# Great Historical Blunders



## Drachir

I don't recall seeing a thread like this before and I am not about to search through the thousands that exist to find one.  I think it would be interesting to see what the Forum members can come up with.  Note that I am not asking for the greatest blunder in history just a selection of errors that would have changed history had they not been made.  

I'll start with my choice: Hitler's decision not to finish Britain before turning on the USSR.  

I've not placed this post in any of the history sub-forums, so perhaps it could be confined to fairly modern events (post 1500 or thereabouts).  Anyone who wishes to do so could extend the post to the pre-1500 world.


----------



## Wiglaf

Our  invasion of Canada.  It was ill planned and when the British/Canadians counter attacked, New England states sold them their supplies.  I know we are capitalist but selling the enemy the supplies they need to march on your capital and burning it?

PS.  I am referring to the last one during the War of 1812.


----------



## The Ace

Err Drachir ?  The summer of 1940 proved that Hitler _couldn't_ finnish Britain.  The Battle of the Atlantic was a backup plan and the closest he ever came.


----------



## afroelf

For all the complex reasons for ww1, I reckon ww1 was the greatest blunder of the last century. All those cousins who decided to have a go for various reasons of nationalism and sheer bloodymindedness.
Also decidng that Uncle Joe was our friend instead of knocking off the soviets when the allies had the chance.
(I am hoping no one decides to get revisionist here- it would have stopped the cold war and allthe subsequent cr*p of the 20th century).
Lastly - Tony Blair and George Bush


----------



## Drachir

The Ace said:


> Err Drachir ?  The summer of 1940 proved that Hitler _couldn't_ finnish Britain.  The Battle of the Atlantic was a backup plan and the closest he ever came.



I didn't say that he could.  What I said was he invaded the USSR without finishing the war with Britain first. Whether he could have defeated Britain or not is moot.


----------



## Drachir

afroelf said:


> For all the complex reasons for ww1, I reckon ww1 was the greatest blunder of the last century. All those cousins who decided to have a go for various reasons of nationalism and sheer bloodymindedness.
> Also decidng that Uncle Joe was our friend instead of knocking off the soviets when the allies had the chance.
> (I am hoping no one decides to get revisionist here- it would have stopped the cold war and allthe subsequent cr*p of the 20th century).
> Lastly - Tony Blair and George Bush




I'm not sure that the Allies ever had the chance to knock out the USSR.  After six years of war (four for the USA) and millions of casualties it would have been very difficult for any of the Allied democracies to justify attacking the USSR, a country that was one of the Allies in the first place.  Almost certainly Canada and Britain would not have gone along with such a plan and it would have taken a great deal of convincing to get the US population to go along with starting a new war with a former ally after a war in which 250,000 Americans had been killed was supposedly over.


----------



## Precision Grace

Well, if the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand never happened, I dare say the world history would have taken a slightly different turn..


----------



## The Ace

Probably not, PG, both sides were looking daggers at each other.  WWI was going to happen.


----------



## Pyan

Precision Grace said:


> Well, if the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand never happened, I dare say the world history would have taken a slightly different turn..





The Ace said:


> Probably not, PG, both sides were looking daggers at each other.  WWI was going to happen.



Absolutely, Ace.

The assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand was merely an excuse to set the whole bloody juggernaut into motion - the posturing and fears of the Great Powers in Europe had already made it inevitable.

A good book on the subject: Dreadnought, by Robert_K._Massie.


----------



## TheEndIsNigh

What about Chruschov's decision not to continue with the cuban crisis. If ever there was an event that changed human history surely that was it.

Wasn't only later discovered that he misiles on Cuba were cabable of being launched and if the US had continued their posturing all hell would have been let loose.


----------



## Drachir

pyan said:


> Absolutely, Ace.
> 
> The assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand was merely an excuse to set the whole bloody juggernaut into motion - the posturing and fears of the Great Powers in Europe had already made it inevitable.
> 
> A good book on the subject: Dreadnought, by Robert_K._Massie.



The Guns of August by Barbara Tuchman is better and reveals that the war was entirely avoidable provide Europe had more intelligent leaders - unfortunatley it didn't.  Also see the Proud Tower by the same author.  

