The Stupidest War in History?

[Crabcake Baba Ganoush]

The war on drugs

And I dont even do drugs

[Republic of Aspergia]

The most pointless/stupidest war? That would be WW1.

[Marcurix]

Absolute FactPersonal Opinion: World War One.
Debateable: The Childrens Crusade in 1212. Not sure this was real, but its ridiculous.

Fixed.

I'd say now seems like a good time to discuss the stupidity of war, or rather: wars that were stupid.

How are we defining how a war was stupid? By how it started? Or for another reason?

[Trotskylvania]

The War of the Triple Alliance.

Begun and escalated by the Paraguayan dictator's vainglorious pride, it resulted in the death of 2/3rds of the pre-war Paraguayan population, including around 90 percent of the nation's males.

[Shuggy555]

The Battle of Karansebes has to take the cake for the stupidest war ever in all of history that i have heard about.

[Hittanryan]

Gonna have to go with WWI.

Militarily it was a meat grinder for entirely avoidable reasons, the biggest one being armies repeatedly using tactics rendered obsolete by their own technology (you'd think Europe would have learned a few things from the American Civil War, but nooooo...). Romantic-era notions of war and political meddling didn't help either. Worse, many important lessons learned in WWI were effectively forgotten by WWII.

Politically, all the Treaty of Versailles did was set the stage for World War II, an even worse war that would end with most of Europe devastated and the start of the nuclear age. WWI also birthed the Soviet Union, royally screwed up the Middle East, and coined the term "Balkanize." So, yeah, nothing good there.

[Daistallia 2104]

Paraguayan war was pretty stupid.

That war between Honduras and El Salvador in 1969 was over a soccer game was idiocy.

The War Of The Oaken Bucket, The War Of The Stray Dog, The Pig War were all dumb beyond comprehension.

Indeed, indeed.

Can anyone think of a war that was fought for a good reason but that was fought in a stupid way? I would guess there are none, since anything actually worth fighting for is something you are going to want to fight for with the best methods and best people.

Many, many, many examples. WWI, US/Vietnam, and the US invasion and occupation of Iraq are outstanding recent examples.

*cough* The American Revolution was a whole lot more than tea stamps. I suggest you dig a bit deeper.

And those Latin wars were a whole lot more. It was just the catalyst. Just like WWI wasn't FF's death but a whole lot of tension.

The only stupid one he listed was the Pig War.

[Caninope]

* The Vietnam War (though after seeing the horrors of communism in China, the Soviet Union, particularly Ukraine, any rational person would want to fight communism, why Vietnam and not Cuba, only 90 miles from Florida? In addition, the "Domino Theory" that got us into that one only holds if nations have a corrupt leadership, and the US policy at the time was to be simply against communism and not for democracy, meaning it would sometimes support corrupt dictators as long as they were not communist ones. In addition, bombings of the North were stopped at critical times and at any given time there were enough American troops to stand in a line going from Saigon to Hanoi. So definitely both on this one.)

The Vietnam War was mishandled, especially later on, but it had an ideological basis, and there was an opening to jump in. So, America took the plunge.

* The Falklands War (for the reasons entirely, since at least there was a decisive victor here and just maybe saving face for Britain was a valid reason to go to war, but still, it is a collection of rocks just barely above Antarctica)

The Falklanders want to be British. They've wanted to be British. Therefore, it was worth fighting for.

Can anyone think of a war that was fought for a good reason but that was fought in a stupid way? I would guess there are none, since anything actually worth fighting for is something you are going to want to fight for with the best methods and best people.

The middle part of the NATO intervention in Afghanistan. It was a combination of Iraq drawing attention away from Afghanistan, and the lack of experience is occupation of such a mountainous country against a protracted insurgency.

[Mushrenia]

Coming off the heels of the Iraq occupation, I'd say now seems like a good time to discuss the stupidity of war, or rather: wars that were stupid.

I'm taking the easy way out and going with Vietnam. I mean, Iraq was bad enough, but with Vietnam, we're talking about twice the length. Throw in the bureaucracy, government deceptions, (seriously, writing a resolution and then just filling in the blanks with "Gulf of Tonkin"?) and poor military strategy and you've got the perfect recipe for a twenty-year debacle.

And...begin!

world war one, AKA the prototype for the Iraq war

Nonono, you're thinking two wars before this one. Iran-Iraq war was the trenches.

/Things not many people know

[New Asgariath]

The Bay of Pigs Invasion.
It failed because some idiot didn't account for the time zone difference and left the landing troops to die without air support. That did NOT look good for the US's reputation.

Also, WW1.

[Odins Scandinavia]

world war one, AKA the prototype for the Iraq war

Nonono, you're thinking two wars before this one. Iran-Iraq war was the trenches.

/Things not many people know

WW1 started over terrorists (although at least Austria got the country right) as was Iraq; both were totally pointless.

[Landereien]

The Mohiitan mandarin war which lasted a fortnight was clearly the stupidest war in history.

[Volmachtia]

The Bay of Pigs Invasion.
It failed because some idiot didn't account for the time zone difference and left the landing troops to die without air support. That did NOT look good for the US's reputation.

