Greatest Blunders in History

[Plotinus]

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.[/QUOTE]

 

[Plotinus]

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

How on earth do you work out that Germany was the least to blame then?

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)

I don't know what being an atheist has to do with any of that, but I hope you don't really think that the same person or group wrote the Torah and the New Testament.

 

[philippe]

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.

[/QUOTE]

who are you and what have you done to Plotinus?

EDIT: Nevermind.

 

[Plotinus]

Yes, yes, I pressed the wrong keys and posted it before I'd finished...

 

[Hitti-Litti]

Germany for not checking completely the Ribbentrop pact they made with Finland. It was agreed in the pact that Finland wouldn't make a separate peace with Soviet Union and Germany would give support to Finland. Ryti signed that pact with his own name, so when Ryti resigned in August 1944, Mannerheim was free to make peace with Soviet Union. So, Ryti left Germany alone against Soviet Union without Germany realizing that it could be done.

 

[Dachs]

Did I mention the descent of Eukratides into India following his conquest of Baktria? Cause the stupidity of that move gets impressed upon me more every time I read about it. Destroyed the plan of Antiochos Epiphanes to move against the Pahlavan, ruined the strength of Hellenic Baktria in pointless attrition along the Indos and in Kaspeiria, and left the way clear for both the Pahlavan and the Saka to take advantage.

 

[privatehudson]

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.

The number of mistakes the Allies made and the heavy investment the Germans had to make to defeat the operation tends to suggest that the operation wasn't completely flawed. Minor changes in the events before and during Market Garden could very easily have lead to a bridgehead over the rhine being established despite the heavy opposition faced during the campaign. Market Garden was a big gamble, and one that probably shouldn't have been launched. Its interesting however that you criticise the Allies for being over-cautious in one post and then criticise them for taking on a risky operation in the next.

Now whether that would have lead to a collapse of the Third Reich and an end to the war by Christmas is highly debateable. If there's one thing that Market Garden proved its that the Wermacht was very much not on its last legs.

. Also, the British were too slow, but that was only one factor.

The speed of the armoured advance up the corridor depended just as much on the Airborne Division's ability to hold that corridor as the British ground forces ability to push along it. An additional factor is that if the flanking corps could not secure each side of the corridor effective attacks could be launched against it.

Finally, I believe that the operation was too far behind enemy lines to be truly effective.

Well it would have been totally useless to have dropped it any closer to the Allied lines in that area.

 

[North King]

Charles I, Wilhelm II, Nicholas II and Louis XVI pretty much sum themselves up as the most incompetent men to ever take a powerful throne and then proceed to destroy their country through sheer numbskullery. Perhaps it wasn't Charles' fault that England turned to hell because he was so incompetent, but it's still a blunder nonetheless.

Excuse me? What exactly would you have done in Louis XVI's place?

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.

Source? The Germans never came close to defeating a properly garrisoned Maginot Line.

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.

What, were they supposed to cover the Ardennes? Invading through that region probably seemed as ******** as we'd think invading through Switzerland would have been.

 

[Sharwood]

Just thought of another one. The British decision to ignore Boer and native advice - not to mention common sense - and not even bother to fortify their position at Isandlwana. Similarly, the Zulu decision to attack Rorke's Drift, against orders from their king, Cetshwayo, was stupid.

 

[silver 2039]

Oh the Union's decision to not maintain occupation of the former traitor states and ensure rights for African-Americans and crush the Ku Klux Klan. That was a big mistake. If the Reconstruction had been done properly civil rights movement wouldn't have been necessary, or at least not on the same scale. Giving former traitors back their voting rights, and pardoning them was another big mistake. Most of them should have been executed. Furthermore not seizing land and property and distributing it among blacks. Another mistake. It was highly successful on the small scale it was experimented with. Essentially not being hard enough of the traitor states was a big mistake.

