If you were to say there is one country known for inept leadership, stupid mistakes, blatant blunders and the like, what would it be?

France for the Louisiana Purchase?

Germany for not fully mobilizing until 1944?

Russia for sticking in WWI until Lenin?

Russia for the Great Purge which eradicated their military leadership prior to WWII?

America for Vietnam?

Russia for Afghanistan?

Great Britain for Chamberlain at Munich?

France for the Maginot (sp?) Line?

I'm sure there are more...What can you guys think of?

India for believing that the Chinese could be trusted prior to 1962:p

France invading Russia 1812
Germany invading Russia 1941

Albania. For 3 reasons:
1 - They had the most paranoid Communist dictatorship imaginable which believed and convinced the citizens that Albania was the immediate, primary target of America's nuclear arsenal. They built "nuclear shelters" in thousands of locations and conducted constant nuclear attack drills just to keep everyone ready for the big day.
2 - When Albania moved out of communism in the early '90's their non-understanding of capitalism allowed almost everyone in the country to be suckered into an enormous pyramid scheme which promised to pay several hundred per cent interest.
3 - They had a king named Zog.

You mean the Louisiana selling didn't you ? :hmm:
In this case, paradoxally it wasn't a stupid move.
Napoleon needed money for his campaigns in Europe; he couldn't protect Louisiana because there were huge amounts of Brit forces in Canada whereas there weren't many French units garisonned (sp?) in Louisiana.
There was a thread about this about a month or two ago, I suggest you take a look at it ;)

And the Maginot wasn't dumb because the French/Brits couldn't imagine the Germans would have a great strategy such as the Blitzkrieg !

I think the stupidest move is Germany declaring war to the USSR and the US. They could have won the war if they didn't.
Wait, so actually it was a good move :D

But, most of all I reckon it's too easy to declare one's action is stupid since they couldn't know all of this would have happened in the future. I guess they were more bad speculators than dumb countries ;)

D'Artagnan: "And the Maginot wasn't dumb because the French/Brits couldn't imagine the Germans would have a great strategy such as the Blitzkrieg !"

Wrong. First version of the Blitzkrieg was introduced in the WWI by the Germans during their last advance phase. General De Gaulle, General Martell, General J.F.C. Fuller, Sir Basil Liddell Hart and Marshal Tuchakhevsky were all non-German pioneers to develop the idea of modern mobile warfare further, and each and every one of these were studied by the Germans to develop their Blitzkrieg. You can check this from anywhere. Of course De Gaulle's ideas were published as late as 1934 in his book, but when the Maginot Line was only an sketch on a paper it was opposed by other modernists in the French army.

Originally posted by D' Artagnan

I think the stupidest move is Germany declaring war to the USSR and the US. They could have won the war if they didn't.



Yes, I agree with that. Churchill said something like this about it:

"The moment I realized we wouldn't lose the war was when Germany attacked Russia"

"The moment I realized we would win the war was when Japan attacked Pearl Harbour"

@Ukas

De Gaulle at the beginning of the WWII was an unknown 2 stars general. He indeed promoted the idea of developing tank units. French tanks were dispersed along with slow infantry. It couldn't have resisted Germany's fast Panzer units.
The Maginot line is not to blame; the French strategists were.

Although, the Allies did have as many tanks as the Germans, they dispersed them with infantry and did not have a plan to use massed armor formations to counter the germans.:tank:

Originally posted by brandon749
If you were to say there is one country known for inept leadership, stupid mistakes, blatant blunders and the like, what would it be?...

Great Britain for Chamberlain at Munich?...
I realize that many people damn Chamberlain for the Munich Pact and fantasize that if Britain and France had stood up to Germany in 1938, Hitler would have backed down or even been replaced by his own generals. Indeed, some people even have the idea that the democracies were strong enough to take on Germany in 1938.

Quite the reverse is true. As unprepared as Great Britain and France were for war in late 1939, they were even more so a year earlier. Relatively speaking, Germany was readier in 1938. Also, the Allied military position in late 1938 was seriously flawed. The overall balance of ground forces, 70 German divisions to 82 British (7) and French (75) divisions, was on paper favorable to the Allies, But where Germany had five panzer divisions and six motorized divisions, the Allies had between them three light armored divisions and as many motorized divisions. The situation in the air was even more imbalanced, for the Germans had about 2,850 modern combat aircraft while the Allies had only 2,350. Moreover, virtually the entire French Air Force consisted of obsolete airplanes, and the Royal Air Force had one squadron of Spitfires and two squadrons of Hurricanes, the rest of the RAF's Fighter Command was Gloster Gladiator biplanes!