The Guns of August - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Precision Grace

Surely every war is avoidable provided the countries involved have more intelligent leaders! 

What I was suggesting earlier is this; if the assassination never happened then, even if there were wars, they would have been very different indeed. For one, Archduke would still be alive and involved. For two, the wars may have ended up being large localised affairs rather then the global thing involving everyone and their cat. There wouldn't have been an excuse for outrage is what I'm saying,


----------



## Vladd67

Given all the Imperial alliances at the time would any European war have been a localised affair?


----------



## Drachir

Vladd67 said:


> Given all the Imperial alliances at the time would any European war have been a localised affair?



Probably not.  Given that, what would history have been like in Wilhelm II had not made the colossal blunder of choosing Austria-Hungary over Russia as an ally?


----------



## reiver33

The Prussian military were keen to have 'a rekoning' with Imperial Russia so as to inflict a humiliating defeat (free up the baltic States and Poland, discredit the 'modernising' faction, etc.) and thus gave the Austo-Hungarians a 'blank cheque' in terms of support. Given the Great Power rivalry and prevalent 'Imperial' mindset of the time, a believe a limitet war for limited aims would have been difficult to stage-manage.


----------



## MontyCircus

afroelf said:


> Lastly - Tony Blair and George Bush



Yup, that's the one that came to my mind.  I still can't believe the rest of the world just sat idly by and let it happen.  It's just sick.


----------



## nj1

Hannibal not marching on an unprotected Rome and sacking the place. BIG MISTAKE


----------



## mosaix

Napoleon's march on Moscow - 1812.


----------



## jojajihisc

20th century farm collectives.


----------



## The Ace

nj1 said:


> Hannibal not marching on an unprotected Rome and sacking the place. BIG MISTAKE



You can say that again.  Few enemies of Rome ever got the chance, far less created it.

I just can't figure that one out, Rome could've suffered the fate later meted out to Carthage and there may not've been a Roman Empire.


----------



## Drachir

The Ace said:


> You can say that again.  Few enemies of Rome ever got the chance, far less created it.
> 
> I just can't figure that one out, Rome could've suffered the fate later meted out to Carthage and there may not've been a Roman Empire.




The way I understand this was that Hannibal lacked siege equipment and did not want to get locked in in a long investiture in enemy territory.  Rome's walls were apparently formidable and would have taken some time to overcome.  He may also have lacked the manpower.  In order for a siege to be successful it is usually necessary to have superior forces outside the walls.  The garrison in Rome may have been as large as Hannibal's army although lacking in experience.


----------



## Drachir

jojajihisc said:


> 20th century farm collectives.




I assume you mean in the USSR and other communist states.  They worked quite well in Israel the Kibbutzim) and Canada and the northern United States
(Hutterite colonies)


----------



## Leo

Abandoning space conquest and indulging in planetary intrigues.


----------



## nj1

Drachir said:


> The way I understand this was that Hannibal lacked siege equipment and did not want to get locked in in a long investiture in enemy territory. Rome's walls were apparently formidable and would have taken some time to overcome. He may also have lacked the manpower. In order for a siege to be successful it is usually necessary to have superior forces outside the walls. The garrison in Rome may have been as large as Hannibal's army although lacking in experience.


 
For some reason i always thought that Rome's walls were not that formidable. I may be wrong though


----------



## jojajihisc

Drachir said:


> I assume you mean in the USSR and other communist states. They worked quite well in Israel the Kibbutzim) and Canada and the northern United States
> (Hutterite colonies)


 
Good assumption.


----------



## Foxbat

These blunders are not very famous but they are historical (plus they really annoy me and involve my home town).

*Battle of Dunbar 1296*. The Scots are on top of a hill and English at the bottom. Scots decided to come charging down the hill and are soundly thrashed.

*Battle of Dunbar 1650*. The Scots are on top of a hill and English at the bottom. Scots decided to come charging down the hill and are soundly thrashed.

Talk about History repeating itself


----------



## Drachir

I almost feel like I am picking on the Scots, but the Darien Scheme was certainly a blunder of enormous consequences so far as Scotland is concerned.  It put Scotland so deeply in debt that it was a major factor in Scotland deciding to join with England as part of the UK, with the British promising to pay off the debt.  

