Most pointless War in History?

[Alonso Quijana]

But, which will come first? World peace, the complete destruction and rape of the planet, or the second coming of Christ (if you believe in that)? I think it's far enough off that we won't have to worry about it for many, many, many generations...if at all.  

[the grey seer]

i say the first  

[tokikuri]

gnomeguy1138

Going back to the original question, I think World War II was the most pointless war fought.

If anything, I think World War I was more pointless than WWII. The two sides involved didn't even have anything against each other. It all started when a terrorist group located in a country allied with Russia assassinated a political figure from a country allied with Germany, setting off a chain reaction of declarations of war because of preexisting alliances. At least there was a reason to WWII: to stop Hitler and Axis aggression.

I don't really know what the most pointless war in history is. I'm sure there have been hundreds of tiny wars that we have never heard about that had to do with some trivial matter and only lasted a very short while.

We haven't been in any declared war since WWII. Recent police actions like Vietnam and Iraq do seem pretty pointless. If you ain't gonna go all the way, then don't even try! Of course, we didn't go all the way in the Korean war to avoid war with China, but hey, what are the Middle Eastern countries gonna do to us, withhold their oil? Oh yeah, hehe...  

[the grey seer]

i believe what we're doing is imperilism  

[tokikuri]

Imperialism has not worked for the great Empires of history, but maybe if Alexander didn't die it would have.

I think that we should be either imperialist or isolationist. Conquer our enemies for resources or become self-sufficient. Trying to make everyone get along and provide for other countries just doesn't work.  

[the grey seer]

maybe the 2nd one  

[I Am Smartie]

The Korean war was a load of bollocks.

Millions of Koreans lost their lives for absolutely zilch. The line drawn in the peace negotiations gained South Korea... what, a hedge? ... compared to the 38th parallel.

The war was almost not pointless, except the US army had to tempt the Chinese to get involved. They could have stuck with taking loads of land for SK, and maybe even getting the North to surrender and turning the whole country democratic. But no, they had to go right up to the Yalu river and piss the Chinese off.

ALSO, what the hell were they doing supporting the Southern dictator? He was a p***k who caused his own people to suffer, and yet the US supported him because he wasn't a commie - which of course makes him PERFECT.

[/rant]  

[the grey seer]

our goverenment is based off of deceit,greed and psuedo-dictatorship and we feel that we have right to police the world  

[creampies2135]

Most of the battles of the Cold war, at least the physical ones were ridiculous, of which the Korean and Vietnam war were part of. However we should also remember what happened with the US intervention in the middle east. The US, or rather the CIA overthrew what they perceived as 'socialist' governments, and went as far as promoting known warlords in their place due to their political leanings. Many good, or just better leaders, who often wanted to gain their own nationality and control of their own resources,as opposed to 10% of the profits and control by the British.
I tend to think that while the political argument was the cover story, it had far more to do with wanting to maintain control of the resources in the middle east.

the physical wars such as Vietnam were war by proxy (each power sent support to their own side), and were ridiculous because they were mostly stalemates once the powers were involved.

In the end the Cold war and detente came about only because the people, as opposed to the government saw the futility of the Cold war and how the people were worse rather then better off as a result, more so in Russia. and the gov. couldn't afford to spend money on improving living conditions due to the money needed for the military. like most wars it grew out of hand as human greed prevented the war from being resolved.

Sorry this explanation is so long. I guess thats what happens when you do IB modern history.  

[Empress Raven Vulcana]

In my honest opinion, the most pointless battle in history was in WWI, in Passchendaele.
Dumb, they fought in the rain and mud; So many died for sad reasons.  

[AmorEMorte192]

i think the current war, or policing is the worst one. At first i thought it was a good idea, but at this point i think we've done more harm than good. At least in the last 2 or so years, all i hear is "we should get out" or the Iraqis asking us to leave. I support our troops and have sent supplies for the current one, i also have a friend currently serving in the Rangers. But i think were in this one for the wrong reasons.  

[Le Pere Duchesne]

I think the most pointless wars were the Roman Civil Wars.
Why them and not any of the more popular ones in this thread?

The Roman Civil Wars were just armed conflicts by competing groups of slave owners over who would have the right to plunder and enslave what they knew of the world.

On the first page Shiro said:

Quote:

It's not that I don't like the Civil War, only that it was sort of pointless. And it was not, as it is popularly viewed, fought over slavery. It was started when several states seceded simply because Lincoln became President.

And while it did eventually lead to the end of the slave era, it didn't accomplish much more than that. It broke up much of the loyalty in the US and some (only some!) people in the South still believe that they should have their own country.

However, it is a valuable peice of our history. I do like hearing about the Civil War (I have a huge book on it, after all), but I think it could have been avoided.

