forgone conclusion?! but...

what do you do when faced with a forgone conclusion?
This is inspired by an academic interest, as well as a personal interest.

I'm reading Military History: The Battle of Hong Kong. It is generally understood that Hong Kong, being such a small island with little resources (military or other supplies like water) can never defeat the Japanese in face of an invasion. It occurred, in 8 Dec 1941. General Christopher Maltby however was confident that he could hold Hong Kong, for a few months at least. But he did not; it was lost, with extremely heavy casualties, in about 17 days. Why fight, and to what end was the garrison supposed to fight? Till the last man? Why send 2 untrained Canadian battalions who thought that they were not going to fight to Hong Kong, and why was it not communicated to them that Hong Kong was an outpost, and had little chance, if any, of survival? Some scholars have argued: "There's no difference if one were to send them into a meat grinder."

Alas, Maltby, and Brooke-Popham, (Air Marshal? C-in-C of Far East Asian Command?) believed that the enemy was weak.
Murfett's law: "Never underestimate your opponents."

Knowing your enemy is deadly, how do you make preparations to fight it?

Knowing that I might fare reasonably badly for this module, how do I try to save myself? Or do I suffer from inferiority complex? Am I panicky and reactionary, such that I can't think of the "best solution"?

==fight or die==
That was what the Japanese were faced with. Either you die gloriously, or you die pathetically. Either way, you die. But with a little bit of luck, you might survive.

To what extent is a "back door" a hindrance? Do people divorce because that is their back door? If there wasn't any divorce possible, could people love more, or try harder?

Surprisingly, what I learnt from this module is how willpower can triumph over dire circumstances. Amazing leadership, according to my Prof, does wonders. It can resurrect the dead even (no, it can't, i'm kidding), turn the tides, and make all things possible.

Could it be well-calibrated, cautious confidence, that leads one to victory? well-calibrated here means knowing your own strengths and weaknesses, and knowing the demands of your task ahead. Cautious is self-explanatory; always be prepared, for the worst scenarios. And whatever the case, have faith in victory - otherwise, "the battle is half lost."

And it all seems so paradoxical. How can one be cautious yet confident? How can one be confident in being well-calibrated enough? Having done all, resign to fate? >.<

Murfett's law: Luck. Machiavelli's favourite word: Fortuna. She only sticks to the bold, those who afford to take a calculated risk.
(And of course, what is a calculated risk? Does it factor in how dire the situation is?)

Actually, there's something I haven't spoken about.

First, I noticed that humans admire those who recognise and are not afraid to admit they have weaknesses.

Second, sometimes the conclusion isn't so much in winning or losing. George Osborne, a soldier, threw himself on a grenade and saved 6 lives. He lost his life. But he won in many ways. He won my respect, the respect of the soldiers around him, and he won a Victorian Cross, the highest ranking medal.

Thirdly, while victories are often clear-cut, defeats aren't. Because there are many levels to being defeated.

Hmm...