Darien scheme - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Boneman

Archduke Ferdinand alive and well!! World War One a mistake............!


----------



## MersSong

The Stamp Act of 1765 and the subsequent taxes in the American Colonies.


----------



## Pyan

Just going back to the summer of 1940 a minute, Hitler's real mistake was ordering the Luftwaffe to abandon the attacks on the British airfields, and switch to the blitz on London and the other cities. 
Though he didn't realise it, he had the RAF on the ropes...if he'd continued, there probably wouldn't have been a Battle of Britain, and air superiority over Southern England would have been held by the Germans, who could have then invaded almost unopposed.

Next biggest mistake:allowing Dunkirk by backing off destroying the BEF and going for Paris instead.

It's likely that these two errors of judgement made the outcome of the war inevitable as early as September 1940.


----------



## TheEndIsNigh

MersSong said:


> The Stamp Act of 1765 and the subsequent taxes in the American Colonies.


 
Must disagree there MersSong. After all had the chuntering of the colonists not been stirred we would be paying for all those toxic debts the US banks caused....


Oh... 


er....

Well had they not rebelled the banking system would have been if the hands of the prudent and responsible bankers over in the UK and the world would have been saved all this pain we are going through....


Oh....

er....


Yes I see your point.

Pyan:

I thought the problem was his belief that the probability an invasion force could be assembled let alone succeed was low and he wasn't the kind of guy to sit and wait. So he committed to a almost guaranteed 'triumphant' outcome in defeating the French.

That and I suspect he didn't want to invade us as he thought we were 'kindred spirits' hence possibly the let off at Dunkirk.


----------



## reiver33

The underlying problem with the German armed forces was tactical superiority, operational professionalism and strategic ineptitude. Germany blundered into WW2 with no long-term or stategic military plans and instead produced a series of campaigns aimed at solving specific problems. 

Hitler 'allowed' Dunkirque to occur by halting the armoured thrust to the Channel for 24-48 hours due to fears the spearheads were outstripping their (infantry) supports to such an extent that an Allied counter-attack would cut through the 'Panzer corridor'. As it happened the Allies were incapable of mounting such an attack but by the time the penny dropped and the tanks began to roll it was too late to completely surround the BEF and French forces in the Low Countries.

Check out "Luftwaffe: Strategy For Defeat" for a good view of how not to orgainise an airforce...


----------



## jojajihisc

TheEndIsNigh said:


> Must disagree there MersSong.


 
Me too. Colonies generally cost more money than they produce and both sides profit more from free trade than from an inefficient government sponsored style of commerce.


----------



## Stylus

Drachir said:


> The way I understand this was that Hannibal lacked siege equipment and did not want to get locked in in a long investiture in enemy territory. Rome's walls were apparently formidable and would have taken some time to overcome. He may also have lacked the manpower. In order for a siege to be successful it is usually necessary to have superior forces outside the walls. The garrison in Rome may have been as large as Hannibal's army although lacking in experience.


 
Also, I would venture that Hannibal's military genius lay in the battlefield. Cities (being fairly static ) can't be surprised or outmanoeuvred in the way he had won previously. Besieging or storming Rome would have probably become a man-for-man slogging match, with Hannibal's skills unable to have much effect.

I agree that it was the closest Carthage came to getting a decisive result and (with hindsight), perhaps Hannibal should have gone for it. But he had come to Italy with a strategy (to destabilise and sever Rome's allies, largely by winning impressive battles) and, from his perspective, it looked like it was working. Maybe if he couldn't win then, Carthage never had a realistic chance of winning (as long as Rome wasn't prepared to give up).


----------



## Pravuil

The first historical blunder as far as America's Civil Wars go is Robert E. Lee's birth. The second was his participation in Gettysburg. The third was his utter ignorance and disregard for fulfilling his position as commanding officer. One of Lee's greates achievements was his most divine ability to ignore the protests of his subsidaries in questioning his command. The History channel opened my eyes to Robert's failure at Gettysburgh which was unknown to me before. Lee ordered his army to directly attack the opposition, which was dug in atop a fortified hill shaped like a meniscus, when he (apparently) could have circumvented the hill, tromped into Washington, and lured the opposition to a more balanced fight (Lee had more men by the account I listened to). After Lee's forces were routed by a downhill cavalry charge and subsequently regrouped (the opposition at least displayed some military tact in not forsaking their advantageous position) Lee again ordered his forces up the hill after having suffered such a loss that he now had less men than the opposition. Needless to say it was a slaughter. 

