HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: frank@rover.uchicago.edu (Frank - Hardware Hacker - Borger)
Subject: Re: Greatest Military Blunders of All Time
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Reply-To: frank@rover.uchicago.edu
Organization: Joint Center for Radiation Therapy
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 20:50:00 GMT

In article <1992Sep28.165259.17464@linus.mitre.org>, bwise@hemlock.mitre.org (Barry Wise) writes...
> 
> 
>The Arabs attacking Israel(anyone of numerous times)

	The above was a military blunder

>The U.S. police action in Viet Nam
>The Soviet's police action in Afganistan
>Hitler's Russian Campaign
>Pearl Harbor (guess which side blundered)

	I would rate the above all as POLITICAL blunders, not Military.
	(Re Pearl, where the top military dog says, "I'll kick a.. for 6
	months, but then I'll get MY a.. kicked,) and the politicians still
	say "go for it."

	I might get some flame from this, but I bet a whole lot of 'Nam
	vets and a whole lot of Afghanistan vets feel the same way about
	their fights ... Let down.
> 
>Napoleon's Russian Campaign

	That one's 50-50, since Mapoleon was both political and military leader.

   Frank R. Borger - Physicist    __       Internet:  Frank@rover.uchicago.edu
Michael Reese - Univ. of Chicago |___      Phone : 312-791-8075 fax : 567-7455
  Center for Radiation Therapy   | |_) _   America is a large, friendly dog in
                                   | \|_)  a very small room. Every time it wags
    "Birthplace of Softball"          |_)  its tail, it knocs over a chair.
					   Arnold Toynbee
From: parasite@jupiter.sun.csd.unb.ca (Leslie Mills)
Newsgroups: alt.war
Subject: Re: Greatest Military Blunders of All Time
Date: 28 Sep 92 16:02:55 GMT
Organization: University of New Brunswick

In article <BvAIB0.ErM@news.cso.uiuc.edu> gt38091@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Greg ) writes:
>The subject says it all:  ...just wondering what your thoughts are on the
>			      subject.
>
>Greg

Hitler's decision to declare war on the U.S.  Granted, the strike on Pearl
Harbor was devestating, but to announce hostilities at the precise moment
that the Americans had blood in their eyes counts in my book as a bad 
mistake.

Field Marshall Ney's decision to lead several cavalry charges against a 
fully prepared Wellington.  Without support from his own artillary, and
without the equipment to spike the enemy cannon, all Ney's forces could
do was try to make a successfull charge against the square formations of
Wellingtons.  They failed to break a single square.

Just my $0.02 worth...
-- 
Leslie Mills

If you love something, set it free, if it doesn't come back to you,
Hunt it down, and kill it -- Thus sayeth a T-shirt
Newsgroups: alt.war
From: bwise@hemlock.mitre.org (Barry Wise)
Subject: Re: Greatest Military Blunders of All Time
Organization: The MITRE Corporation
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 12:34:01 GMT

In article <14621@chalmers.se> d9bertil@dtek.chalmers.se (Bertil Jonell)  
writes:
> In article <1992Sep29.143955.28999@newstand.syr.edu> sawyer@erc.cat.syr.edu  
(Russell W. Sawyer) writes:
> >Battle at little big horn....  (Custer under estimating the Idians)
> 
>   According to the park rangers(?) there the indians had twice as many
> winchesters as the cavalry had single shot rifles, so underestimating is an
> understatement. In hindsight, it is hard to see any possible outcomes 
> other than either custer avoiding the indians or his force goetting wiped  
out.
> 

Splitting his force wasn't too bright either.

--
Barry Wise
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 22:07:43 EDT
From: <CMH114@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.war
Subject: re: Greatest Military Blunders of All time

One thing that comes to mind is the Byzantine Emperor Romanus IV's idiotic
antagonizing of the Seljuk sultan, and the disaster at Manezikert(1067?)

Mitch Hagmaier         One Moment in Annilihation's Waste,
Quest Laboratories     One Monent, of the Well of Life to taste-
Terraforming Division   The Stars are setting and the Caravan
State College, Pa      Starts for the Dawn of Nothing - Oh, make haste!
cmh114@psuvm.psu.edu
From: bru@svl.cdc.com (Bruce McCutchen)
Newsgroups: alt.war.vietnam
Subject: NamVet Newsletters vol.4
Summary: how do i go about getting the NamVet Newsletter vol.4?
Date: 2 Oct 92 16:52:45 GMT


 I missed the first NamVet Newsletter vol. 4 and would like to know
if someone can repost or tell me how to get the past volume.
Newsgroups: alt.war.vietnam
Subject: Re: Did We Lose?
From: f67700241@violet.ccit.arizona.edu (Greg Franklin)
Date: 6 Oct 92 10:29:16 MST
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona
Nntp-Posting-User: f67700241

In article <PD.92Oct6023521@horus.sics.se>, pd@sics.se (Per Danielsson) writes:
>In article <5373@gold.gvg.tek.com> mikea@zorba.gvg.tek.com (Michael P. Anderson) writes: 
>>The war was lost precisely because its goals were immoral, and the
>>men who led that war were also immoral.
>What's immoral about fighting communism?