Despite appearances, Chamberlain was no fool. He was quite aware that Hitler's "No More Territorial Demands" speech at the time of Munich was a fraud. He was also quite aware of the parlous state of British defences. He had consulted the chiefs of the British military services before he went to Munich and they had given him a precise assessment of the probabilities. When he asked what the chances were of defending the UK from an air assault in 1938, he was rightly told they were not good. It would be at least a year before significant numbers of Hurricanes and Spitfires would be available and the new mystery weapon, RDF (Radio Direction Finding, later given the American name of radar) on hand. Weighing the odds, Chamberlain backed down. Hitler was no fool either. When Mussolini, who had worked particularly hard to bring about the Munich Pact, boasted of his accomplishment, the Fuhrer roasted him. Hitler had wanted a fight in 1938.

A year later, when Hitler invaded Poland, Chamberlain again went to the service chiefs to ask if there was a reasonable chance of defending Britain. By then there were hundreds of Hurricanes and Spitfires available and the "Chain Home" RDF net up and running. Chamberlain promptly issued an ultimatum and in three days Britain and Germany were at war.

For an indepth discussion of Munich and its aftermath, see D. Cameron Watt's How War Came (New York: Pantheon, 1989).

Originally posted by D' Artagnan

And the Maginot wasn't dumb because the French/Brits couldn't imagine the Germans would have a great strategy such as the Blitzkrieg !

That's not true at all. Germany had been experimenting with Blitzkrieg tactics for years in the Spanish Civil War. But the real error of ignorance is this: Poland. France didn't adapt their strategy at all based on this experience. Then there's also an inherent counterintuitiveness to the military and diplomatic strategy behind the line. France declared war on Germany. Then what did they do? Nothing! They declared war and then they took on a defensive posture. Don't get into a fight if you only plan to try to block your opponents punches and have no plan to throw a few of you own.

Dumbness has no upper bounds and it is said, that the even the Gods fight it in vain.

It's a draw.

In light of what was to come, the Dutch exchanging their colony of New Amsterdam for ownership of Surinam as a result of the Second English War was one of the more uninspired policy decisions ever.

For a nice discussion of several dumb policy decisions, read Barbara Tuchman's The March of Folly .

Why argue?

France.

Originally posted by brandon749


That's not true at all. Germany had been experimenting with Blitzkrieg tactics for years in the Spanish Civil War. But the real error of ignorance is this: Poland. France didn't adapt their strategy at all based on this experience. Then there's also an inherent counterintuitiveness to the military and diplomatic strategy behind the line. France declared war on Germany. Then what did they do? Nothing! They declared war and then they took on a defensive posture. Don't get into a fight if you only plan to try to block your opponents punches and have no plan to throw a few of you own.

Ironically, France did adapt its strategy following the fall of Poland. The original plan was to put the majority of the 72 active French divisions in Northern France at the time around the major French city of Sedan, where the Germans were, up until that point, suspected to strike. Upon seeing the rabid encirclement tactics that had been used in the wide, open plains of Poland, Gamelin expected a Schleiffen-esque attack and moved the forces Northward, severely limiting the number of forces in Sedan and Luxembourg.

It has been rumored that General Gamelin drew out the German attack in France on a napkin during a particularly boring state dinner, but discarded it after the Polish campaign.

Also, the French mobilization process was out of date. France did not expect to be able to amount an attack that could be taken seriously until 1942. Despite claims that the Saarland campaign was little more than a token attempt, that was all the French could put forth at the time. It was not a half-assed job on the part of the leadership or, for that matter, the civilian government, but actually the outmoded mobilization process.

Also, in regards to the Maginot line, it took 15 infantry divisions to man it. By contrast, 72 infantry & armored divisions stood in Belgium in May 1940.

Originally posted by D' Artagnan
And the Maginot wasn't dumb because the French/Brits couldn't imagine the Germans would have a great strategy such as the Blitzkrieg !

...and no offence, but that has to be about the dumbest explanation for anything I've seen on this forum.

1. Don't lump the Brits in, we didn't build the frickin' forts, we were under your command in '40. Thanks for that ;).

2. Actually, it would be quite easy to imagine it, since De Gaulle proposed just such a concept in the mid-1930s for the French army. He was, typically, ignored by a foolish nation. Just as Grouard and Michel's ideas on defence against a German invasion were ignored before 1914 in favor of a childish national obsession with "offensive la outrance" or whatever the hell the phrase for mass suicide was in Plan 17.

3. Achtung Panzer! was published by Guderian in 1937, adopting many of De Gaulle's ideas. Funny, but construction on Maginot didn't exactly stop at the time.

4. Since I know it's fashionable for the French to blame Britain for its faults (after all, that's what happened in 1940 - it was all Britain's fault for withdrawaling from Dunkirk ;) ), I will pre-emptively point out that Britain's "Maginot Line" - Fighter Command and the Radar system - were actually directed at the right targets and worked perfectly, so it wasn't like it wasn't possible to predict what was coming.

I will also do your arguing for you by noting that Britain did foolishly build the forts in Singapore to face the wrong way, proving conclusively that I'm not being unfair in picking solely on the French...