And that's Gettysburgh. Sounds like a certain battle against a certain people on the continent of England who not once, but twice charged downhill to meet their doom. Scottish pride. =)


----------



## Stylus

That sounds like a harsh assessment of arguably the best general of the Civil War, especially based on only one battle and only one source of information.

True, Gettysburg was not Robert E. Lee's finest hour, but he was operating far from his base and urgently needed to score a solid win that would translate into political capital (the strategic wisdom of that plan is another debate). He was drawn into this unfavourable battle by circumstance and subordinates and took a high-risk gamble that failed because the Union army was much better than expected. Unquestionably a failure, perhaps born of overconfidence, but hardly incompetence or ignorance.

And speaking of his behaviour towards those under his command; of his four sub-commanders, Hill and Ewell had never commanded at that level before, Stuart had compromised the army with his cavalry's absence and Longstreet – who may have had the right idea about how to fight that day – was almost mutinously opposed to the plan. Lee was also facing the first battle without his best general, Jackson. And if Lee ignored their protests it was his prerogative as commander (although I don't remember any general – aside from Longstreet or Pickett – who held Lee culpable).

For all his faults in Gettysburg (and before, and after, it was a long war after all), for my tuppence, Robert E Lee was probably the only man who could have won an almost-unwinnable war for the Confederacy. If he had been on the Union side (or even sat it out), the Civil War might have been over years earlier.


----------



## Jev

The Gunpowder Plot. Robin Catesby's (self-described) brilliant idea to blow up Parliament and King James owing to oppression resulted in the powder-layer getting caught while laying out the powder the night before. Everyone's heard of Guy Fawkes, of course. But that's not the worst part...

They weren't too experienced with gunpowder. So when they fled London those who weren't caught carted the gunpowder along with them. It rained. They wanted the gunpowder to be dry and not wasted. So they (wait for it) _set it in front of a fire to dry_ at Holbeach House, just as their pursuers were about to catch up with them.

Blam! Explosion! Wounds several of the Plotters, blinds one, makes them unable to even put up an ounce of resistance. Dooms them all, because they thought it would be a great idea to dry off gunpowder in front of a fire.

(To say nothing of the ensuing Jesuit roundup, the torture and execution of priests and plotters both, and the subsequent persecutions of Catholics, of course, but that gunpowder snafu gets me every time, as far as sheer unnecessary riskiness/lack of foresight.)


----------



## Pravuil

Irregardless of any extraordinary factor no right-minded general who has a rudimentary grasp of military tactics would send (for all intents and purposes and for conveniency of nomination) a unit of ranged light infantry against another unit of ranged light infantry who just happens to be snugly positioned on fortified high ground (the high ground being in the shape of a demilune did I mention? I have doubts about Lee's intelligence gathering so who's to say a wing of cavalry wasn't hidden behind those hills to wrap up and surround Lee's forces or several supplementary batteries of artillery to shake the opposing light infantry? Hell, even ancillary units of light infantry that could be spared could be used to wrap up Lee's men or the the men commanding the hill could feign retreat, hide men on the curved exterior of the hill, and wrap them up that way, though sacrificing the hill wouldn't be all too bright). Perhaps I am being to harsh on Lee given my limited knowledge of the Civil War, but there's no excuse for Lee's clear display of _incompetence_, leastways in this situation. And Washington so close...


----------



## Jev

Pravuil said:


> I have doubts about Lee's intelligence gathering



Lee's intelligence gathering sucked at Gettysburg. As Stylus alludes, Jeb Stuart was supposed to be on scout patrol but instead was joyriding, so his intelligence operations were sorely lacking.

That said, Buford and company had seized the high ground by the first day, so it was pretty much game over at that point. I think Pickett's Charge and the like lies in the realization that Lee was fighting Gettysburg more as a point of honor than as an simple military engagement. He _had_ to win. The Union Army (especially with Meade the pragmatist in charge) simply had to hold off the Confederates long enough.