You're assuming that fighting communism was the goal of the war.
If you evaluate the war effort by its deeds, rather than by its words,
the goal was to kill more people than the other guy.  It was more of a
utilitarian/rationalist goal than a moral one.

Fighting communism IS a moral good, but doing it in the way the U.S. did it
in Vietnam was hardly moral, IMHO.
-- 
Greg "Mockingbird" Franklin      Interviewer: "Sir, how do you spell relief?"
f67700241@ccit.arizona.edu               Dan: "R-O-L-A-I-D-S-E."

"[George Bush is] the most ruthless white man in the history of the planet."
	-- Richard Ben Cramer, author of _What It Takes_
"The President scores much better than Bill Clinton."
	-- Dan, comparing Bush's record of marital infidelity to Clinton's
Newsgroups: alt.war.vietnam
From: jbc4m@holmes.acc.Virginia.EDU (John B. Carr)
Subject: Re:  Did We Misplace the Parameters First?
Reply-To: jbc4m@holmes.acc.Virginia.EDU (John B. Carr)
Organization: University of Virginia
Distribution: all
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 22:24:45 GMT

In article <1992Sep26.181519.14515@wetware.com>, drieux@wetware.com
(drieux, just drieux) writes:
|> 
|> It also developed the sort of problems about defining what
|> 'winning' really means and what the role of the news media
|> is all about.
|> 
|> Who can forget the battle of Khe Sahn, and how the media
|> spent all its time comparing it to Dien Bien Phu, without
|> recognizing that unlike the French - the americans had
|> Camp Carroll down the Road, and B-52's all over the place
|> to provide fire support.
|> 
|> { worth noting, also, that the NVA chewed up three divisions
|> learning that classical set piece battles without air support
|> are NOT a viable option. [ its safe to admit things like this,
|> as even the NVA high command is willing to admit their tactical
|> errors now.... ] }
|> 
	'Winning' is about achieving strategic rather than tactical
objectives.  Yes, Khe Sahn was not likely to fall and, yes, the NVA
lost a lot of troops there, but Khe Sahn was not intended to BE Dien
Bien Phu, it was intended to APPEAR to be Dien Bien Phu, in which it
succeeded admirably.  Johnson and Westmoreland were so absorbed by Khe
Sahn, by the need to make sure that Dien Bien Phu was not repeated,
that they ignored reports of the coming Tet Offensive and concentrated
forces far away from where they could be used to prevent Tet.

	Giap got us AGAIN.

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 John Carr                           UNIX Support Specialist
 jbc4m@virginia.edu                  Academic Computing, Gilmer Hall
 804/982-4710                        University of Virginia
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Newsgroups: alt.war.vietnam
From: rod@unislc.uucp (Robert Despain)
Subject: Re: Books on Vietnam
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Organization: Unisys Corporation SLC
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 04:34:16 GMT

Yeah, Dispatches.  The Things They Carried (see earlier topic).
When I first got back, the stuff by Gloria Emerson in _Esquire_
struck me so true that it made me cry (although if I went back
and re-read it it, it might make me barf).

Everything when I read it seems OK.  Two weeks later, it fades to
nothing compared to my memories (now how many years old?).

I wonder how many WWII vets think much of Mailer's The Naked and
the Dead and how many WWI vets think much of Hemingway.

Cheers,
R.O.
-- 
R.O. Despain                  |
Mature Products Group         |  Internet: rod@unislc.slc.unisys.com
(801) 594-4633                |      UUCP: ...!{sun, uunet}!unislc!rod
From: mst@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at (Markus Stumptner)
Newsgroups: alt.war.vietnam
Subject: Re: Did We Lose?
Date: 28 Sep 92 12:05:46 GMT
Organization: DB and ES Subdivision, TU Vienna

From article <1992Sep26.085621.21437@m.cs.uiuc.edu>, by drk@melodian.cs.uiuc.edu (Dave Kohr):
> Throughout this entire thread, I don't think I've seen mention of the
> original official reason for US intervention in Indochina: the so-called
> "Domino Effect".  I think any complete appraisal of whether or not the US
> "lost" the war in Vietnam must consider this original objective.

