Greatest Blunders in History

[El Koeno]

Crunchy peanutbutter?

 

[Agent327]

The Japanese failures in World War II to develop an effective convoy system and to use their submarine force in a coordinated offensive role.

I'd say Pearl Harbor first; the main goal of the attack - taking out the Pacific carrier fleet - got missed out on. (Since carrier groups decided most of Pacific warfare, that kind of made the attack moot.)

 

[Cutlass]

Backing the French in Vietnam.

 

[Shekwan]

The majority of history's greatest blunders appear to have happened in the 20th century... I hope this century has more intelligent leaders.

 

[Ancient Grudge]

The majority of history's greatest blunders appear to have happened in the 20th century... I hope this century has more intelligent leaders.

Eh?

Or perhaps because thats the period of history that most people on this board are familiar.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Crunchy peanutbutter?

We will fight!

I'd say Pearl Harbor first; the main goal of the attack - taking out the Pacific carrier fleet - got missed out on. (Since carrier groups decided most of Pacific warfare, that kind of made the attack moot.)

That, and the fact that all but one of those battleships was afloat again and engaged the Japanese before the end of the war. But anyway, that's not a blunder, that's just misfortune. A blunder would be, say, Custer's Last Stand, or Hitler's decision to invade the Soviet Union; it is a mistake in the thought process, not the action process.

 

[7ronin]

I'd say Pearl Harbor first; the main goal of the attack - taking out the Pacific carrier fleet - got missed out on. (Since carrier groups decided most of Pacific warfare, that kind of made the attack moot.)

They also neglected to attack the petroleum storage facilites at Pearl Harbor. If those had been destroyed it would have sent the fleet back to bases on the West Coast and most likely would have added six months to the length of the war.

 

[Cutlass]

We will fight!



That, and the fact that all but one of those battleships was afloat again and engaged the Japanese before the end of the war. But anyway, that's not a blunder, that's just misfortune. A blunder would be, say, Custer's Last Stand, or Hitler's decision to invade the Soviet Union; it is a mistake in the thought process, not the action process.

2 of the battleships never returned to action IIRC.

 

[American Empire]

George W. Bush....

 

[Sharwood]

George W. Bush....

So that would be a blunder by George Sr. and Barbara one drunken night then?

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

2 of the battleships never returned to action IIRC.

I guess you're technically right. Arizona was the only one to stay sunk, but Oklahoma, which both capsized and sunk, was raised with the rest, but was sold for scrap instead.

 

[GoodSarmatian]

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

Blunder ? I don't think so.
Serbia was one of the few countries who greatly profited from WW I.

 

[Agent327]

So then the choices are: 1) great visionary act; 2) one of the greatest blunders in history. Hm, I still go for 2 (considering the many unforeseen consequences, like the Russian Revolution and Hitler's pretext for starting WW II - to name just two).

 

[GoodSarmatian]

Irrelevant. He was a serbian nationalist and wanted serbian aoutonomy from Austria Hungary.
The assassination of Franz Ferdinand ultimately ended the Austro-Hungarian Empire and even made the serbian heir king of Yugoslavia.

 

[Dachs]

Agreeing with GoodSarmatian here; it's not a blunder if it accomplishes your goals. Failure to accomplish your opposition's goals isn't your fault.

 

[Agent327]

Seeing as this is a World History thread I don't see any reason to consider the shortsighted ideas of any particular terrorist a priority. (I also don't think Serbian history ranks higher than world history - just my opinion, ofcourse.)

 

[Dachs]

Seeing as this is a World History thread I don't see any reason to consider the shortsighted ideas of any particular terrorist a priority. (I also don't think Serbian history ranks higher than world history - just my opinion, ofcourse.)

Irrelevant. If I understand you correctly, Gavrilo Princip ought not have fired his pistol, because in so doing he would have saved the Russian, Austro-Hungarian, Ottoman (sort of), and German monarchies, and prevented millions of deaths by non-Serbs (as well as the admittedly copious casualties suffered by Serbia itself; however, considering the incorporation of the other South Slavs into that kingdom, I would consider the deficit to have been made good many times over). Why ought he have troubled himself about that, when the payoff ended up being so much greater?

 

[Agent327]

But anyway, that's not a blunder, that's just misfortune. A blunder would be, say, Custer's Last Stand, or Hitler's decision to invade the Soviet Union; it is a mistake in the thought process, not the action process.

Actually, it's both: blundering is an action as well as a thought process. (And Custer's last stand doesn't rank high on the world history scale, IMO.)

Irrelevant. If I understand you correctly, Gavrilo Princip ought not have fired his pistol, because in so doing he would have saved the Russian, Austro-Hungarian, Ottoman (sort of), and German monarchies, and prevented millions of deaths by non-Serbs (as well as the admittedly copious casualties suffered by Serbia itself; however, considering the incorporation of the other South Slavs into that kingdom, I would consider the deficit to have been made good many times over). Why ought he have troubled himself about that, when the payoff ended up being so much greater?

Following such reasoning any terrorist act would be justified (terrorist's reasoning), as long as the action's goal is limited enough. Now, in the real world that doesn't hold up: in the long run terrorism just can't win. (Case in point: Serbia today - though still calling itself "Yugoslavia" isn't much better off than in 1913.)

 

[Dachs]

Following such reasoning any terrorist act would be justified (terrorist's reasoning), as long as the action's goal is limited enough. Now, in the real world that doesn't hold up: in the long run terrorism just can't win. (Case in point: Serbia today - though still calling itself "Yugoslavia" isn't much better off than in 1913.)

lolwut strawman? I'm not supporting terrorism, I'm saying that he ended up achieving his goals. Doesn't mean I think that it's justified, just that the events that the action sparked ended up in Serbia's favor, therefore it wasn't a blunder.

 

[silver 2039]

Also assassinating a political figure isn't terrorisim.