Greatest Blunders in History

[Fugitive Sisyphus]

A Serb nationalist assasinating a member of the Habsburg imperial family, inadvertently triggering WW I. (Damn Serbs. They never learn.)

How was that a blunder? The Serbian nationalists wanted independence from Austria and they got it.

 

[Dell19]

How was that a blunder? The Serbian nationalists wanted independence from Austria and they got it.

Read the last two pages

 

[aronnax]

France not taking the advantage of the civil War of the Roses in England and invading it. Instead waiting for when the country is stable.

General Percival, not erecting barricades and defences in Johor Bahru because its as qouted "bad for moral"

Invading the Suez and showing Britian's decline.

Watergate Scandal

Not listening to Winston Churchill.

Listen to Neville Chamberlain

 

[citedon]

I realize this is from the first page but I can't let this urban legend go unchallenged. snopes calls it false for several reasons:

• Nova means "new" in Spanish. It's one word, pronounced differently than no va.
• No va would not be how a Spanish speaker would describe a non-functional car. No marcha or no camina would be much more likely.
• Pemex, the Mexican government's oil company, sold (and still sells) a brand of gasoline called Nova. If Mexicans were to associate anything to the name Nova, it would probably be this gasoline.
• The Chevy Nova sold quite well in its two major Latin American markets, Venezuela and Mexico. Venezuelan sales actually exceeded General Motor's expectations.

This myth just isn't true. Sorry.

Thanks Ambidexter. I stand corrected. I should do a better job of checking the facts before posting.

 

[Agent327]

If Austria-Hungary invaded Serbia, Russia would invade Austria-Hungary. That was a given, as was the fact that Austria-Hungary would lose such a war. I doubt anyone expected the war to take the course that it did, but it was pretty much accepted that Austria-Hungary couldn't defeat Russia at this time, and German involvement would bring on French involvement, and Germany couldn't win a two-front war etc.

Even the first statement isn't a given: every step required a conscious decision on all parts. Also the Centrals made considerable gains on both their Eastern and Western fronts before getting bogged down in the West. In the East the continued war effort led to the Russian Revolutions. As the USA's involvement was starting at this time, the difference just wasn't enough to tilt the balance in the Centrals' favour.

All of the Black Hand's goals were accomplished, and probably quicker than they expected, by the assassination. Hell, Princip stupidly failing to kill himself probably worked out in favour of his goal. Therefore, not a blunder. Now, even if he'd missed, it still might have worked out. The whole plan was very well thought-out by Serbia.

The involvement of the Black Hand is just one of the theories behind the assassination. Also, although Serbia attained its short-term goals after four years of world war, they could not have foreseen the outcome of the Versailles Treaty and the fact that the Centrals failed to exploit their Eastern gains to greater effect.

Now, I consider a "plan" that involves your own country being invaded and occupied to obtain some future goal by any standards a blunder; if it triggers a world war, in my book that lists it as one of the greatest blunders in history.

And if you consider Princip's actions a 'glorious succes', you are following a terrorists' reasoning, which sees no consequences except the limited ones of its own aims. World history looks at it differently, however.

 

[Sharwood]

Even the first statement isn't a given: every step required a conscious decision on all parts. Also the Centrals made considerable gains on both their Eastern and Western fronts before getting bogged down in the West. In the East the continued war effort led to the Russian Revolutions. As the USA's involvement was starting at this time, the difference just wasn't enough to tilt the balance in the Centrals' favour.

At the time, it was indeed a given. Serbia and Russia were allies, and any invasion of the first by Austria-Hungary would provoke a Russian retaliation. That was a given. Russia certainly didn't want Austria-Hungary expanding its influence in the Balkans, it wanted to do so itself.

It was a very clever strategy on the part of Serbia to provoke a war actually, as it was blatantly obvious that Austria-Hungary could not defeat Russia (and they knew it, which is why they requested German support), that German entry into the war would result in France joining the war, and that Germany couldn't win a two-front war, which is exactly what happened. I doubt anyone expected that Germany would actually be stupid enough to enter the war. That is where the miscalculation lay, and it was with Kaiser Wilhelm and his strategists, not Princip.

Sure, the Central Powers made gains before they were defeated. So did Persia in the 5th Century BC, and Carthage versus Rome. But they still lost, and deserved to, because they were outmatched. As the Central Powers were, and any unbiased analyst at the time could see it. WWI was the result of moronic nationalism on the part of the Central Powers. To coin a phrase, they let their mouths write a cheque their arses couldn't cash.

The involvement of the Black Hand is just one of the theories behind the assassination. Also, although Serbia attained its short-term goals after four years of world war, they could not have foreseen the outcome of the Versailles Treaty and the fact that the Centrals failed to exploit their Eastern gains to greater effect.

Sure, it's a theory, but it's almost certainly the right one. Princip simply wasn't bright enough to execute such a plan on his own. I think we can agree to that. He, personally, was a bumbling fool. But he was a bumbling fool that got the job done.

And they very well could foresee the latter, although the complete humiliation of the Central Powers, including their local enemies, Turkey and Bulgaria, probably came as a very welcome surprise.

Now, I consider a "plan" that involves your own country being invaded and occupied to obtain some future goal by any standards a blunder; if it triggers a world war, in my book that lists it as one of the greatest blunders in history.

