sgrig
Comrade
I would now also have to agree that the Soccer War was the stupidest in history! 
What was the Stupidist War in History?
- Thread starter Case
- Start date
Richard III wrote:
And I might add that we (Canada and Britain) did do better. Our asses were royally kicked in the final rounds of 1775-1789, but most historians - even american ones - describe the war of 1812 as a draw. And some crazy Canadians note that since the capture of Canada was a war aim of the US, you might even say that we won. (I disagree with that assessment, incidentally).
That war was indeed a nasty draw. The British forgot the reasons they were unable to master the American continent in 1775-1783, and the Americans had forgotten how much a failure the militia system was in their Revolution. (Washington must have been spinning in his grave during the Madison administration!) All sides could claim victories - the British at Niagara, Detroit and burning down the White House, the Canadians at Quebec and Detroit, and the Americans on the Great Lakes and New Orleans. They also all had great embarrassments; the Canadians lost Yorke and also the Niagara Frontier, the Americans failed again spectacularly in Canada and lost the White House, and the British lost several prominent naval battles to the Americans on Lakes Erie, Ontario and the open sea, and as well the very ugly defeat at New Orleans...
For all the misery though this wasn't a wasted war. The peace settlement that followed the war recognized that neither the U.S. nor Canada would ever be conquered, and it built the foundation for the lasting peace in North America. The three parties wouldn't exactly be friends for another century and there was still some animosity (Canadian rebels in 1837-38 raided Ontario from the American border, the Fenians of 1867 launched their brief incursion into Ontario from Buffalo, N.Y., etc.) but the peacemakers of 1814 ensured that the military contests for North America were over. Not a bad deal.
But the dumbest war by far has to be "El Guerra del Futbol," or the Soccer War, between El Salvador and Honduras after one of them lost a soccer game in an early round of the World Cup in the 1960s. I can't remember who won the game, but I do remember that El Salvador won the war.
That's my vote too.
And I might add that we (Canada and Britain) did do better. Our asses were royally kicked in the final rounds of 1775-1789, but most historians - even american ones - describe the war of 1812 as a draw. And some crazy Canadians note that since the capture of Canada was a war aim of the US, you might even say that we won. (I disagree with that assessment, incidentally).
That war was indeed a nasty draw. The British forgot the reasons they were unable to master the American continent in 1775-1783, and the Americans had forgotten how much a failure the militia system was in their Revolution. (Washington must have been spinning in his grave during the Madison administration!) All sides could claim victories - the British at Niagara, Detroit and burning down the White House, the Canadians at Quebec and Detroit, and the Americans on the Great Lakes and New Orleans. They also all had great embarrassments; the Canadians lost Yorke and also the Niagara Frontier, the Americans failed again spectacularly in Canada and lost the White House, and the British lost several prominent naval battles to the Americans on Lakes Erie, Ontario and the open sea, and as well the very ugly defeat at New Orleans...
For all the misery though this wasn't a wasted war. The peace settlement that followed the war recognized that neither the U.S. nor Canada would ever be conquered, and it built the foundation for the lasting peace in North America. The three parties wouldn't exactly be friends for another century and there was still some animosity (Canadian rebels in 1837-38 raided Ontario from the American border, the Fenians of 1867 launched their brief incursion into Ontario from Buffalo, N.Y., etc.) but the peacemakers of 1814 ensured that the military contests for North America were over. Not a bad deal.
But the dumbest war by far has to be "El Guerra del Futbol," or the Soccer War, between El Salvador and Honduras after one of them lost a soccer game in an early round of the World Cup in the 1960s. I can't remember who won the game, but I do remember that El Salvador won the war.
That's my vote too.
knowltok2
Deity
Don't worry R3, I can't do jack sh!t while on the phone.
I read the thing on the soccer war, and while is did seem ludicrous, the soccer thing seemed more of an excuse than a reason. I won't say that there were valid reasons for the war, but population dynamics look to have been the root cause.