R.III

French and the Maginot Line

And the Maginot wasn't dumb because the French/Brits couldn't imagine the Germans would have a great strategy such as the Blitzkrieg !

As I understand it, the Maginot line was only built along the French-German boarder. While a tank coluum attacking to the south was unlikely because of geograph and terrian the Germans could EASILY go aroung to the north it they declared war on belgium. This is exactly what they did. It wasn't that blitzkrieg made the wall obsolete; the wall just wasn't long enough.:p

Originally posted by Titan2018


As I understand it, the Maginot line was only built along the French-German boarder. While a tank coluum attacking to the south was unlikely because of geograph and terrian the Germans could EASILY go aroung to the north it they declared war on belgium. This is exactly what they did. It wasn't that blitzkrieg made the wall obsolete; the wall just wasn't long enough.:p

No because the borderline between France and Belgium had a very difficult landcsape for the Germans to cross iy since it has a lot of forests. They still managed to break throught with their panzers.

Originally posted by Richard III


...and no offence, but that has to be about the dumbest explanation for anything I've seen on this forum.

1. Don't lump the Brits in, we didn't build the frickin' forts, we were under your command in '40. Thanks for that ;).

2. Actually, it would be quite easy to imagine it, since De Gaulle proposed just such a concept in the mid-1930s for the French army. He was, typically, ignored by a foolish nation. Just as Grouard and Michel's ideas on defence against a German invasion were ignored before 1914 in favor of a childish national obsession with "offensive la outrance" or whatever the hell the phrase for mass suicide was in Plan 17.

3. Achtung Panzer! was published by Guderian in 1937, adopting many of De Gaulle's ideas. Funny, but construction on Maginot didn't exactly stop at the time.

4. Since I know it's fashionable for the French to blame Britain for its faults (after all, that's what happened in 1940 - it was all Britain's fault for withdrawaling from Dunkirk ;) ), I will pre-emptively point out that Britain's "Maginot Line" - Fighter Command and the Radar system - were actually directed at the right targets and worked perfectly, so it wasn't like it wasn't possible to predict what was coming.

I will also do your arguing for you by noting that Britain did foolishly build the forts in Singapore to face the wrong way, proving conclusively that I'm not being unfair in picking solely on the French...

R.III

Like toasty said, only a minor part of the army was used for the Maginot line.
The one to blame was the weak leftist pacifist government (Léon Blum's) that didn't listen to de Gaulle's wish to make tank units. As I said b4, France had more or less the same amount of tanks as the Germans, but they were dispersed along with slow infantry units.

Oh and btw how come the Brits who managed the defense so perfectly ran as fast as they could towards Dunkerque's port ? ;)
Also why not put Russia on the list as they were invaded with the same technique 1 year after France ?

Manstein was a great strategist that's all

Also, about De Gaulle it's easy to say he was right AFTER the war. What if he had been wrong ? ;)

Also, in regards to the Maginot line, it took 15 infantry divisions to man it. By contrast, 72 infantry & armored divisions stood in Belgium in May 1940

...and those 15 divisions were able to inflict extreamly heavy casulties on the German formations which tried to attack the Maginot Line towards the end of the French campaign.
IMO, the Maginot Line was a success - it forced the Germans to take a round about invasion route and allowed the French to economise their ground troops into mobile units. The main French failure in WW2 was that the Air Force was too weak and the mobile Army units were poorly trained and organised.

BTW, anyone who thinks that the Germans could 'easily' pass through the Ardennes needs look at the Battle of the Bulge. In 1944 a small number of second rate American formations were able to fatally slow a full blooded German armoured attack through the Ardennes. Had the French assigned a few decent divisions to the Ardennes, there's no reason why they couldn't have done the same in 1940.

IMO the prize for the dumbest national leadership* in modern history would go to the bloodthirsty idiots who ran Japan in the 30s and 40s. Thier combined incompatance and unwillingness to face reality turned a mildly prosperous nation into a devestated hell hole.


*Saying that countries are 'dumb' due to decisions made by their government is really stuipid. The 'dumbest' countries in human history are those that never implimented education systems.

WillBill wrote:

Albania. For 3 reasons:
1 - They had the most paranoid Communist dictatorship imaginable which believed and convinced the citizens that Albania was the immediate, primary target of America's nuclear arsenal. They built "nuclear shelters" in thousands of locations and conducted constant nuclear attack drills just to keep everyone ready for the big day.
2 - When Albania moved out of communism in the early '90's their non-understanding of capitalism allowed almost everyone in the country to be suckered into an enormous pyramid scheme which promised to pay several hundred per cent interest.
3 - They had a king named Zog.

?

