Never Fight a Land War in Asia

[mnm]

Moscow is in Asia? Monty had a funny geography manual.

[urbanoid]

Found the exact quote:

 

Bernard Montgomery:

 

Rule 1, on page 1 of the book of war, is: "Do not march on Moscow". Various people have tried it, Napoleon and Hitler, and it is no good.

 

It was once done successfully by Swedes and Finns...

 

http://en.wikipedia....ob_De_la_Gardie

 

Due to his campaign in 1610, the fighting unit consisting of Swedish and Finnish soldiers remain the only ones that have occupied Moscow as victors.

 

How is that? De la Gardie was allied to the Moscovites and was defeated at Klushino in 1610.

 

http://en.wikipedia....tle_of_Klushino

 

Don't know how could he be the occupant of Moscow as the Russian ally, especially that after the Klushino the boyars ousted the tsar and Polish troops entered the city to stay there for 2 years. Even the National Unity Day, the Russian holiday established in 2005, is to commemorate the liberation of Moscow from us. So who were the only ones that have occupied Moscow as victors.?

[swerve]

The real issue is that every single war fought by a major power since WW2 was essentially irrelevant. Nothing truly important was actually at stake. Vietnam, Algeria and Afghanistan could have simply been left alone at no detriment to the country who invaded them.

Nobody invaded Algeria after WW2, & the only post-war invasion of Vietnam was by the Chinese in 1979.

 

The 1950s war in Malaya decided whether it would become a Chinese-dominated Communist state (what the insurgents were trying to achieve), which was important to Malaya.Saddam Hussein in 1990-91 sought to dominate the Arab side of the Persian Gulf & its oilfields, having failed to seize the Iranian oilfields. That would have been truly important if he'd succeeded. Keeping South Korea out of the hands of North Korea was pretty damned important to South Koreans, & failure to do so would have made a big difference to NE Asia. I would expect Japan to be a very different country now if it had been facing a heavily armed & hostile united Korea across the Tsushima Strait for the last 60 years.

[rathi]

Nobody invaded Algeria after WW2, & the only post-war invasion of Vietnam was by the Chinese in 1979.

 

The 1950s war in Malaya decided whether it would become a Chinese-dominated Communist state (what the insurgents were trying to achieve), which was important to Malaya.Saddam Hussein in 1990-91 sought to dominate the Arab side of the Persian Gulf & its oilfields, having failed to seize the Iranian oilfields. That would have been truly important if he'd succeeded. Keeping South Korea out of the hands of North Korea was pretty damned important to South Koreans, & failure to do so would have made a big difference to NE Asia. I would expect Japan to be a very different country now if it had been facing a heavily armed & hostile united Korea across the Tsushima Strait for the last 60 years.

 

Other than the need for oil which I already mentioned, none of the consequences you outlined would have been a significant problem for Britain, France or the U.S. I am not saying that it is inherently a bad idea to fight wars of lesser importance, just that one has to recognize their limited nature. You cannot resonably ask a country to make sacrifices during a war which outweigh the potential benefits of victory.

[Colin]

Chin Peng (leader of the Malay CT's) stated in his book that his Chinese overlords in Beijing were annoyed with the locals starting a revolution without the "correct conditions" being achieved prior. Seems the Chinese had a domino theory/plan for SE Asia, but the Malay event started without their help. Chin Peng spent a far bit of time in Beijing during the emergency.

[Sardaukar]

Found the exact quote:

 

Bernard Montgomery:

 

Rule 1, on page 1 of the book of war, is: "Do not march on Moscow". Various people have tried it, Napoleon and Hitler, and it is no good.

 

It was once done successfully by Swedes and Finns...

 

http://en.wikipedia....ob_De_la_Gardie

 

Due to his campaign in 1610, the fighting unit consisting of Swedish and Finnish soldiers remain the only ones that have occupied Moscow as victors.

 

How is that? De la Gardie was allied to the Moscovites and was defeated at Klushino in 1610.

 

http://en.wikipedia....tle_of_Klushino

 

Don't know how could he be the occupant of Moscow as the Russian ally, especially that after the Klushino the boyars ousted the tsar and Polish troops entered the city to stay there for 2 years. Even the National Unity Day, the Russian holiday established in 2005, is to commemorate the liberation of Moscow from us. So who were the only ones that have occupied Moscow as victors.?

 

Point was that battle vs. Poles was different issue...not really related to original campaign.