Good point.  Yes, the way in which they actually (if unintentionally)
set up Cambodia so that the Domino Effect worked in that one instance
can only be called classic.
-- 
Markus Stumptner                                mst@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at
University of Technology Vienna                 vexpert!mst@relay.eu.net
Paniglg. 16, A-1040 Vienna, Austria             ...mcsun!vexpert!mst
Newsgroups: alt.war.vietnam
From: pd@sics.se (Per Danielsson)
Subject: Re: Did We Lose?
Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science
	<5373@gold.gvg.tek.com> <1992Oct3.105750.203@doug.cae.wisc.edu>
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 01:39:54 GMT

In article <1992Oct3.105750.203@doug.cae.wisc.edu> mccullou@cae.wisc.edu (Mark McCullough) writes:

>Admittedly, during the rolling Thunder campaign, we did bomb North
>Vietnam, but that was such a short period of time compared to the
>length of the war.  We tied our own hands.  In no way should the US be
>accused of trying to "win at any price"

Even during "Rolling Thunder" there were restrictions on the
targeting. Amazing, really. If I had been a military commander at
that time in that theatre of operations I think I would have resigned
as quickly as possible.
--
Per Danielsson				pd@sics.se
Swedish Institute of Computer Science, PO Box 1263, S-164 28 KISTA, SWEDEN
Newsgroups: alt.war.vietnam
From: smith@sctc.com (Rick Smith)
Subject: Re: Purpose of the press
Organization: SCTC
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 21:25:46 GMT

mccullou@cae.wisc.edu (Mark McCullough) writes:

>In article <1992Oct2.175930.11954@access.digex.com>,
> dzik@access.digex.com (Joseph Dzikiewicz) writes:

>|> And let us never forget that intelligence services often get in the
>|> habit of telling their customers what they most want to hear...
>|> 
>|> Any thoughts on this?
>|> 
>|> Joe Dzikiewicz

>Yea, how do we prevent it in the future?

You teach the succeeding generations to gauge the reliability of their
sources of information, and maybe even how to estimate how much of the
"real" story they maybe have or have not been told.

Most people might not listen or think, but we should provide that opportunity.

Newsgroups: alt.war.vietnam
From: gerth@watson.ibm.com (John Gerth)
Subject: Re: Books on Vietnam - _Dispatches_
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 01:18:30 GMT
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

Wasn't "Dispatches" just that - a collection of Herr's journalism
for Esquire and Rolling Stone?  As to what proportion of journalism
is fiction, that's an age-old question.  


-- 
John Gerth	 gerth@watson.ibm.com		(914) 784-7639
From: mst@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at (Markus Stumptner)
Newsgroups: alt.war.vietnam
Subject: Re: Domino Effect (was Re: Did We Lose?)
Date: 30 Sep 92 14:57:58 GMT
Organization: DB and ES Subdivision, TU Vienna

From article <1992Sep28.175539.8155@m.cs.uiuc.edu>, by drk@m.cs.uiuc.edu (David Kohr):
> In article <5961@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at> mst@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at
> (Markus Stumptner) writes:
>>the way in which they actually (if unintentionally) set up Cambodia so that
>>the Domino Effect worked in that one instance can only be called classic.

> Which "they" are you referring to?

US policy makers at the time.  I do not know who exactly who was
responsible for the discussion to replace Sihanouk with Lon Nol, as
far as I remember that was the point when the Khmer Rouge grew really
dangerous.
 
> In any case, my point is that the original US objective of avoiding the
> Domino Effect was largely successful

Yes, because the Domino Effect did not, in fact, exist in the form in
which it did influence US politics.  The US government argued that the
Domino Effect would make all of SE Asia communist unless they were
stopped from taking over Vietnam.  Now the North Vietnamese succeeded,
so Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia, and the Philippines (your list)
should have fallen as well.  They didn't. The Thais, for example,
dealt with their insurgents without foreign intervention and a
drawn-out war.  Ergo, the Domino Effect was not the danger it was made
out to be.