1. Albania was one of the most fought-over parts of Europe historically-speaking, and in fact the paranoid communist leadership got that way because Enver Hoxha had only managed by skin of teeth avoiding having Albania absorbed into Tito's Yugoslavia in 1944-48. Albania's coastline is littered with Ottoman, Venetian, Byzantine, and Roman fortresses, a sure sign of Albania's fun history. Albania was created in 1912 after the First Balkan War by the Western Powers to block Serbia from the Adriatic, and so Albania spent most of the next two decades avoiding being annexed by Yugoslavia. To make it more interesting, Albania also spent most of the 1930s increasingly dependent on Mussolini's Italy, whose imperialist ambitions towards Albania were clear. The 1939 Italian invasion and seizure of Albania was only the last step in a decade-long game whereby Italy had a stranglehold on Albania’s fragile economy. And should we forget Greece’s desire to annex southern Albania? As the least developed and weakest state in interbellum Europe, the Albanians had a right to be a little paranoid.

Also, as a former denizen of a communist state I can assure you that all communist dictatorships lived on paranoia, claiming the capitalist West as a bogeyman that wanted our lands, resources or people. True, Hoxha’s Albania was among the most extreme but given its past history and the severely under-developed nature of the country, this isn’t too surprising.

2. So their lack of exposure to Western styles of corruption makes them dumb? Plenty of people in the West buy into these schemes as well; despite (unlike the Albanians) having plenty of experience and evidence that they don’t work. Who is really dumb?

3. Ahmed Zogu did the best under the circumstances, a spot better than many other national leaders at the time.

We can't really call any country "dumb". Any given group of people is going to, in its history, do some intelligent and not-so-intelligent things. Why did Hitler declare war on the U.S. after Pearl Harbor despite not having any obligation with Japan to do so? Why did Custer attack a much larger Indian force, and split his own forces thrice during the attack? Why did Poland seize Cieszyn/Teschen in 1939? To call these countries dumb for their actions would force you to ignore some amazing achievements on their part. Perhaps it would be better to analyze mistakes than to try to label a whole country, unless your objective is merely to feel superior.

:rolleyes:

Every country had its dumbest moments, esp when dummies were calling the shots. No exceptions. Just a matter of who's the greater dummy...

PS Darn forum downtime...

Originally posted by allhailIndia
India for believing that the Chinese could be trusted prior to 1962:p I'll have to respond to this blatant misrepresentation of the 1962 war. :p

It was the Indians who provoked the Chinese, and drawing them into an armed conflict. The Chinese were perfectly willing to sit down and negotiate (like they did with Burma earlier, and giving up claims to an area half or 1/3 the size of W Malaysia).

But no, the Indian press were screaming for blood, and so were the politicians. :rolleyes: Toss them out! Show who's the boss! Nobody messes with the Indian Army!

So the govt sent out a military force into the disputed area; one that's poorly equipped or trained for fighting in high-altitude locations (the disputed zone was along a mountainous border). And the PLA had been in Tibet for years and the Chinese had acclimatized to the altitude.

Not sure what happened next, but the Chinese also moved down fr higher up, while the Indian troops trudged up the mountains. The press began screaming for real blood, along with the politicians. And forced the Indian PM's hand (was it Nehru?). Nehru had been a great supporter of the PRC (India was the first nation to recognize the PRC) as brother-nation in leading the developing nations bloc vs the West and the Soviets.

Fighting broke out, with the Indian troops having received orders to shoot. And the badly supplied, badly equipped Indian troops were forced back down to the jungles (drove out more like). The Indian Army was bloodied.

It was a disaster sufficient to shook up the entire hierarchy of the govt and military to upgrade its military capabilities, so that India could later successfully help E Pakistan to become the Bangladesh of today. Perhaps a hard-taught lesson.

So today, the Chinese and the Indians still had this border dispute on the works. Put an end to the Sino-Indian brotherhood of the 50s. Indian pride was hurt; so real progress in negotiating a settlement got bogged down, with the Chinese also being more forceful today.

With the Chinese people's opinion having a greater and greater impact on the PRC foreign policy, not likely for the Chinese to give way now...

Originally posted by D' Artagnan
Oh and btw how come the Brits who managed the defense so perfectly ran as fast as they could towards Dunkerque's port ? ;)
Also why not put Russia on the list as they were invaded with the same technique 1 year after France ?

Manstein was a great strategist that's all

Also, about De Gaulle it's easy to say he was right AFTER the war. What if he had been wrong ? ;)

You are proving that France is the dumbest country (ban me, it has to be said).

First, as I pointed out, the British units were under French command; they were exposed because of French planning.

Second, Russia didn't invest several billion in big forts that channeled the invader into its best position. They spent their precious resources building tanks and new factories that actually helped them win in the end, instead of on a monument to stupidity.

Third, I had a grandfather who almost lost his life defending your cowardly nation at Dunkirk. I don't recall him running to anything. He was actually captured by the Germans at one point. Like France, did he surrender and turn Nazi at the first opportunity? No, he and his buddies overpowered the gaurd and fought their way to the beach - the same beach that brits were dying to pull French troops off of.

Ever heard of something called the Battle of Arras, monsieur?

