We all know the story of Pyrrhus. He fought the Romans in Southern Italy, and after one particularly bloody battle in which he won, he said something to the effect of, "A couple more victories like this and we'll lose the war."
Guerrilla wars in which the guerrillas win always usually lose upwards of 10x the number of regular soldiers they kill, and their country is usually in shambles. I'm thinking Vietnam and Afghanistan against the Soviets.
Any war involving Russia means lots and lots of death, so I think the Russian invasion of Finland in World War II in which they lost 100,000 soldiers would rank as a costly victory, as would their eventual destruction of Germany in 1945 that cost them 30 million dead and whole cities annhilated.
Your thoughts?
-----------------------------
Is this the war you want?
This message has been edited by GoItaly on Aug 9, 2006 9:54 PM
I know the Russians have lost thousands - even millions - fighting off the invasions of the likes of Napoleon and Nazi Germany, but, still, they were the big victor in the end. Although the Russians lost so many men, they achieved their real objective (defending the homeland) and contributed to a decisive defeat against their opponents. And again, each time, they became a potent voice on the peace table. So, is it really "pyrrhic" since the Russians gained so much in the end?
La Repubblica Ragusana - La quinta repubblica marittrima! Italia triumphs again! "When valour takes the field, short will the conflict be; Barbarian rage shall yield the palm to Italy. The vital spark remains, and Roman blood still warms Italians' veins."
- Petrarch
The Russians don't lose hundreds of thousands each time... this is a myth. Russians never fielded such vast numbers till the early 20th century. Only during Napoleons time did they field more then say 200,000 at any given time. Their loses aren't actually that bad either, if you went through most recorded battles, they would lose maybe twice as many as the opponent maybe. The main reason for this is because Russia, unlike most European countries in the West did not move to a professional army, rather they still used the out dated feudal conscript idea. These were the bulk of the deaths.
World war two actually saw only 7 million soldiers in combat... The other millions were innocent deaths caused by bombings and starvation/disease. So if you count the German's dead, they were only on a max 3:1 kill ratio.
With Finland... The Russian's were humiliated. This was a horrible 'victory'. They field 4 times the men, and lost 5 times the men to a Finnish army that had to steal their weapons, and produced 1/10th their weaponry and arm's output.
Shame to say Colada, they still own Königsberg, so their legacy still lives on. And Poland's and Germany's boarders are still what the Soviets dictated. And the Russians still have security council status, so they haven't lost everything.
On WAFF, I Have been called both an Anti-Semitic and Islamophobe... One contradicts the other in terms of politics.
The Russian campaign in Finnland would be close to the term Pyrrhic victory. The Russian counteroffensives to Napoleon and Hitler are a completely different thing. They were fights for survival in which no cost is too high.
I would distinguish Phyrric victories as those victories the losses of which gradually lead to grave consequences (such as Phyrrus' withdrawal from Italy).
So victories in which the voctor suffered great losses are not necessarily "Phyrric".
For instance the battle of Jutland in WWI is not a Phyrric victory for the RN. They did suffer greater losses than the Kriegsmarine. But they won, in the sense that the great exit of the Kriegsmarine failed, and it continued to remain a captive in its own pond - the Baltic Sea. Now if those great losses of the RN had led to a gradual loss of the sea war then OK Jutland would be a Phyrric victory for the RN. However, that did not happen. The RN remained the unquestionable master of the seas despite those heavy losses. Therefore Jutland is NOT a Phyrric victory, it is simply a victory where it was necessary to suffer great losses.
The Battle of Crete in WWII was IMO a Phyrric victory for the Germans. The enormous cost of this victory prevented Hitler from attempting any more airborne landings in WWII, despite the fact that up to that point German Paras were glorified heros who had performed impossible feats in the lower countries. The Battle of Crete scratched Hitler's plans for taking Malta. And we all know how crucial Malta was for the eventual defeat of Rommel's Afrika Korps. One could therefore claim that the cost of the Battle of Crete lost Hitler Malta, which in turn lost him N. Africa, which lost him the Egypt/the canal/the oil, which cost him the war.
World war two actually saw only 7 million soldiers in combat... The other millions were innocent deaths caused by bombings and starvation/disease. So if you count the German's dead, they were only on a max 3:1 kill ratio.
I support Israel
