Dumbest wars thread
>>804270
bump
>>804270
posting the best one
>>804329
daily reminder that Venice is a dishonourable nation marred by perfidy
but for real how does this even happen
>>804329
>Almost everyone switches sides
>What the fuck who would do that?
>oh wait its...Italy
>>804329
Pope is mad at Venice for trying to expand on the mainland. Everyone else wants sweet Venetian booty.
Venice comes close to annihilation in 1509 at Agnadello and is forced into survival mode. Rest of the war is Venice desparatly trying to avoid the fate of the rest of Italy and the Papal States being shitty.
>>804329
>italian war
>>804329
wh-what?
>>804329
>>804329
Venetian Republic
>Predominantly seafaring perfidious crypto kikes that don't care about much except for getting their trade deals one way or the other
Dutch Republic
>Predominantly seafaring perfidious crypto kikes that don't care about much except for getting their trade deals one way or the other
British Empire
>Predominantly seafaring crypto kikes that don't care about much except for getting their trade deals one way or the other
USA
>Predominantly seafaring crypto kikes that don't care about much except for getting their trade deals one way or the other
Wait a minute, I'm starting to see a pattern here...
Battle of Karansebes 1788
>Austrian army sends scouts across a river in Romania to see if there's Turks around
>scouts find a gypsy camp and get drunk with them
>a rescue party is sent to see what happened to the scouts
>brawl ensues
>someone fires a gun and all goes to shit
>rest of the army crosses river, shouting "halt, halt!" Which gets misunderstood as "Allah, Allah"
>shit the Turks are coming lets shoot at them
>army basically defeats itself and runs away
>Turks pass by later and wonder just what the fuck happened
I don't think this warrants its own thread so I'm going to ask it here.
I'm reading a book on US foreign policy and it says (about WW1 obviously)
>After the collapse of Russia, which began in Marsh 1917, only the entry of America could save the allies from defeat
Is the author right about that?
From what I understand Germany at this point in the war was already shaky and near her own collapse due to the crippling effects of the blockade. The offensives that Germany would mount later in the war before America had taken part in the action failed, not due to America's entry, but because their power was too exhausted to conduct the kind of offensive operations that could have brought the way to a swift end.
>>804270
Ukraine.
>>804567
>Is the author right about that?
no - the spring offensives were checked even without american help at first, and then with pretty low involvement of american troops, and like you said, whatever gains the germans had managed were bought at a cost germany could not afford, not to mention they mostly gained pretty useless ground
american entry sped up the resolution of the war greatly, it gave the allies a much needed rest, provided virtually unlimited manpower reserves, and was a huge boon and boost to their side
but, also just like you said, germany was much worse off, they were running out of men, supplies, food, metals, money - and morale - you name it, they did not have it
this is alternate history territory but even without the american troops, every potential additional mile the germans would have taken is a mile bought at the cost of more supplies, which they did not have, and more men, which they did not have - and we are talking about miles of ground the allies very often defended only lightly on purpose, because it was worthless and of not strategic value for the germans
>>804270
Start building that wall
>>804586
furthermore remember that even after the defeat of the german offensives and the launching of the hundred days counteroffensive, the allied forces equalled (british) and almost doubled (french) american troops involved in fighting, and even without these american troops, they still would have outnumbered the germans
>>804586
Thanks for the post. I thought that didn't sound right.
Anybody have a screen of that war when the Normans invaded Sicily and killed thousands of Saracens?
>>804558
E T E R N A L
T
E
R
N
A
L
>>804270
1204 NEVER FORGET
>>804270
>In 1838 a French pastry cook, Remontel, claimed that his shop in the Tacubaya district of Mexico City had been ruined by looting Mexican officers in 1828.
>Coming to a national's aid, France demanded 600,000 pesos in damages, an enormous sum for the time, when the typical daily wage in Mexico City was about one peso (8 Mexican reals).
>When president Anastasio Bustamante made no payment, the king of France ordered a fleet under Rear Admiral Charles Baudin to declare and carry out a blockade of all Mexican ports from Yucatán to the Rio Grande, to bombard the Mexican fortress of San Juan de Ulúa, and to seize the city of Veracruz
>When French forces captured virtually the entire Mexican Navy at Veracruz by December 1838, Mexico declared war on France.
>The United States, ever watchful of its relations with Mexico, sent the schooner Woodbury to help the French in their blockade.
>Meanwhile, acting without explicit government authority, Antonio López de Santa Anna, known for his military leadership, came out of retirement from his hacienda near Xalapa and surveyed the defenses of Veracruz.
>He led Mexican forces against the French. In a skirmish with the rear guard of the French, Santa Anna was wounded in the leg by French grapeshot. His leg was amputated, and buried with full military honors.[
>With the diplomatic intervention of the United Kingdom, eventually President Bustamante agreed to pay the 600,000 pesos for the baker's damages, and the French forces withdrew on 9 March 1839.
This shit sounds like a bad comedy...
>>804538
>pretty good fighters
Scots get btfo in that war tho and their king even gets killed