They probably didn't expect an occupation, but they knew there'd be an invasion, and that they'd eventually fight it off with Russian assistance; this happened. In that, they were successful. That the assassination triggered a global war was an unexpected bonus for the Serbs; after all, the Ottoman Empire's and Austria-Hungary's complete dissolution and Bulgaria's trouncing absolutely played into their hands.

And if you consider Princip's actions a 'glorious succes', you are following a terrorists' reasoning, which sees no consequences except the limited ones of its own aims. World history looks at it differently, however.

Why shouldn't I see it that way. Princip had a goal; that goal was reached, largely as a direct result of his actions. Hitler had a goal when he had the SA killed; his goal was reached as a direct result of his actions. Lenin had a goal: that goal was reached as a direct result of his actions. That all these men committed crimes, outright terrorism - particularly in the cases of Hitler and Lenin - is true, but that doesn't make their achievements any less real. They certainly didn't blunder in achieving them, they got what they wanted.

World history sees just about every thing as a blunder, if you look at it long enough. The wars of Louis XIV bankrupted France, and indirectly contributed to the financial disarray under Louis XVI. Therefore, Louis XIV was a bumbler who destroyed the French monarchy. That comment is patently ridiculous. He had short-term goals, and he achieved many of them, though not the ones he most wanted.

Likewise, Princip had short-term goals. He achieved them. That they haven't lasted, and that the results were horribly unpleasant for the region in the long-run, does not mean that he did not achieve his goals quite admirably in the short-term. In doing so, he succeeded beyond his wildest dreams. He most certainly did not blunder in the slightest.

 

[Japanrocks12]

what I don't get is why you don't understand that people are only pointing out that his actions were consistent with the best interests of Serbia at that time, not somehow rationalizing his "terrorist act"

 

[Sharwood]

what I don't get is why you don't understand that people are only pointing out that his actions were consistent with the best interests of Serbia at that time, not somehow rationalizing his "terrorist act"

I assume that was directed at Jeelen, not me?

 

[Japanrocks12]

yes, to Jeelen.

 

[carmen510]

Not recounting the 2000 Florida ballots.

The total isolationism of America in the crucial 20s-mid 30s.

Hitler basically 'hobbling' the army, as it says in Sun Tzu.

Versailles Treaty, specifically the harsh terms and blaming Germany for the war. (It was actually the least to blame)

Whatever extremely smart & sadistic/idiotic and delusional person/group created the Torah and the New Testament. (I have no true quarrel with Hinduism, and Muslims are in my view a whole lot less violent, and I'm atheist)

Operation Market Garden

Allied over-cautiousness in WW2, could've shortened the war by months if they had some backbone and took a chance whenever there were huge opportunities.

 

[Sharwood]

Not recounting the 2000 Florida ballots.

That's not a blunder. It's a brilliant move on the part of W. and the various other vermin in his administration. After all, they would have lost if they were counted.

 

[Kraznaya]

That's not a blunder. It's a brilliant move on the part of W. and the various other vermin in his administration. After all, they would have lost if they were counted.

But that's entirely dependent on your point of view and completely subjec-

Oh right.

 

[Azale]

Has no one mentioned the Maginot Line and the mindset it represented yet? If so, I'm kinda surprised

 

[Loki130]

Has no one mentioned the Maginot Line and the mindset it represented yet? If so, I'm kinda surprised

It worked pretty well when the germans eventually went against, they just missed a spot
so I guess thats a blunder...

Or we could just blame the Belgians

 

[Mongoloid Cow]

Has no one mentioned the Maginot Line and the mindset it represented yet? If so, I'm kinda surprised

???

The Maginot Line worked exactly like it was supposed to - it was impossible for Germany to invade France directly, so they had to go through Belgium instead. The blunder is that the French thought the Germans would go through Flanders - they went through the sparsely populated, hilly, forested and boggish Ardennes instead. Had the French even kept watch on that region, the invasion of France would have been a failure.

 

[Agent327]

Actually, the Wehrmacht could've punched a whole in it just by using concentrated artillery fire. (They almost did, but changed targets.) Also, circumventing the line through Belgium made the whole project redundant. The opposing Siegfried Line, when revived in 1944-'45, proved just as ineffective to hold the Western Allied offensive.

 

[privatehudson]

Operation Market Garden

Allied over-cautiousness in WW2, could've shortened the war by months if they had some backbone and took a chance whenever there were huge opportunities.

That's rather unfair since it doesn't give any credit to the Germans for their role in defeating the operation. Market Garden didn't fail simply because (as Bridge Too Far has it) the British sat around drinking tea.

 

[El Koeno]

Or we could just blame the Belgians

That's always a good thing to do.

 

[carmen510]

That's rather unfair since it doesn't give any credit to the Germans for their role in defeating the operation. Market Garden didn't fail simply because (as Bridge Too Far has it) the British sat around drinking tea.

I know that, however, the whole operation was flawed. They sacrificed experienced paratroopers on an operation with an extremely limited timetable in a place where experienced German units with armored support had been stationed. Also, the British were too slow, but that was only one factor. Finally, I believe that the operation was too far behind enemy lines to be truly effective.

 

[Azale]

It worked pretty well when the germans eventually went against, they just missed a spot
so I guess thats a blunder...

Or we could just blame the Belgians

It was a fairly significant portion of the French military budget for a wall that had a gaping hole in it, and as JEELEN said was largely ineffective anyway.