Soccer makes a better story though
I read the thing on the soccer war, and while is did seem ludicrous, the soccer thing seemed more of an excuse than a reason. I won't say that there were valid reasons for the war, but population dynamics look to have been the root cause.
Soccer makes a better story though
Andu Indorin
Retired Druid
While the Soccer War deserves mention among the stupidest wars in history, I have to agree with Kublai-Khans nomination of the War of the Triple Alliance (or the Lopez War) in South America. It offers an object (and abject) lesson in the dangers and consequences of megalomanical leadership, and stands out as an almost unique example of savage brutality in warfare even without weapons of mass destruction. Just to elaborate somewhat on what Kublai-Khan said
Francisco Solano Lopez became President and virtual dictator of Paraguay in 1862, and quickly transformed Paraguay into the most powerful "nation at arms" in South America, with the aim of creating a "Greater Paraguay." Brazil's support of the Colorado faction in the politics of the Banda Oriental (Uruguay) provoked an intervention by Lopez, who supported the Blanco faction. In late December of 1864, Lopez invaded Brazil; and when Argentina refused permission for Paraguayan troops to cross its territory to invade Brazil further south, Lopez declared war on Argentina in March of 1865, leading to the establishment of the Triple Alliance. By December of 1867, Lopez's regular forces had finally been defeated, but he carried on a partisan campaign up to his in battle in March of 1870.
Normally, this war gets little mention in the annals of world history -- which is alarming given the comparative numbers. Paraguay's population was reduced from around 1,400,000 to around 220,000, of which only about 28,000 were adult males -- a percentage casualty rate far exceeding those of the belligerents in either World War. As for the Triple Alliance, it is estimated that they lost around 1,000,000 men, out of a total population of around 11,500,000; these figures also exceed the percentages of the belligerents in World War I, and are comparable to the figures of Germany and the Soviet Union in World War II (and only when one includes the civilian casualties in that titanic struggle).
It can be argued that Lopez proportionally inflicted more suffering in his eight years as leader of Paraguay than Hitler did in his twelve years as leader of Germany.
Immortal Wombat
Prince and Prophet
Either the soccer war, or...
In 1896, Britain fought a 38 minute war when the pretender Sultan of Zanzibar decided to declare independance. We sunk their one 'battleship' (an ocean tramp) in a few minutes, shelled the palace, forced a surrender, then made the natives pay for all the ammo.
In 1896, Britain fought a 38 minute war when the pretender Sultan of Zanzibar decided to declare independance. We sunk their one 'battleship' (an ocean tramp) in a few minutes, shelled the palace, forced a surrender, then made the natives pay for all the ammo.
Richard III
Duke of Gloucester
Originally posted by knowltok2
Don't worry R3, I can't do jack sh!t while on the phone.
I read the thing on the soccer war, and while is did seem ludicrous, the soccer thing seemed more of an excuse than a reason. I won't say that there were valid reasons for the war, but population dynamics look to have been the root cause.
Soccer makes a better story though
Don't downplay the soccer too much. They did call it the "soccer war" for a reason - as I understand it, the economic tensions certainly effected the elites, but the soccer matches were clearly the provocation rather than the excuse for actual combat, and what was remarkable was how the governments of both sides were able to turn the matches into a national cause/slur on par with the obscure wars that started over telegrams or salutes to the flag in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.
You know those Latin Americans - soccer has MEANING. Toronto grinds down during a world cup, because we have so many different ethnic communities living here that every night, there are enough migrants from the winning country (whatever it might be) to clog a major thoroughfare for the duration.
I mean, hey, I believe it mattered. Anyone who saw my fellow citizens stomping on the stars and stripes because we won a hockey game could beleive it. If we'd lost, I tell ya', the Princess Patricias Canadian Light Infantry would have been marching on Minneapolis...
R.III
Andu Indorin
Retired Druid
Originally posted by Immortal Wombat
Either the soccer war, or...
In 1896, Britain fought a 38 minute war when the pretender Sultan of Zanzibar decided to declare independance. We sunk their one 'battleship' (an ocean tramp) in a few minutes, shelled the palace, forced a surrender, then made the natives pay for all the ammo.