-- 
Markus Stumptner                                mst@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at
University of Technology Vienna                 vexpert!mst@relay.eu.net
Paniglg. 16, A-1040 Vienna, Austria             ...mcsun!vexpert!mst
From: whitmeye@den.mmc.com (Richard Whitmeyer)
Newsgroups: alt.war.vietnam
Subject: Re: Merits of the Free Press
Date: 6 Oct 92 02:27:39 GMT
Organization: Martin Marietta Astronautics, Denver
Originator: whitmeye@surf


In article <1992Oct5.102350.10360@ida.liu.se>, yngla@ida.liu.se (Yngve Larsson) writes:
|> One may have many opinions about the relative merits of a free press, and
|> in general I think the press is a slandering, opinionated hypocrite.
|> 
|> The press (reporters and editors) selects the message to be published, and 
|> they are very rarely have any knowledge about what they are printing. Thus,
|> the information becomes garbled, biased and incomplete.
|> 
|> On the sublect of the Vietnam War however, consider this:
|> 
|> 
|> 	If there had been any resemblence of a free press in
|> 	North Vietnam, there would not have been a Vietnam War.
|> 
|> Of cause, NV was/is a ultra-totalitarian state able to completetly control
|> the opinions of the people. They probably won because of this.
|> 
|> comments?
|> 
|> 				Yngve Larsson
|> 
|> --
|> Yngve Larsson                               UUCP: ...mcvax!enea!liuida!yla
|> Dept of CIS                                       Internet: yla@ida.liu.se
|> Linkoping University, Sweden                          Phone: +46-13-281949

YNGVE! You forgot to include opportunistic. Like many US politicians

Rich Whitmeyer            View expressed are solely my own.
Newsgroups: alt.war.vietnam
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: ReVamping the Vision....
Keywords: books
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 18:56:50 GMT

clarka@netcom.com (Andrew Clark) writes:
] How could the U.S. have achieved its objective in Vietnam?  
] 
] The objective I'm speaking of is the "official" one -- preserving the
] existence of South Vietnam as a nation favorable to U.S. interests while
] preventing North Vietnam from becoming an outpost of China or the USSR.


Has anyone thought about recasting this question about
say 'west germany' ....

Or is it possible that the threat of Cultural Myopia
influences the analysis.....


ciao
drieux


ps: while we are on all of this about 'books'
folks should consider Scott Boorman's Book on
Wei Chi: an interpretation of maoist revolutionary strategy.


-- 
Modern Day Problems

Does that 'answer' your question,
or should I be a little more vague.
From: mst@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at (Markus Stumptner)
Newsgroups: alt.war.vietnam
Subject: Re: Lost the War?
Date: 28 Sep 92 11:43:08 GMT
Organization: DB and ES Subdivision, TU Vienna

From article <1992Sep25.155955.3327@iplmail.orl.mmc.com>, by markb@iplmail.orl.mmc.com (Mark Bower):
> In this light, Vietnam is one battle in a Cold War which lasted 40+ years.

No, I think the scope is too large for such an argument, like arguing
that the French did not lose the Franco-Prussian war since they got
all their territory back 40 years later.  

The Cold War was an all-encompassing confrontation that included other
conflicts.  The fact remains that the Vietnamese did not fight that
war as mere Soviet henchmen, but in their own interests (though
certainly for the Soviet's long-range benefit, but that is a different
issue).

> Finally, I would like to respond to the lady from Norway who said "Nobody wins
> a war." Nations and people most certainly do win wars, and are certainly
> better off than the losers.

I agree, and the Vietcong certainly won their war, since their cadres
are still in power today, even after the end of the Cold War.

-- 
Markus Stumptner                                mst@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at
University of Technology Vienna                 vexpert!mst@relay.eu.net
Paniglg. 16, A-1040 Vienna, Austria             ...mcsun!vexpert!mst
Newsgroups: alt.war.vietnam
From: charlie@umnstat.stat.umn.edu (Charles Geyer)
Subject: Re: Did We Lose?
Organization: School of Statistics, University of Minnesota
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 21:06:35 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.124440.28171@doug.cae.wisc.edu> mccullou@cae.wisc.edu
(Mark McCullough) writes:

> A lot of people seem to not have understood what I meant when I condemned the
> behavior of the press in the Vietnam War.

Because you were deliberately provocative and not specific.  What did you
expect people to think?

> What I am condemning is how the press reported things in such a one-sided
> manner.

People are always berating the press for being one-sided, but what they
actually mean is that it's NOT one-sided.  What they want is for the press
to present THEIR side ONLY.  When the press presents any of the OTHER side
they scream bias.

In fact the press was fairly supine during the early part of the war.  It
was only after a large fraction of the American people turned against the
war after years of futility that the press began to do much negative
reporting.

> The press was more interested in a sensational story.

The press was then, is now, and will always be interested in sensationalism.
But that's not a bias for or against any political view.  It works both ways.

> The press was praised by the enemy for helping cause the US to fail to win
> the Vietnam war.  How can you justify this biased and non-factual reporting
> of the press?

Baloney.  The press had very little to do with the American people turning
against the war.  No more than the Soviet press had to do with the Russian
people turning against the war in Afganistan.  I think all those casualties
and nothing accomplished was the cause.

