"Worst Military Decision in History?" Topic

War is politics by other means.

There is a special kind of cowardice that manifests in continuing to attack the defeated long after they are helpless.

Right, like this?

or this?

link

Yep. And I'd like to think that we can be better than that. In fact, we were. generous peace terms made Japan a much better place for both us and the Japanese.

The Somme

The US allying with Stalin. And sending him mega-tons of materiel.

"The enemy of my enemy" is STILL my enemy.

Yep. And I'd like to think that we can be better than that. In fact, we were. generous peace terms made Japan a much better place for both us and the Japanese.

Agreed.

Yep. And I'd like to think that we can be better than that

That's an interesting perspective. There are Americans buried in Manila and Hawaii who actually were better than that without any doubt.

Nothing wrong with invading Russia, provided you don't try to conquer all of it in one go.

The Germans knocked them out of the war in WWI, so it can be done. Karl II of Sweden had been successful too, until he tried too hard.

Napoleon could have successful if he had taken the good western bits and all the Baltic provinces, and used allies like Sweden and Poland to hold other bits for him. Failure to retake those lands would have created unbearable pressure in Russia, causing internal failure.

Still in the Pacific theatre but at a lower more tactical level, deciding to rearm your planes from bombs to torpedoes on deck when you have identified that there is a risk of air attack. Possibly the worst decision is indecision.

About the bomb and Japan and all, it is really important that we always go an eye-for-and-eye. Worked wonders in the Middle east. (yes that was snark)

Athenian attack on Syracuse.

That one was definitely political. But as hinted above,kind of hard to separate them.

"War is the continuation of politics by other means."

Political decisions? Or pure military ones? There are several that could make the top:

- Try to invade Japan during the typhoon season.
- Being careless with your comms, particularly with the security of your cypher.
- Starting a war against the THREE more powerful economies in the world, any of them separately able to mobilize more resources than your nation ever will be able to.
- Marching your heavy infantry through woods, without proper reconaissance and with parties of hostile natives in the neighbourhood (insert your preferred name here)
- Trying to fight nomad light horsemen as if you were fighting against regular armies.
- Sending obsolete wooden ships to combat modern armored ships that sports heavy caliver artillery(Cavite and Santiago come to mind).
- Sending a single battleship to battle a whole enemy fleet, that has at least five operative flattops.
- And one of my personal favourites: starting a war without knowing what goals you pretend to accomplish.

20 20 rear sights are justfine. Doesnt tell you why the loser did the war or battle, leaves out His Majesty Chance.
in point, it assumes that the loser was almost destined to lose.
Aint part of the hobby the What If??

Earlier I posted that Pearl Harbor was the worst.

I would have to add the Japs did it again when they refused to surrender after the first atomic bomb hit them. It took two!!!

I think when you look at both of those, those fools really take the cake.

Tom

Well … they let me in.

You have to ask yourself why, in the face of what We Now Know was Inevitable Defeat such as the Confederates, the WW2 Japanese, the WW1 and 2 Germans and many others fought on after even when they knew that defeat was around the corner.
There is lunacy and hope mixed together in all these cases. How many histories have we read of say the Japanese strategy of inflicting huge losses on the Allies so the Allies would stop or the Japanese idea that they could deal with Stalin and have him intervene on their behalf? or the 1865 Confederate strategy of Lee avoiding Grant, joining Johnson and defeating in detail Sherman then Grant? or Hitlers plan of 1944 to V weapon the Allies, to attack and capture Antwerp
Lunacy and Hope
Same goes for starting a war
"all you have is cotton, slaves and arrogance" No one wanted to listen

'Please Mister Custer, I don't wanna go.'

The German election of 1932.

Only dropping 2 Atom bombs on Japan.

Ostensibly, if it was ready, the third atomic bomb was to be dropped on Tokyo, by most accounts. This was scheduled for Aug 19th.

The Japanese capitulated on the 15th. That's why they only dropped two.

@Rubber Suit Theatre

About 200,000 people were killed or injured in both bombings. This does not include those dying of radiation sickness and cancer months and years later. Horrific numbers indeed.

Now think if no atomic bombs existed. How many millions of deaths would incur on a landing of the Japanese Isles?

Now think if no atomic bombs existed. How many millions of deaths would incur on a landing of the Japanese Isles?

Relatively few. We were firebombing them. I suspect their will and ability to fight would have been diminished to almost nothing. The softening up would just take longer.

1. Starting a war.
2. Starting a war and then failing to finish it.
3. Against a civilized enemy, failing to negotiate an end to war. Against an uncivilized enemy, accepting anything short of complete victory.
4. Allowing diplomats to determine the time at which everyone will stop shooting, unless that time is RIGHT NOW.

Bowman, at no point did I claim that the atom bombs were unnecessary. I have actually argued in the past that they saved a large number of Japanese lives. I stated that regretting not dropping more is both cruel and stupid. To which I received some condescending jingoist nonsense and vague uniform worship from folks that hate "them dirty peaceniks". Probably because I do not openly advertise on my profile that my house was paid for with investment proceeds from my combat pay (Sadr City is no place for tourists). For my opinion on *that* see "Starting a land war in Asia".

Relatively few.

Not according to official War Department estimates of the day. The US's Sixth Army, which was to lead the first phase of the invasion on Kyushu Island, was forecasted to suffer 514,000 casualties (including 134,000 KIA/MIA) during just the 90-day operation to seize Kyushu and turn it into a staging area for the invasion of the main island of Honshu. That doesn't include casualty estimates beyond the 90 days or for the Navy or USMC. The full casualty list for the rest of the invasion was estimated to run about from 1.4 million to 4 million, with Allied KIAs of 400,000 to 800,000, while Japanese casualties were expected to run from 5 million to 10 million.

"Relatively few"? Relative to what?

The '39-45 War is not my area of study/interest, but I did know a number of former soldiers who had encountered the Japanese. Without exception, and contrary to their views of the German soldiery, they would have obliterated the country and exterminated the population. Not saying they were right, but then, I hadn't experienced what they had. In any case, as has been shown above, the diplomats move in once the fighting's done and the businessmen follow soon afterwards.

"Maybe those Indians down there can show us the way to the Little Big Horn?"