A war for which, if I recall, earned it spot in the Guinness Book of World Records as histories shortest war. If the Saltan wanted to get into that book, then he should have eaten worms more literally and less figuratively.
animepornstar
Deity
Originally posted by Adebisi
Thank you
I'd say the Swedish-Russian war in 1743. Sweden had introduced parlamentarism and France brided them into declaring war ón Russia. They did so without even mobilizing. Of course it could only end in one way - another Russo occupation of Finland.
but didn´t we lose just a small part of finland to the russians? my memory is a bit blur right now for some reason ( 
) but i think i remember that (this might be the war you mentioned) sweden was planing to attack norway when a rumor was spread saying that sweden was planing to attack russia and the whole thing ended with an attack on the russians. anyway, the swedish war statistics against the russians are pretty impressive. two wins, two losses and one or two ties (i can´t remember
). which nation can compete with that?
Alcibiaties of Athenae
Imperator
I'd have to go back to the second responce, because it's the one I most agree with, altough all the other wars mentioned certainly fit the profile, the Great war reached levels of stupidity unparalled in human history.
For no clear reason that can yet be determined, the most powerful nations on earth were determined to kill each other, despite the fact that they controlled most of the world's trade and finace, and that for most of them their citizens lived relativly well (Russia, Italy, and Turkey, as well as some of the smaller powers and the colonial peoples are exceptions, of course).
We saw high commands put their brains and their morals on hold, slaughtering their own men in futile charges against fortified lines, attacks against helpless shipping by submarines, food blockades that caused untold deaths of non-combatents, bombing and shelling of civilian targets for no military purpose, genocide of entire peoples (The Armenians by the Ottomans) and the worst horror of all, poison gases of various types being developed, and worse. employed!
Other wars may be silly or stupid, but for sheer lunacy, nothing can match WWI, and as someone mentioned, it leads to WWII!
Just horible.
For no clear reason that can yet be determined, the most powerful nations on earth were determined to kill each other, despite the fact that they controlled most of the world's trade and finace, and that for most of them their citizens lived relativly well (Russia, Italy, and Turkey, as well as some of the smaller powers and the colonial peoples are exceptions, of course).
We saw high commands put their brains and their morals on hold, slaughtering their own men in futile charges against fortified lines, attacks against helpless shipping by submarines, food blockades that caused untold deaths of non-combatents, bombing and shelling of civilian targets for no military purpose, genocide of entire peoples (The Armenians by the Ottomans) and the worst horror of all, poison gases of various types being developed, and worse. employed!
Other wars may be silly or stupid, but for sheer lunacy, nothing can match WWI, and as someone mentioned, it leads to WWII!
Just horible.
Simon Darkshade
Mysterious City of Gold
Although the Soccer War is somewhat tempting, one would concur that World War I was the most stupid conflict.
The Falklands War was also fairly stupid, but was a close run thing, given the shortages in the closing stages of the war, and the move of British forces away from global projection. (Things might have been...interesting... if they had not got rid of HMS Vanguard, or had a fleet carrier, in addition to the Tiger class cruisers... <sigh>)
The Falklands War was also fairly stupid, but was a close run thing, given the shortages in the closing stages of the war, and the move of British forces away from global projection. (Things might have been...interesting... if they had not got rid of HMS Vanguard, or had a fleet carrier, in addition to the Tiger class cruisers... <sigh>)
Richard III
Duke of Gloucester
Just did a bit of refresher research on the Soccer War.
Turns out the sequence was like this:
#1. Hondurans start expelling Salvadorans.
#2. First game of three game elimination round is in Tegucigalpa. The Hondurans place huge crowds in front of the hotel where the Salvadorean team is trying to sleep, and the crowd stages a near riot with loud music all night to prevent their opponents from sleeping. The exhausted Salvadoreans lose the game 1-0. There is violence at the game.
#3 Round two of the elimination is in San Salvador. The El Salvadoreans go a few steps farther to humiliate and exhaust the Hondurans, and it works, with the Salvadorean team winning 3-0. More violence.