Fourth, if we took your line of logic on De Gaulle to heart, no one would ever make a decision, ever.

R.III

Originally posted by Richard III
Second, Russia didn't invest several billion in big forts that channeled the invader into its best position. They spent their precious resources building tanks and new factories that actually helped them win in the end, instead of on a monument to stupidity.

Sorry, but that's both factually wrong and an invalid comparison. At the time of the German invasion, the USSR was working on the 'Stalin Line' which was a serious of fortified zones intended to squeze invaders in certain areas. Sure, the individual fortifications weren't as sophisticated as those of the Maginot Line, but the scope of the project was astonishing, with the Stalin Line being intended to stetch from the Baltic to the Black Sea!

Anyway, the Soviets were only able to turn back the Germans after a disarterous retreat of over 1000 kilometres. If the French retreated that far they'd be in the Mediterranean!

Third, I had a grandfather who almost lost his life defending your cowardly nation at Dunkirk.

Calling the French 'cowardly' for thier campaign in 1940 makes as much sence as the French claiming that the British betrayed them by not commiting the entire RAF. Several hundred thousand French soliders died fighting the Germans. Were they really all cowards?

Ever heard of something called the Battle of Arras, monsieur?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but that was a relatively minor tactical victory. The French scored a few of those as well. Arras was a British victory in the same way that Operation Goodwood was a German victory in 1944.

Originally posted by allhailIndia
India for believing that the Chinese could be trusted prior to 1962:p

Shouldn't that be "India for believing that the Chinese could be bullied and taken advantage of prior to 1962"?

Case summed it all well.
The French lost 210,00 soldiers in WW II ( the UK : 270,000) calling them cowards means eitheir you're a blindly anti-French, either u know nothin about the Battle of France.
So whan the Russians retreat for a 1,000 km before effectively resisting u say nothing but when the French fought hard to defend their country (the first days of battle were as worse as the worst days of WW I in terms of intensity and deaths).

Also, do you REALLY expect Britain wouldn't have surrendered if they were in the continental land ? :rolleyes:

Originally posted by XIII
Every country had its dumbest moments, esp when dummies were calling the shots. No exceptions. Just a matter of who's the greater dummy...

PS Darn forum downtime...

I'll have to respond to this blatant misrepresentation of the 1962 war. :p

It was the Indians who provoked the Chinese, and drawing them into an armed conflict. The Chinese were perfectly willing to sit down and negotiate (like they did with Burma earlier, and giving up claims to an area half or 1/3 the size of W Malaysia).

But no, the Indian press were screaming for blood, and so were the politicians. :rolleyes: Toss them out! Show who's the boss! Nobody messes with the Indian Army!

So the govt sent out a military force into the disputed area; one that's poorly equipped or trained for fighting in high-altitude locations (the disputed zone was along a mountainous border). And the PLA had been in Tibet for years and the Chinese had acclimatized to the altitude.

Not sure what happened next, but the Chinese also moved down fr higher up, while the Indian troops trudged up the mountains. The press began screaming for real blood, along with the politicians. And forced the Indian PM's hand (was it Nehru?). Nehru had been a great supporter of the PRC (India was the first nation to recognize the PRC) as brother-nation in leading the developing nations bloc vs the West and the Soviets.

Fighting broke out, with the Indian troops having received orders to shoot. And the badly supplied, badly equipped Indian troops were forced back down to the jungles (drove out more like). The Indian Army was bloodied.

It was a disaster sufficient to shook up the entire hierarchy of the govt and military to upgrade its military capabilities, so that India could later successfully help E Pakistan to become the Bangladesh of today. Perhaps a hard-taught lesson.

So today, the Chinese and the Indians still had this border dispute on the works. Put an end to the Sino-Indian brotherhood of the 50s. Indian pride was hurt; so real progress in negotiating a settlement got bogged down, with the Chinese also being more forceful today.

With the Chinese people's opinion having a greater and greater impact on the PRC foreign policy, not likely for the Chinese to give way now...

Nice way to justify an invasion, accept our bullying or die!!!!:mad:

BTW India was in no position to "bully" China then, it would be like Canada bullying the US for Seattle;)

Plus, India was the one with the poorly equipped and poorly trained army, but we had an Air Force which could have whipped the Chinese any day, and to believe that Nehru would have seriously contemplated war is to show how little you know of Nehru! Indeed, we blame him now for not being prepared enough to tackle the Chinese and believing that it is honest, good men who survive in this world:p.

Anyway, India and China are now actually sitting down and talking about the border problem, with our Defence Minister George Fernandes visiting China on this issue last week.

Who wants war when we are making so much money;)

Originally posted by jack merchant
In light of what was to come, the Dutch exchanging their colony of New Amsterdam for ownership of Surinam as a result of the Second English War was one of the more uninspired policy decisions ever.

For a nice discussion of several dumb policy decisions, read Barbara Tuchman's The March of Folly .

