And many battles are fought despite it being an obvious defeat on one side. In ancient times, war was fought with sticks and stones. Those were the times where giants (2.4m, maybe) were useful as military possessions. Samson and Goliath were such extraordinary giants.
Sticks and stones. When Albert Einstein was interviewed on how the Third World War would look like, he replied, "I don't know, but I know what the Fourth World War would look like. It would be fought with sticks and stones." [For people who are still blur, it means that the Third World War would have wiped out civilization.]
In military history, we learn about big guns, tanks, strategies, tactics, and while some evaluate the "how" (how did the defeat/battle happen), others examine the why. I came across a quote which says that morale is the most important thing in war. Some like Thayer Mahan of course prefer big guns and big ships (Mahan propagated the big surface fleet theory: humongous battleships as necessary to win naval wars). Some prefer strategies, like the Jeune Ecole (aka the Young School), which prefers submarines (cheap, stealthy and strategic, with aim to destroy shipment and cut supply). Of course, the Bushido spirit is what some scholars would suggest of the Japanese in the Pacific War. To date, I haven't confirmed if the bushido spirit is an imagined creation of an academic, or if it really exists. But yes, like a samurai, nobody surrenders. Fight to the last drop of blood.
Military history is also something where I closely examined black swan events (M.H. Murfett) and the imponderables. In the past, torpedoes failed to fire at the crux of the moment, or they bounced off the hull and u-turn! {oh my god!} Secrets leak out despite being encrypted in the best technology. Double spies, even triple spies, exist - people who help all sides and get paid by all, but has a higher risk of never living to a ripe old age, or always being on the run. Even alcohol and dinner parties made soldiers divulge TOP-SEC (top secret). Scharnhorst and Gneisenau (battleships) escaped right under their enemies' nose, and Prince of Wales and Repulse (that's right, the two battleships that were supposed to have safeguarded Singapore from its fall to Japan) sank. It therefore isn't too much to say that planning isn't all helpful.
If you fail to plan, you plan to fail.This is right though. However, there were cases in military history which planned to fail. Yamato (battleship) was one such instance. Fight a fleet of battleships in the Battle of Okinawa. It was designed to be unsinkable! And yes, the Japanese had not enough fuel to fight the enemy, so to be prudent, the fuel was only enough for a one-way trip. The question was why the best battleship which had existed wasn't used to defend. Its guns were really huge (72,800 tonnes at full load and armed with nine 46 cm (18.1 inch) main guns) and powerful, able to punch holes in other battleships. Of course, in many instances, the failure to plan results in failure. But planning isn't ever enough. Coming back to the Battle of Hong Kong. Did the Canadians and British plan properly before sending troops to Hong Kong? If they didn't, that's lamb to the slaughter. But it wasn't. But neither was it well-planned. Administrators were lousy, British did not warn the Canadians adequately, the Canadians thought the United States would enter the war and Japan would be defeated in no time. Best still, the sending of C-force could perhaps make the Japanese wet their pants and run away. Obviously they didn't. The battle lasted only from 8th to 25th December, and yes, while today is Christmas, let's take time to think about the surrender on Christmas Day.
Christmas. Island. When I googled Christmas Island, touring sites popped up. But no! What I had in mind was the testing of nuclear bombs at Christmas Island; how could there be humans, let alone tourists?! It was also a place where Britain had to make concessions to the United States because the latter was the superpower, and Britain, which owned the island and promised to ban nuclear tests, had to concede to the USA and allow nuclear tests.
To those who taught me military history, a big thank you. You know I haven't an idea what a breachloader was, or how a fleet carrier differs from an aircraft carrier, what T-34s were.