#4 War begins the next day. Salvadoreans do well on the ground, but their advance is slowed by superb performance of Honduran air force.
#5 War ends
#6 Final elimination round is held on neutral territory in Mexico. Mexican government forcibly divides Honduran and Salvadorean fans on either side of the stadium, with 5,000 riot cops in the middle. Salvador wins (can't remember the score).
During the war, a major Honduran slogan is "we will avenge 3-nil!"
So the name was truly deserved!
R.III
Turns out the sequence was like this:
#1. Hondurans start expelling Salvadorans.
#2. First game of three game elimination round is in Tegucigalpa. The Hondurans place huge crowds in front of the hotel where the Salvadorean team is trying to sleep, and the crowd stages a near riot with loud music all night to prevent their opponents from sleeping. The exhausted Salvadoreans lose the game 1-0. There is violence at the game.
#3 Round two of the elimination is in San Salvador. The El Salvadoreans go a few steps farther to humiliate and exhaust the Hondurans, and it works, with the Salvadorean team winning 3-0. More violence.
#4 War begins the next day. Salvadoreans do well on the ground, but their advance is slowed by superb performance of Honduran air force.
#5 War ends
#6 Final elimination round is held on neutral territory in Mexico. Mexican government forcibly divides Honduran and Salvadorean fans on either side of the stadium, with 5,000 riot cops in the middle. Salvador wins (can't remember the score).
During the war, a major Honduran slogan is "we will avenge 3-nil!"
So the name was truly deserved!
R.III
Clearly the Soccer War is the dumbest war ever. But in the interests of Stoopidity please allow me to mention another daft war.
Now I heard of this a while ago so I'm a little hazy over some points but -
The Great War Between RUSSIA and BERWICK UPON TWEED.
Apparently, back in the 19th century, due to some archaic law in the UK whenever the British state went to war Berwick had to be mentioned on the declaration otherwise the city technically wouldn't be at war.
An example would be: The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, Their dominions over the sea, Channel Isles and Berwick Upon Tweed declare war on you... etc...
So when the Crimean War broke out (1853? I forget the exact date) Britain declared war on Russia in this manner.
Only when peace was signed Berwick's name was left off the peace deal... meaning it was still at war with Russia.
It wasn't until 1979 that someone actually noticed that Berwick was still 'bravely fighting' the Soviet menace! Surely under NATO they should've got some help??
Anyway a peace deal was hastily arranged.
Despite lasting 120 odd years this isn't the longest war of all time, I think Malta and Holland (or two similar countries) were at war in similar circumstances for over 200 years.
Like I say, I'm a bit hazy on this. But I'm pretty sure it happened along those lines.
Now I heard of this a while ago so I'm a little hazy over some points but -
The Great War Between RUSSIA and BERWICK UPON TWEED.
Apparently, back in the 19th century, due to some archaic law in the UK whenever the British state went to war Berwick had to be mentioned on the declaration otherwise the city technically wouldn't be at war.
An example would be: The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, Their dominions over the sea, Channel Isles and Berwick Upon Tweed declare war on you... etc...
So when the Crimean War broke out (1853? I forget the exact date) Britain declared war on Russia in this manner.
Only when peace was signed Berwick's name was left off the peace deal... meaning it was still at war with Russia.
It wasn't until 1979 that someone actually noticed that Berwick was still 'bravely fighting' the Soviet menace! Surely under NATO they should've got some help??
Anyway a peace deal was hastily arranged.
Despite lasting 120 odd years this isn't the longest war of all time, I think Malta and Holland (or two similar countries) were at war in similar circumstances for over 200 years.
Like I say, I'm a bit hazy on this. But I'm pretty sure it happened along those lines.
sgrig
Comrade
How do you know this fact? It's great!
Case
The horror, the horror
I think that the first World War was the stuipidist war ever. No-one really wanted it or even had a good reason for fighting it, and once the war bogged down into bloody stalemate, no-one had the sence to try too stop it.
Originally posted by sgrig
How do you know this fact? It's great!