I was not exactly a choice. The English in fact won the war and demanded NY as a result in peace negotiations. To decrease the pain, Surinam was given to NL. Decreasing the pain was important, as the English needed the Dutch in some ways.

At the time Dutch sea merchants of the WIC (West Indian Company) could use Surinam as a trading station for slaves and made a fine profit. NY would have been lost anyway. Surinam stayed part of the kingdom until 1975. Since then, it only costs money though, so I guess it would have been better not to trade NY to Surinam, but to just let it go. If all the money sent to Surinam since 1975 by the dutch government would have been put in a bank account in stead, and today divided over all Surinamers, the would all be millionairs....... Now, all they have is one bridge :( .

Originally posted by allhailIndia
Nice way to justify an invasion, accept our bullying or die!!!!:mad:

BTW India was in no position to "bully" China then, it would be like Canada bullying the US for Seattle;)It was not so much of India bullying China, as of the Indian govt folding in the face of popular sentiment. Over the objection of one of the Indian army officers (IIRC, the one who actually commanded the force), the Indian govt issued orders to march into the area, as a show of 'strength'.

China was being surrounded by many much more dangerous neighbours (like the Soviets all across the northern borders fr the Dzungarian Basin to the Amur and the US in Japan, S Korea, Taiwan); they're in no mood to pick a fight with the Indians, or anyone else. It was the Indians forcing the issue.

As it is, to the Chinese, this war was pretty much of a non-event, compared to the Korean War earlier, or the clashes with Soviet forces later, or with the Vietnamese even later.

I'd read up on this war, and find it amongst one of the more pointless ones. So much more could have been achieved w/o it souring Sino-Indian relations.

Plus, India was the one with the poorly equipped and poorly trained army, but we had an Air Force which could have whipped the Chinese any day, and to believe that Nehru would have seriously contemplated war is to show how little you know of Nehru! Indeed, we blame him now for not being prepared enough to tackle the Chinese and believing that it is honest, good men who survive in this world:p.The PLA survived the bombings or whatever of the world's greatest air force during the Korean War. Somehow I am sure they could survive the Indian air force too... :rolleyes:

The manner in which the Indian part of the war was carried out was itself a study in one of the dumber acts in modern history. The Indian planners were actually supplying the Indian forces by air. Problem is the parachutes were faulty, and they're dropping them randomly into the jungle. Also the contents were unsuitable for the requirements of warfare in the region IIRC.

At the very least, it awoken the Indians sufficiently to hastily upgrade their capabilities rapidly, in time to tackle Pakistan during the independence drive of E Pakistan AKA Bangladesh.

Anyway, India and China are now actually sitting down and talking about the border problem, with our Defence Minister George Fernandes visiting China on this issue last week.

Who wants war when we are making so much money;)That's God's own truth. :D

Originally posted by allhailIndia
and to believe that Nehru would have seriously contemplated war is to show how little you know of Nehru! Indeed, we blame him now for not being prepared enough to tackle the Chinese and believing that it is honest, good men who survive in this world:p.It wasn't Nehru; like I said, the popular sentiment and the politicians and bureaucrats forced his hand. That's one of the less appealing variant in a democracy - you sometimes take the easy way out by choosing the course of action that's a lot of popular support.

Nehru himself never commanded an army in war, along with the rest of the political and bureaucracy crowd. But still, they thought they know about war, and clamoured for one. Even the top brass of the Indian military seriously overestimated their capabilities, and underestimated the Chinese - they're still stuck in their British Raj mentality that the Indian Army rules the region, and conveniently forgot a new boy has arrived to play in the neighbourhood in the early 50s in Tibet.

However the guys sitting in Beijing were grim-faced survivors of the Long March and had fought their way to power, against Imperial Japan and the Nationalists. They know what they're in for, and made sure they win on their way out.

Originally posted by XIII
It was not so much of India bullying China, as of the Indian govt folding in the face of popular sentiment. Over the objection of one of the Indian army officers (IIRC, the one who actually commanded the force), the Indian govt issued orders to march into the area, as a show of 'strength'.

China was being surrounded by many much more dangerous neighbours (like the Soviets all across the northern borders fr the Dzungarian Basin to the Amur and the US in Japan, S Korea, Taiwan); they're in no mood to pick a fight with the Indians, or anyone else. It was the Indians forcing the issue.

As it is, to the Chinese, this war was pretty much of a non-event, compared to the Korean War earlier, or the clashes with Soviet forces later, or with the Vietnamese even later.

I'd read up on this war, and find it amongst one of the more pointless ones. So much more could have been achieved w/o it souring Sino-Indian relations.

The PLA survived the bombings or whatever of the world's greatest air force during the Korean War. Somehow I am sure they could survive the Indian air force too... :rolleyes:

The manner in which the Indian part of the war was carried out was itself a study in one of the dumber acts in modern history. The Indian planners were actually supplying the Indian forces by air. Problem is the parachutes were faulty, and they're dropping them randomly into the jungle. Also the contents were unsuitable for the requirements of warfare in the region IIRC.

