of these wasn't necessarily stupid as wars go; it was essentially a war over who would control the resources of the mineral-rich Atacama desert, brought about by Peru's nationalisation of the region's nitrate mines, and Bolivia's introduction of a tax on Chilean mining and railway interests. The outcome was a near-total Chilean victory, the transfer of the valuable Peruvian and Bolivian Atacama provinces to Chile, and thereby Bolivia's loss of its coastal provinces - something which still rankles in La Paz. As they say in Bolivia, 'lo que un dia fue nuestro, nuestro otra vez sera'. If they had to have a war, at least they fought it over something valuable.


The War of the Triple Alliance, however, was catastrophically stupid - not least because it began by Paraguay's rather eccentric president Francisco Solano López unilaterally declaring war on Brazil and Argentina, ostensibly because he was concerned that Brazilian intervention in Uruguayan politics would damage the local balance of power; Uruguay then joined Brazil and Argentina as the pro-Brazil Colorado party won the struggle for power in the latter country. In slight fairness, when the war began, Paraguay had a larger, and better trained, army (and riverine navy) than all of the Triple Alliance countries combined. But a quick glance at a map - and relative 19th-century population sizes - shows the insanity of the Paraguayan position. The distances were too vast, the terrain too difficult, for Paraguay to use its initial military superiority to deal a quick knock-out blow to one of its opponents, never mind all three - and in a protracted war there could only be one winner. Paraguay only fought on as long as it did because of a combination of its own territory presenting logistical challenges to invaders, and the fanatical devotion the rather podgy Solano López inexplicably inspired in his armies. When the war ended, Paraguay's defeat was so total that it lost 140,000 square km of territory, between half to two thirds of its population (precise figures are probably impossible to calculate) and up to 90% of its male population. Not that the outcome was a bed of roses for Brazil and Argentina - the high level of debt that has so frequently crippled both nations' economies is a direct result of their attempts to fund the war. In both cause and outcome it was, truly, one of the most devastatingly stupid wars of the last 200 years. Just about the only people to benefit were British merchants and Brazilian slaves. On the latter point, the need to recruit slaves into the Brazilian army in order to sustain the war effort crucially undermined slavery in Brazil - though it wouldn't be entirely abolished until 1888.


Contrary to The United Good's post, Bolivia and Paraguay wouldn't actually go on to fight each other until the stupid, but not quite as stupid as the War of the Triple Alliance, 1932-1935 Chaco War. This was fought over three things: 1) a belief that the Chaco was rich in mineral resources - particularly oil. 2) Bolivia's search for an outlet to the sea (see the War of the Pacific, above) via access to the Paraguay river. 3) A dispute over whether the Chaco should belong to Bolivia on the basis that it had once been part of the colonial-era province of Upper Peru, or whether it should belong to Paraguay because it had controlled the Chaco (in so far as anyone controlled the Chaco) since independence over a century previously. The difficult terrain of the Chaco (searingly hot and dry as dust for half the year; a maze of wetlands the rest of the year) made sustained military campaigns difficult, but Paraguay did eventually win, partially due to the stunning ineptitude of the Bolivian army and strong logistical support from Argentina, taking some two thirds of the territory. The supreme irony is that there eventually proved to be no oil in the two thirds of the Chaco taken by Paraguay - but there are extensive natural gas and petroleum reserves in the small area controlled by Bolivia, which currently underpin the Bolivian economy.

[Mike the Progressive]

The War on Poverty...

Leave the poor people alone...just leave them alone!!!

[Icamera]

Ah, here's a good candidate.

Jeez, what's wrong with demanding 600,000 pesos? It's going to a good cause!

[Angleter]

WW1 was a battle between Austria-Hungary and Russia to avoid complete irrelevance, which involved a Germany trying to avoid isolation and possible encirclement by a (probably overestimated) Franco-Russian bloc, while Britain got involved in order to avoid Germany winning and actually coming to dominate Europe and thus threaten Britain. So really, all major sides had a rather important reason for fighting what was a bloody and costly war (France's being that they got invaded) that jeopardised the marvellous growth and relative stability that everybody had been seeing right up until 1914.

Granted, one can criticise as stupid various diplomatic errors from various sides in the decade or two leading up to the war, but the war itself, after Franz Ferdinand's assassination (which one can also criticise as stupid), was not in my view stupid.

[Sidhae]

WW1, WW2 or Vietnam.

WWI was not stupid:
1. It opened the world's eyes and made them realize that chemical warfare is an uneccessary element of war and should be outlawed.
2. The world needed to see that secret alliances between nations needed to end.

WWII was not stupid:
1. Hitler's atrocities against the Jews, homosexuals, Catholics, handicapped, etc. needed to be stopped.
2. Hitler's aggressive actions (land-grabbing early in the war) in Europe were resulting in the deaths of hundreds, if not thousands.
3. So America was supposed to accept what happened at Pearl Harbor and not do anything against Japan?
4. Japan committed atrocities in China, such as the Rape of Nanking.

As always, everyone focuses on poor old Adolph Hitler...

Where I live, we have a saying that a billet never burns alone. Meaning old Dolphie couldn't have started a war all by himself. He needed fellow politicians like N. Chamberlain to give in to his demands, he needed trusty allies like Mussolini, he needed greedy and backstabbing friends like uncle Joe, and he needed indifferent isolationists like Roosevelt. He needed jingoistic opponents like Churchill to put up a good fight, and even Jewish American bankers who were perfectly aware of what was going on in Germany by 1940, yet chose to keep it secret.

In other words, it is pointless and ignorant to blame a war on any particular individual, for that is what the victorious party wants people to do. In reality, NOBODY in ANY war EVER leaves with clean hands, and to say that German treatment of Jews or Japanese destruction of China's cities is any more atrocious than British/American firebombing campaigns or Soviet atrocities against German (and their own) civilians is pure hypocrisy.

[Malgrave]

1.Iraq
2.afghanistan
3.Vietnam

Yes, I agree the Russian invasion of Afghanistan was pretty stupid.

But the more recent ones? Probably, Vietnam and Iraq (the Second) for the US. Or that war started by Thatcher which just showed how ill-equipped the UK was.

Thinking that the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan. Lol.

[Malgrave]

The invasion of Grenada was pointless.

[Skywarp]

WWI stands high in my list.

I'd have to push this one too... WW1 definitely up there at the top. I mean the damn thing was pretty much a soap-opera turned war. And worse, we can pretty much blame the victors in it for laying the seeds for WW2

[Horsefish]

True.

But considering that more than 30 million people died effectively because of one incident involving Austria-Hungary (which was falling apart anyway at this point) in goddamn Serbia of all places makes it pretty damn stupid, in my opinion.

Thats a gross simplifaction. War was looming on the horizon since 1900. Serbian agression in the Balkans combined with a weakened Ottoman empire and overly-agressive Austrai combined with the international amnosity between alliance blocks had created an atmosphere of distrust, agression and hatred.