Years and years ago it was mentioned on some TV program. Then about 2 years ago I found mention of it in a book. But I never really paid much attention until it popped into my head just now regarding stupid wars.
Maybe some out there knows abit more about it???
And can confirm I got it right....
I disagree with A of A's, Simon D.'s and Case's contention that the First World War was the stupidest.
It started out as just another imperial power struggle, like so many the 19th century had seen already. True, this clearly was on a larger scale as it involved most of the Great Powers but still, there was precedent. Also, most of the states involved had been experimenting with new military and organizational technologies throughout the 19th century and had come to believe that they held the key to a short war in 1914. The Prussians had traunced both the Austrians (1866) and the French (1870-71) in short wars and believed their enhanced mobility and rapid fire-power would easily overcome any enemy, perhaps in a mere few weeks. The British had developed through their experiences in the Zulu and Boer wars a small, professionally-trained Army that behaved like a massive crack unit. The French, while eschewing military technology had in the history of the Third Republic introduced a level of social militarization since the defeats of 1871 that convinced them simple élan would overrun the Germans. Yes, all faulty assumptions but what modern war did start with anything approaching realistic expectations?
The real problem came in the autumn of 1914 when Galieni successfully deflected von Moltke's southward swing near Paris; the Allies staved off immediate defeat but the Germans were also not defeated. Exhausted, both sides assumed siege-defensive postures, and you have the beginnings of the infamous trench warfare. No one had any experience with modern weapons being used in such a large scale, so they did what 10,000 years of warfare had taught them - they threw more and more men at each other. We know now that modern weapons largely negate numbers of soldiers in a battle, but this is a unique experience in human history and was very new in 1914. The Great War actually wasn't very long - many European wars stretch longer than 4 years - and wasn't even the bloodiest recent war (I recall the Chinese Civil War of the 1850s taking some 20 million lives, and that with primitive weapons; the Americans lost 250,000 dead in World War I but lost more than 600,000 in their 1861-65 Civil War...) but it was brutal because of the intensity and ferocity of combat. The mounting casualties were a result of improved offensive operations (especially use of artillery) being sucessfully countered by improved defensive measures (defense in depth, etc.) This tactical arms race gave out in 1918 only when one side exhausted itself completely (the Germans) before their opponents.
Ultimately, what started out as a mere imperial tift war evolved slowly into a Total War between nations ("nations" meaning volk, naród, nép, etc.). governments that had attempted to utilize the rising tide of ethno-linguistic nationalism in the 19th century saw it take over with the mounting losses of the Great War and increasingly determine events and policies as the dead continued to pile up. By late 1915 no country involved could accept anything less than complete victory, though experience had shown that complete victory was increasingly remote and unlikely. In earlier wars European states usually resorted to negotiations to end what couldn't be decided on the battlefield, but nationalism in the Great War forced them to war on. This is the origin of the terrible peace of 1920 at Versailles.
A recent article in a military history magazine compared the world of 1914 to our modern world, where a long period of enforced peace after earlier large-scale wars had lulled many states into the false belief that their militaries were invincible with the new technologies, technologies that have seemingly been tested in small-scale wars and side-theaters but haven't seen the full brunt of open battle with an equal opponent - just like 1914.
The developments of the war seem bizarre and painfully obvious to us today, but they are the result of a rational process buffetted with experience. The proof is in the almost complete lack of any prophets in 1914 predicting what would transpire from this war. Yes, a noted few did - but a very decided minority. That suggests either that A. all of Europe in 1914 was stupid, or B. the World War was a result of an ugly combination of very unique circumstances that no one was prepared for, or could be prepared for.
It started out as just another imperial power struggle, like so many the 19th century had seen already. True, this clearly was on a larger scale as it involved most of the Great Powers but still, there was precedent. Also, most of the states involved had been experimenting with new military and organizational technologies throughout the 19th century and had come to believe that they held the key to a short war in 1914. The Prussians had traunced both the Austrians (1866) and the French (1870-71) in short wars and believed their enhanced mobility and rapid fire-power would easily overcome any enemy, perhaps in a mere few weeks. The British had developed through their experiences in the Zulu and Boer wars a small, professionally-trained Army that behaved like a massive crack unit. The French, while eschewing military technology had in the history of the Third Republic introduced a level of social militarization since the defeats of 1871 that convinced them simple élan would overrun the Germans. Yes, all faulty assumptions but what modern war did start with anything approaching realistic expectations?