-- 
Charles Geyer
School of Statistics
University of Minnesota
charlie@umnstat.stat.umn.edu
Newsgroups: alt.war.vietnam
From: adamkp@rs6212.ecs.rpi.edu (Peter Adamkovics)
Subject: Re: Did We Lose?
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 18:38:50 GMT

mccullou@cae.wisc.edu (Mark McCullough) writes:

>In article <5373@gold.gvg.tek.com> mikea@zorba.gvg.tek.com (Michael P. Anderson) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep30.124440.28171@doug.cae.wisc.edu> mccullou@cae.wisc.edu (Mark McCullough) writes:
>>
>>>The press was praised by the enemy for helping cause the US to fail to win
>>>the Vietnam war.  How can you justify this biased and non-factual reporting
>>>of the press?
>>
>>Just because the "enemy" praised the press doesn't mean that they helped to,
>>in your words, "cause the US to fail to win the Vietnam War." The war was
>>lost precisely because its goals were immoral, and the men who led that
>>war were also immoral. They lied, they killed men on both sides because of
>>their own petty hubris, and a majority of the American people saw through
>>them and forced them to stop their crimes.

>Since when does the morality of a war indicate who wins?  Please, I hope
>you are not that naive.
>>
>>Now we can go through this over and over until the supporters of Vietnam
>>get it right. This war should never have been fought; it was conceived
>>by the boards of corporate America who saw their selfish interests
>>in the far east being jeopardized, and they were willing to win, once
>>they started, at any price.
>>
>What major corporate interests did we have?  Vietnam has no major resources
>that I have heard of, produces no major products that can't just as easily
>be made elsewhere.  And we certainly not take the attitude of win at any
>price.  That attitude was last taken by the US in WWII.  If we had decided
>to "win ... at any price," as you say, then why did we declare large areas
>off limits, why did we for most of the war not bomb North Vietnam, why didn't
>our ground units cross the border into North Vietnam, why didn't we mount
>amphibious landings and naval attacks on North Vietnamese targets?  Admittedly,
>during the rolling Thunder campaign, we did bomb North Vietnam, but that was
>such a short period of time compared to the length of the war.  We tied our
>own hands.  In no way should the US be accused of trying to "win at any price"

>:)M^2

The major corporations were probably the weapons suppliers.  how much does a b-52 cost?
and all the other weapons had to be bought... so they had a major interest in the war
           
--pete--


*******************************************************************************
*      Peter Adamkovics          *   O   *BeastieBoysNINRushMetallicaF242PWEI *
********************************** O   O *NirvanaTheToastersMinistryPearlJam  *
*E-mail address:  adamkp@rpi.edu *O     O*MightyMightyBosstonesSkinnyPuppyRHCP*
*Phone:(518) 274-9436            * O   O *Jane'sAddictionRiseRobotRise808State*
*Amiga: The only computer !!     *   O   *So many groups, so little time      *
*******************************************************************************
Newsgroups: alt.war.vietnam
From: knguyen@emr1.emr.ca (Kim Nguyen)
Subject: About replacement of revolutionaries
Organization: Energy, Mines, and Resources, Ottawa
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 20:50:07 GMT

Hi,
I don't think the removal occuring at local levels. That happens in
governing level only. During the war, North Vietnam does not like foreing
countries to say that the North invades the South. They create a puppet
exile government which composes all South Vietnamese communists who are
trained in the North. To the outside world, they confirm no North
Vienam army fight in the South. That the war originates from the people of
the South which has its own (puppet) goverment, is own army (guerillas).
After claiming like that for a few years, they boldly tranfer plenty of
troups to the South in the hope to win fast the war.
Now, the war is over. Who will be seen as liberators ? The first flags
I see on the streets of Saigon belong to the puppet army and government, but
the soldiers speak almost Nort Vietnam dialects ! But,to foreign reporters
(if any !) and people on the streets, they are real South Vietnamese to
liberate Saigon. The officials set up the provisional government are almost
well-known South Vietnamese in exile (puppet) government. Declaration after
declaration; law after law; rule after rule; time goes by when we think
that our governing people (South Vietnamese)  may be in favor to their people
of the South. Few months later, I never hear about this guy or that guy
anymore, instead new faces from the * real liberators* (North communists)
appear and govern Saigon. Where are the South Vietnamese guys in the *exile
goverment*? They don't hold those top positions anymore and keep very
low profile or retire with pension.
That is the story of replacement you are talking about. And, that is the
stories you are familiar with when reading documents about communist world.
Bitterness ! 
Newsgroups: alt.war.vietnam