I think this is part of a huge misunderstanding. Over the last few decades there has been a great push against teaching any revolutionary war as truely progressive: at best it is merely 'national.' This goes for the English Civil War, the French Revolution, the American Revolution and the American Civil War.

The Civil War in the US was fought over slavery. The thing is that the boundaries of the slave states had been set and could not expand.
With the utter inefficiency of the slave system the benefits of slave labour soon diminished through soil exhaustion. So, those states which had previously relied on plantations, more and more came to view the export of slaves as their main industry. They needed more slave states to take in slaves, otherwise there would be enough slaves in the current slave states and no demand. With the north trying to prevent the expansion of the slave states, the south had to declare war:
A wonderful bunch of articles on the war can be found here.

Quote:

The question of the principle of the American Civil War is answered by the battle slogan with which the
South broke the peace. Stephens, the Vice-President of the Southern Confederacy, declared in the
Secession Congress that what essentially distinguished the Constitution newly hatched at Montgomery
from the Constitution of Washington and Jefferson was that now for the first time slavery was recognised
as an institution good in itself, and as the foundation of the whole state edifice, whereas the revolutionary
fathers, men steeped in the prejudices of the eighteenth century, had treated slavery as an evil imported
from England and to be eliminated in the course of time. Another matador of the South, Mr. Spratt, cried
out: "For us it is a question of founding a great slave republic." If, therefore, it was indeed only in
defence of the Union that the North drew the sword, had not the South already declared that the
continuance of slavery was no longer compatible with the continuance of the Union?

Anyway, just had to rant a little.  

[YamiB]

I think it would be hard to pick one war that is the most pointless from all of history. For American history I would go with the War of 1812. America started a war with Britain and lost, but not much really changed for either side. I would say that not much was accomplished in that war besides killing some people and blowing some stuff up.

I think that I would also have to agree that the US Civil War was about the issue of slavery. It is undeniable when looking at the documents of Secession and the words of the Confederate that the driving force behind their new government was the preservation of chattel slavery. I actually just gave a persuasive speech on the subject.

It seems to me that pro-Confederate revisionist history seems to becoming somewhat more prevalent. I do seem to remember my teacher in high school minimizing the importance of slavery in the war.  

[jo13sh4ua000]

American civil war
since it was already over they just started again  

[Rodor Aerhin Steel]

The Crusades where the most pointless wars- specifically the fourth. Think- A trading partner (Byzantine Empire) is whining about the encroaching turks so the Pope urges the knights of Western Europe to go to some foreign land for some foreign power. Then they got distracted with the idea of taking back Jerusalem and ignored the Byzantine's pleas for help. Another chief reason that they went on some foolish quest is because the welfare of the European kingdoms at the time depended on war. A warring nation was a healthy nation, so instead of killing each other they decide to go into somebody else's land and kill them- who've done nothing to the people of England, France, and the Holy Roman Empire. Not to mention the total hypocrisy of the "Holy" Crusaders! After taking Jerusalem a monk wrote about how the crusaders slaughtered the women and children, Blood as deep as to go to his ankles! Then in the second crusade in the defense of the land that really wasn't theirs in the first place they send MORE people to die. The turks new how to adapt to tactics, the Europeans didn't. They got butched almost all the time, the only reason that the first crusade ever worked was because their where internal struggles within the Muslim nations. The Muslims only wanted their land back, and the crusaders didn't even consider the people they were fighting human. In the third crusade (the most famous one where Richard leaves and his brother takes over and Robin Hood's legend began) Not only did Emperor Barbarossa of the Holy Roman Empire drown crossing the first river on their way to the enemies' land, but even though about 80% of the troops left because of the death of their Emperor the rest (mostly inexperienced) continued and all died in their first battle. Salal Al-Adin (Saladin) was more chivilrous then the European knights, too. Once when King Richard was sick, he sent messengers bearing freshly fallen snow and ripe fruits to aid him and they poorly treated the messengers. Once again when Richard's horse fell in battle- he gave up his own personal steed and gave it to him! The people attacking the Byzantine empirer in the first place weren't the people they were targeting, either. In the fourth Crusade- the stupidest of them all the crusaders ordered many hulks to be built by the City-state of Venice. After they were built the crusaders found out they couldn't pay for it and then attacked a Christian city to pay the Venetians back, leading the Venetians to also call the Crusaders to attack Constantinople, heart of Christianity at the time and capital of the Byzantine Empire! Them agreeing, the Christian Crusaders sacked Constantinople and never even reached the holy land. The crusaders by far were the stupidest. If they at least did what the Byzantines asked- help from the invading Seljuk Turks it might have been slightly less stupid and the fall of the Byzantine Empire would have been avoided.