The real problem came in the autumn of 1914 when Galieni successfully deflected von Moltke's southward swing near Paris; the Allies staved off immediate defeat but the Germans were also not defeated. Exhausted, both sides assumed siege-defensive postures, and you have the beginnings of the infamous trench warfare. No one had any experience with modern weapons being used in such a large scale, so they did what 10,000 years of warfare had taught them - they threw more and more men at each other. We know now that modern weapons largely negate numbers of soldiers in a battle, but this is a unique experience in human history and was very new in 1914. The Great War actually wasn't very long - many European wars stretch longer than 4 years - and wasn't even the bloodiest recent war (I recall the Chinese Civil War of the 1850s taking some 20 million lives, and that with primitive weapons; the Americans lost 250,000 dead in World War I but lost more than 600,000 in their 1861-65 Civil War...) but it was brutal because of the intensity and ferocity of combat. The mounting casualties were a result of improved offensive operations (especially use of artillery) being sucessfully countered by improved defensive measures (defense in depth, etc.) This tactical arms race gave out in 1918 only when one side exhausted itself completely (the Germans) before their opponents.
Ultimately, what started out as a mere imperial tift war evolved slowly into a Total War between nations ("nations" meaning volk, naród, nép, etc.). governments that had attempted to utilize the rising tide of ethno-linguistic nationalism in the 19th century saw it take over with the mounting losses of the Great War and increasingly determine events and policies as the dead continued to pile up. By late 1915 no country involved could accept anything less than complete victory, though experience had shown that complete victory was increasingly remote and unlikely. In earlier wars European states usually resorted to negotiations to end what couldn't be decided on the battlefield, but nationalism in the Great War forced them to war on. This is the origin of the terrible peace of 1920 at Versailles.
A recent article in a military history magazine compared the world of 1914 to our modern world, where a long period of enforced peace after earlier large-scale wars had lulled many states into the false belief that their militaries were invincible with the new technologies, technologies that have seemingly been tested in small-scale wars and side-theaters but haven't seen the full brunt of open battle with an equal opponent - just like 1914.
The developments of the war seem bizarre and painfully obvious to us today, but they are the result of a rational process buffetted with experience. The proof is in the almost complete lack of any prophets in 1914 predicting what would transpire from this war. Yes, a noted few did - but a very decided minority. That suggests either that A. all of Europe in 1914 was stupid, or B. the World War was a result of an ugly combination of very unique circumstances that no one was prepared for, or could be prepared for.
Joe R. Golowka
Chieftain
Originally posted by VoodooAce
Well, I wasn't so much referring to how we fought in Viet Nam....just the fact that we were there fighting.
The fact that we were drafting 18 year old poor kids to go and fight, while the likes of dubya stayed at home and played pretend army man. Yes, yes, I know. Bubba didn't go either. Dubya's just more of a hypocrite for it.
But its a good thing we fought and won because otherwise the proverbial dominos would have all begun to go, one after the other.
Oh, yeah. We didn't win, did we....
That's because Vietnamn had the **** bombed out of it and will still be recovering from the devastation of that war half a century from now (or more). If any country manages to exit from the US-dominated form of global capitalism and doesn't turn into some kind of hellhole (like the USSR or modern Vietnamn) it can provide a successfull example of development which doesn't follow the US model of capitalism. A good example like this would threaten the globally dominant position of America's ruling elites. Had Vietnamn developed into a prosperous country it could have inspired others to break away from the US sphere of influence.
You say that like you really believe that is still possible.
Perhaps back in the 70's you could still measure economic "sphere's of influence". Now, the economies of nations are becoming so interwoven that talking like you could choose not to be influenced by some country is not realistic.
/bruce
Similar threads