Also, WW1.

...what?

Florida and Cuba are the same timezone, and Kennedy vetoed air support because he wanted to keep the US' involvement as secret as possible. It wasn't because of timing issues.

[Nazis in Space]

Nonono, you're thinking two wars before this one. Iran-Iraq war was the trenches.

/Things not many people know

WW1 started over terrorists (although at least Austria got the country right) as was Iraq; both were totally pointless.

WW1 led to

• half a dozen previously not particularly well-off ethnic minorities - chiefly in the Russian, Austrian, Ottoman and German borders. Western allied minorities had to wait another few decades to be un-oppressed - getting their own countries
• the elimination of the German export economy, particularly shipping, much to the advantage of British and American shipping
• France getting its little Alsace-Lorraine dick back
• the redistribution of substantial colonial territory in favour of the victors, some of which - Namibia's diamond mines - was actually worthwhile

That's not exactly pointless. It's actually a remarkable success for its winners, if, admittedly, at a rather high cost.

[OMGeverynameistaken]

You know, people, the Children's Crusade wasn't a war, even if it GOT to Muslim lands (which there is some doubt that it did), it was intended as a peaceful means of conversion. Without many sources on the matter (or, rather, too many conflicting sources) it's difficult to know if it even happened, and, if it did, how it happened. Regardless, most of the versions I've read have the 'crusade' ending in Italy, either when their efforts to cross the sea were failed by it failing to divide before them, or simply breaking up on the way south.

[Fedeledland]

*cough* The American Revolution was a whole lot more than tea stamps. I suggest you dig a bit deeper.

And those Latin wars were a whole lot more. It was just the catalyst. Just like WWI wasn't FF's death but a whole lot of tension.

The only stupid one he listed was the Pig War.[/quote]

Uh, no. Most of them were the US making stupid assumptions/taking accidents as attacks in order to gain an excuse to senselessly steal land.

The others are "I DONT LIEK UR GOVERNMENT SO I MAEK UR PPL SUFFAR HAHAHA".

[Daistallia 2104]

The Vietnam War was mishandled, especially later on, but it had an ideological basis, and there was an opening to jump in. So, America took the plunge.

America "took the plunge" after a much more pragmatic entrance (keeping France able to help fend of the USSR in Europe by helping them with their goal of maintaining their colonial empire). The "ideological basis" was scrapped together more as a cover.

[Episarta]

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.

[Terracotta]

The war on Native Americans. From the Aztecs to the Trail of Tears. Custer got what he deserved at Little Bighorn

[OMGeverynameistaken]

The war on Native Americans. From the Aztecs to the Trail of Tears. Custer got what he deserved at Little Bighorn

While immoral and generally not-good from the native perspective, the wars against the natives were largely successful and gained the Europeans massive amounts of resources and land. They were not 'stupid' at all. Besides General "Leave the Gatling Guns Behind" Custer and a few other incidents.

EDIT:
Also, I'd point out that the "Spanish" war on the Aztecs was mostly prosecuted by natives, such as the Tlaxclala, who hated the Aztecs guts.

[Caninope]

The Vietnam War was mishandled, especially later on, but it had an ideological basis, and there was an opening to jump in. So, America took the plunge.

America "took the plunge" after a much more pragmatic entrance (keeping France able to help fend of the USSR in Europe by helping them with their goal of maintaining their colonial empire). The "ideological basis" was scrapped together more as a cover.

The plunge was took after the domino theory became a facet of American foreign policy. The domino theory was just as much ideological as pragmatic.

[Nazis in Space]

EDIT:
Also, I'd point out that the "Spanish" war on the Aztecs was mostly prosecuted by natives, such as the Tlaxclala, who hated the Aztecs guts.

Hm.

If we allow hindsight, that actually might count as stupid after all.

Ally with the Spanish, defeat the Aztecs, get enslaved and driven to near-extinction like everyone else a few decades later.

But, of course, that's allowing for hindsight. When Cortez first showed up, it was the chance of a lifetime.

[Caninope]

The war on Native Americans. From the Aztecs to the Trail of Tears. Custer got what he deserved at Little Bighorn

While immoral and generally not-good from the native perspective, the wars against the natives were largely successful and gained the Europeans massive amounts of resources and land. They were not 'stupid' at all. Besides General "Leave the Gatling Guns Behind" Custer and a few other incidents.

EDIT:
Also, I'd point out that the "Spanish" war on the Aztecs was mostly prosecuted by natives, such as the Tlaxclala, who hated the Aztecs guts.

It's also unfair to portray it as one war. It was a continuing series of wars, against many groups.

[Malaysii]

Absolute FactPersonal Opinion: World War One.
Debateable: The Childrens Crusade in 1212. Not sure this was real, but its ridiculous.

Fixed.

I'd say now seems like a good time to discuss the stupidity of war, or rather: wars that were stupid.

How are we defining how a war was stupid? By how it started? Or for another reason?

By fact I mean it actually happened. The Children's Crusade may or may not have happened.

[Meowfoundland]

The War of the Bucket.