At the very least, it awoken the Indians sufficiently to hastily upgrade their capabilities rapidly, in time to tackle Pakistan during the independence drive of E Pakistan AKA Bangladesh.

That's God's own truth. :D

I think what hurt Indians more than the official bungling in this war was the fact that China "donated" land to the Pakistanis.

BTW, I don't recall much about the war in the Jungle, I assumed much of the war was fought in the higher regions??:confused:

By the Air force, I am referring to the fact that the Planes with the IAF at that time were technologically superior to the Chinese planes and could have contested Air superiority but for the idiotic decision to ground them.:mad:

Originally posted by allhailIndia
I think what hurt Indians more than the official bungling in this war was the fact that China "donated" land to the Pakistanis.What land? Those in the Aksai Chin (sp?)? I thought the Chinese decided to keep them... Pakistan and China don't share a common land border, you know.

I guess after the theatrics put up by the Indians, the Chinese decided to side with Pakistan. Divide and rule, you understand. :p

BTW, I don't recall much about the war in the Jungle, I assumed much of the war was fought in the higher regions??:confused:It was in the region where the jungle met the mountains - the PLA was chasing down the dispersed Indian forces into the jungle, before retreating. Anyways, the situation up there was pretty confusing, and both sides were operating far away fr their normal lines.

By the Air force, I am referring to the fact that the Planes with the IAF at that time were technologically superior to the Chinese planes and could have contested Air superiority but for the idiotic decision to ground them.:mad:I think India made a wise decision not to escalate the war - China is no Pakistan...

And in 2 years' time fr 1962, the Chinese would have exploded their first H-bomb IIRC. They already had the A-bomb I think.

France for everything... especially the fact the failed to do much in America.
Britain lost the 13 States, that was bad too.

"Dumbest country ever..."

Not a difficult one.

Better not answer though, don't want to get banned.

I'd say all countries in the poll and many other which are not in the poll.
oh, and dont thank me it was my duty :)

you cant call a country "the dumbest". if a country made a stupid move I wonder what that country's allies were doing, didnt they realize that was a stupid move?
then they were stupid too IMO.

Before reading this thread I was completely oblivious to recent Asian history. Nice to be out of the dark...

Here's a link on the sino-indian war

http://sinoindianwar.50megs.com/

(Allthough a bit subjective, the site has a lot of informations...)

Originally posted by Aphex_Twin
Before reading this thread I was completely oblivious to recent Asian history. Nice to be out of the dark...

Here's a link on the sino-indian war

http://sinoindianwar.50megs.com/

(Allthough a bit subjective, the site has a lot of informations...) Biased... :p

So, India went to war with China, 'cause somehow it had inherited the mantle of the British Raj, and must maintain Tibet as a buffer state with China proper...

Anything which makes China look like aggressors and bullies is obviously biased:p::rolleyes:

Originally posted by allhailIndia
Anything which makes China look like aggressors and bullies is obviously biased:p::rolleyes: I meant it in the sense that the site was maintained by two Indians and dedicated to the Indian soldiers who had died during that completely unnecessary war... :p

China was too busy, defending itself fr the likes of the US and the Soviet Union, to be an aggressor to anyone. I doubt the people in Beijing never saw India as more like an irritant, compared with the likes if the above stated two superpowers... :p

I think most Chinese aren't even aware that China and India had fought a war before, in modern times, sad to say. :rolleyes:

One of India's most famous songs and probably most moving song was composed and sung by Lata Mangeshkar during the war. It is said to have moved Nehru to tears.:cry:

Several movies have also been made about the subject and still rankles Indian society as a humiliating loss. It is said to have completely devastated Nehru, who never recovered and died a broken man:(

Poland in the 200 or so years before the Partitions and in between 1772 and 1793.
1)Well, after the Jagiello Dynasty died out, the aristocracy's powers rose dramatically, and they decided to transform Polands already weak hereditary monarchy into an electoral monarchy were they chose the Polish king after one died. Because they were all suspicious of each other, the king that got elected was almost never an actual Pole - they really didnt trust each other and thought that if theyd elect one of their own, then they would lose their priviliges (after the end of the Jagiellos, Poland devolved even further and was basically a very loose confederacy of rivaling principalities and small, weak alliances). This resulted in the obvious choice for foreign kings, who almost always neglected Poland's needs and used it as a battleground or a way to gloat that they have more territory.
2) The Waza king knew that Poland-Lithuania was (mostly) Catholic while Sweden was mainly Lutheran-Protestant, and the two were still quite the rivals. He attempted to unify the two countries into one big empire, but a) that would mean much elss pwoer for the Polish nobles and b) the Swedish mightve lost their independence. The Swedish nobles reacted violently and refused to acknowledge the Waza monarchy that would unify the two countries, so there was no union. At the next election Poland chose some one else.
3) They elected Sobieski, which was a good thing. However, he did have a son - they couldve returned the country to a hereditary monarchy to strengthen it. after he died, though, they didnt, and they elected some other foreigner.
4) After the First Partition, there were 21 years of basic independence for Poland and its neighbors were satisfied with what they had. Instead of trying to restore Poland's power and joining together in a national effort to save their country, the nobles continues to quarrel. The Sejm also did nothing, while the King submitted to Catherine the Great's demands.
So basically that was Polands low/dumb point in history. :(