 

[Sharwood]

Oh the Union's decision to not maintain occupation of the former traitor states and ensure rights for African-Americans and crush the Ku Klux Klan. That was a big mistake. If the Reconstruction had been done properly civil rights movement wouldn't have been necessary, or at least not on the same scale. Giving former traitors back their voting rights, and pardoning them was another big mistake. Most of them should have been executed. Furthermore not seizing land and property and distributing it among blacks. Another mistake. It was highly successful on the small scale it was experimented with. Essentially not being hard enough of the traitor states was a big mistake.

Problem is they could have provoked a popular uprising among the whites if they did it large-scale.

 

[Dachs]

Problem is they could have provoked a popular uprising among the whites if they did it large-scale.

That gives you more of an excuse to slay them all.

 

[Sharwood]

That gives you more of an excuse to slay them all.

Now that would be an excellent idea. If we got rid of white Southerners, the world would be a much better place in every conceivable way.

 

[silver 2039]

Problem is they could have provoked a popular uprising among the whites if they did it large-scale.

Do you know how big the Ku Klux Klan was at its height? Hell and it was just one of the many white power groups after the war. They were already taking violent action. I'm telling you the big mistake was withdrawing troops, and letting things go back to normal.

Now that would be an excellent idea. If we got rid of white Southerners, the world would be a much better place in every conceivable way.

Then American would truly be a cool nation if the South was repopulated with normal people.

 

[Azale]

Oh the Union's decision to not maintain occupation of the former traitor states and ensure rights for African-Americans and crush the Ku Klux Klan. That was a big mistake. If the Reconstruction had been done properly civil rights movement wouldn't have been necessary, or at least not on the same scale. Giving former traitors back their voting rights, and pardoning them was another big mistake. Most of them should have been executed. Furthermore not seizing land and property and distributing it among blacks. Another mistake. It was highly successful on the small scale it was experimented with. Essentially not being hard enough of the traitor states was a big mistake.

There were military operations in several states against the KKK which basically shattered their paramilitary capabilities. The rest I somewhat agree with, they could have been harder on the ex-Confeds without provoking a popular uprising. Andrew Johnson's appeasement was kinda nauseating.

 

[Sharwood]

Do you know how big the Ku Klux Klan was at its height? Hell and it was just one of the many white power groups after the war. They were already taking violent action. I'm telling you the big mistake was withdrawing troops, and letting things go back to normal.



Then American would truly be a cool nation if the South was repopulated with normal people.

I'm aware that the Ku Klux Klan was huge at its height, and I'm not arguing that removing the troops was a bad idea. But extremely strict punishment of whites in the former-Confederate states would almost certainly have provoked an uprising. It probably would be sporadic and inneffective, but it would damn sure have been counterproductive.

I just had a terrible thought: If the South were populated with normal people, who would we make fun of? America would be awesome, there'd be no opportunities for uproarious comedy.

 

[Azale]

I just had a terrible thought: If the South were populated with normal people, who would we make fun of? America would be awesome, there'd be no opportunities for uproarious comedy.

Talk about a boring country...it would remind me of...Australia

And you would just go back to making fun of New Zealanders as usual. Duh.

 

[silver 2039]

I'm aware that the Ku Klux Klan was huge at its height, and I'm not arguing that removing the troops was a bad idea. But extremely strict punishment of whites in the former-Confederate states would almost certainly have provoked an uprising. It probably would be sporadic and inneffective, but it would damn sure have been counterproductive.

It would have been better off in the long run, and nipped a lot of problems in the bud. There were Radical Republican governments in power early on as well as the movement for the New South but those both died out after the former traitors were allowed back in. The whole "Redemption" was something that should have been prevented. It was as though the US fought the civil war for nothing. The slaves were "free" in name only.

 

[Sharwood]

Talk about a boring country...it would remind me of...Australia

And you would just go back to making fun of New Zealanders as usual. Duh.

You think Australia is populated with normal people? You clearly haven't been here. We've got more than our share of inbred moronic hicks.

And we make fun of Tasmanians more than Kiwis. Kiwis aren't incestuous after all, just bestial.

 

[silver 2039]

I just had a terrible thought: If the South were populated with normal people, who would we make fun of? America would be awesome, there'd be no opportunities for uproarious comedy.

New Jersey.