Pyrrhic Victories?

AbsntMndedProf · Post by **AbsntMndedProf** » Wed Oct 10, 2001 6:24 am

What were the greatest pyrrhic victories in military history? (I.E. victories that were so costly that they really amounted to losses.)

Eric Maietta

Drex · Post by **Drex** » Wed Oct 10, 2001 7:51 am

The first one that comes to mind is the first pyrrhic victory " the battle of Ascoli Satriano"betwwen Pyrrhus and the romans. also how about Breed's (Bunker)Hill?

Erik Burriss · Post by **Erik Burriss** » Thu Oct 11, 2001 10:16 am

How about Tet.

Absolute victory on the field, but it resulted in Walter Cronkite saying the war was now "stalemate" which was good enough for the American public.

msvknight · Post by **msvknight** » Tue Oct 16, 2001 4:35 pm

I can't believe an Aussie has to bring this one up for you. Shame on you Americans.

How about....Pearl Harbor <img src="tongue.gif" border="0">

FunkyMonkey · Post by **FunkyMonkey** » Wed Oct 17, 2001 8:47 am

Pearl Harbor was actually quite a success for the Japanese with minimal loss. It was just a bombing raid, and they accomplished their objectives (except perhaps to sink the aircraft carriers). Now if you are talking about it being costly victory for the U.S., I wouldn't say that the U.S. won the battle. It was a quite defeat actually, and they only managed to shoot down few planes.

Rune Iversen · Post by **Rune Iversen** » Thu Oct 18, 2001 8:05 am

Originally posted by FunkyMonkey:
Pearl Harbor was actually quite a success for the Japanese with minimal loss. It was just a bombing raid, and they accomplished their objectives (except perhaps to sink the aircraft carriers). Now if you are talking about it being costly victory for the U.S., I wouldn't say that the U.S. won the battle. It was a quite defeat actually, and they only managed to shoot down few planes.

I think that you can call Pearl Harbor a Pyrrhic victory because the japanese won that battle but it ultimately led them to lose the war, which made it a costly victory in the long term.

Can you follow my reasoning <img src="biggrin.gif" border="0">

Drex · Post by **Drex** » Thu Oct 18, 2001 9:08 am

I think pyrrhic victory means a single battle whose cost in men and in resources is so great that the victor can not go on. Pearl was a successful attack that began the war. the Japanese were able to go on for 4 more years. Hardly pyrrhic. the fact that they eventually lost the war was not due to Pearl.

Erik Burriss · Post by **Erik Burriss** » Sat Oct 20, 2001 10:34 am

Ah. A philisophical question.

What is a Phyrric victory?

Does the German 1939 invasion of Poland qualify, since in the long term it resulted in a prostrate Germany? Or is that to long a term?

Does Pearl Harbor count since it resulted in the occupation of Japan after 3 1/2 years?

What about the capture of the 422nd and 432rd infantry regiments by the Germans in mid-December, 1944 by the Wermacht? 10,000 prisoners but took enough time for the Americans to put up a solid line.

msvknight · Post by **msvknight** » Sat Oct 20, 2001 3:34 pm

Drex

I think a Phyrric victory is one where the victory contributes significantly to the side that lost the battle. For that reason Pearl Harbor was certainly a Phyrric victory for the Japanese. Even Yamamoto knew it when he feared (and I apologise for errors in the quote "for I feared we had awakened a sleeping giant and filled him with a terrible resolve".

Without the attack, the Germans would not have declared war on the USA, and certainly the entire course of the war could have been changed in many ways.

There is no question that the surprise attack (the Japanese declarations of war were specifically designed to make them too late for the US to react before the attacks) made the US a far more determined enemy than a declaration of war prior to any attack could have done.

Phyrrus kept winning victories but they were costly in terms of manpower lost. In the case of Pearl Harbor the cost was in terms of creating a mindset that effectively made it impossible for the Japanese to achieve the negotiated peace that their expansion plans needed to come to fruition. Even they knew they had no real chance of physically conquering the USA.

I agree that it is not an exact match to the Phyrrus situation, but the final effect was the same. Do you think that the USA would have been as determined if the Japanese attacks had only included British and Dutch possessions?