Stupidity is shared by quite a lot of countries for not stopping Germany, which was clearly breaking the Versailles Tract, in the 30s, thus being partly responsible for the genocide of the Jews. And the Second World War.

Equally however you could argue that the stupidity was in forcing Germany into such a damaging and humiliating long term reparations treaty in the first place. Without that you almost certainly do not have Hitler rising to powers anyway.

Originally posted by Kentonio
Equally however you could argue that the stupidity was in forcing Germany into such a damaging and humiliating long term reparations treaty in the first place. Without that you almost certainly do not have Hitler rising to powers anyway.

Ah, but any British or French politician who gave a speech along the lines of "well, now we have won the Great War, let's be nice to the Germans" would have been thrown out of office in no time.

So I suppose it was inevitable....and the same thing didn't happen after WW2 because Germany was needed as an ally against the new enemy.

True. It was a foolish, foolish mistake though that cost the world in the region of 20-30 million lives. Guess the real lesson is that however dumb some things are they are not always avoidable.

Germany was!! Besides the appeasement that coused WW2, can you imagine what the world would be like if Grmany hadnt threw away their friendships and alliances with Russia instead of invading them! Or imagine if they hadnt had the holocaust and Einstein MIGHT have given aid to Hitler by showing him the atom bomb instead od the US?? But still i think Einstein was smart enough not to be fooled by Hitler. But thats all probably stems from Hitler's rash descisions and hatreds.

Or perhaps Persia. didnt they learn form their previous invasions of Greece a little bit about phalanx warfare:confused: Do they haave to be beaten 3 times to realize that their old ways of attacking were useless? The best method for destryoing the phalanx was to attack the weakest point (right flank). I dont think that its smart to rely on numbers alone, and what is the deal with their wicker shileds? Wicker shileds can stand agist arows, but not against the close-quarter tactics used by the Greeks.

Ya... but the funny thing is... Stalin would've invaded Germany anyway. They both wanted to attack each other.

Hitler never had a friendship with the Russians, which is unsurprising considering he hated and despited Bolshevism. It was always his intention to go east rather than west. Events unfortunately got in the way.

Any invasion of Russia when winter was approaching.

Or possibly the attempted invasion of Finland by Russia at the beginning of WWII (although it was eventually successful)
Seriously, the Russians knew how cold the winter would be, why did the decide to attack then?

Originally posted by D' Artagnan
@Ukas
The Maginot line is not to blame; the French strategists were.

I agree, the French knew that the Maginot line would not stop the Germans, what they were hoping for was to just slow them down while they mobilized behind the line. Unfortunately they didn't extend it to the English Channel and parts of the line were only defended with infantry weapons (no artillery) so basically it was unfinished.

Argentina, for landing untrained raw recruits in the United Kingdom and expeting to win.

Afghanistan, for allowing Al Quaeda to take refuge there even after September 11th, meaning that the Taliban would go with them.

The coalition of Arab states that took on the Israelites in the Six Day War.

The Japanese, for attacking the United States of America.

Hungary under Nagy for leaving the Warsaw Pact, which triggered the invasion by the Soviets.

The Soviet Union for invading Afghanistan thus ending the SALT talks.

The United States of America under Eisenhower for trying to cover up the U2 incident before Khrushchev revealed Gary Powers.

The Romans, for shipping the Vandals to North Africa to 'defend Carthage'

I may well think of more tomorrow.

-

Us in 1947 :p, and us in the years and months leading upto the American War of Independence. If only we'd kept hold of the States, Empire would have been even more impressive. :yeah:

Originally posted by Irish Caesar
Any invasion of Russia when winter was approaching.The Mongols invaded what would be Russia in the dead of winter and they did OK! :p

They needed the rivers frozen, to cross them more easily and quickly.

France for Naplolean attacking russia and the battle of waterluo (spelling error)

Germany - I suppose..(under Hitler's command) for taking Stalingrad.
He exposed a long weak frontline which resulted in one of biggest pincher movements in history, + 25% of Germany's Eastern Front Force was destroyed or captured.

An exercise in arrogance or stupidity? A very thin line seperates the two.

macadonia, declares war on rome AFTER rome has defeated hannibel rather than when the war was going on

Well Rome at that time was a rising power, and did not share the glory that Macedonia had had.

key words, rome and power and macedonia and had