And then he also had people who simply didn't belong in positions they had attained through family name or other such stuff: Hood and Pickett come to mind instantly. Contrast them to Buford and Chamberlain, both of whom got where they were at Gettysburg on their own merits.

To Stylus, Jubal Early also wasn't too fond of Lee's command at Gettysburg, but I don't have a high impression of Early myself.


----------



## Drachir

The Gettysburg post is quite interesting.  Gettysburg definitely qualifies as a historical blunder.  If it wasn't then Lee would have won.  However, the way I understand the battle is that Lee did not have superior numbers.  In fact he was outnumbered by about 90,000 to 75,000 give or take a few thousand.  That, of course makes what is known as Pickett's Charge even more suicidal.  Attacking superior numbers generally does not work out very well unless the attacking force is much superior in quality or manages to achieve a brilliant tactical advantages as was the case of Napoleon at Austerlitz.  A major cause of Lee's disastrous decision to attack the centre of the Union position was his overwhelming confidence in his troops.  After all, Lee had fought battle after battle against Union armies that were larger than his and won every time.  The disaster at Gettysburg was largely due to the fact that he thought he could do it one more time.


----------



## Pravuil

Ha. The Gunpowder Plot made me laugh. It makes you wonder...I suppose not everyone was familiar with the properties of gunpowder back in James' day but how did the men suppose the gunpowder was ignited and made to discharge a bullet from a musket? Eh...now that I think of it, which James was this? I sense a possible double conspiracy. 



Drachir said:


> The Gettysburg post is quite interesting. Gettysburg definitely qualifies as a historical blunder. If it wasn't then Lee would have won. However, the way I understand the battle is that Lee did not have superior numbers. In fact he was outnumbered by about 90,000 to 75,000 give or take a few thousand. That, of course makes what is known as Pickett's Charge even more suicidal. Attacking superior numbers generally does not work out very well unless the attacking force is much superior in quality or manages to achieve a brilliant tactical advantages as was the case of Napoleon at Austerlitz. A major cause of Lee's disastrous decision to attack the centre of the Union position was his overwhelming confidence in his troops. After all, Lee had fought battle after battle against Union armies that were larger than his and won every time. The disaster at Gettysburg was largely due to the fact that he thought he could do it one more time.


 
Lee not having superior numbers, huh...Wouldn't be the first time the History channel lied to me, that being the primary reason why I don't believe the half of what they 'attest' to on that channel until I research it myself. I was so incensed at hearing Lee's blunder that I forgot myself...I was also conversing with other people at the same moment as watching the channel and could have misheard, but I don't think that's the case.

Nonetheless...Light infantry versus light infantry, all the infantry in question carrying bayonets for melee but for their primary role being ranged attackers...All the light infantry have to reload to be effective unless they go screaming into the fray like bloody mad idiots up a hill against a fortified enemy...And if they reload they're painfully susceptible and the enemy has a clear field of fire against them. When the enemy has to reload they can merely duck, cover, reload, discharge, rinse, wash, repeat. Does anyone know the specifics of this hill (elevation, slope grade, etc.)? As I said somewhere, this was a complete cluster. Anything would hae been better than such a brazen move. At the expense of several hours and given some caution Lee could have, no doubt, taken out the Union troops. A Confederate night attack on their camp with purely bayonets (for the sake of no night vision at that time and to eliminate friendly casualties or at least the preponderance thereof) would have more likely sufficed and had more of a probability of being succesful, even considering the fact that the Union would undoubtedly have sentries and what not stationed around the main camps perimeter. I suppose the point I'm trying to drive across is that from my point of view Lee was a succesor of Braddock in that he followed the paradigm of utterly incapable generals of time out of mind. Convince me Lee was not a failure because as of yet I'm not convinced.


----------



## Drachir

The history of the US Civil War shows that it was very difficult to administer a crushing defeat on another army.  Battle after battle yielded only indecisive results and as a result the war eventually ended as a war of attrition, in which the Union with its much larger population and greater industrial capacity eventually wore down the South.  It is unlikely that Lee would have been able to administer a decisive defeat on the Union even if he had done everything right.  And, of course, he would have had to have the cooperation of a very incompetent Union general in order to pull off some brilliant maneuver in the first place.  The history of warfare, as this thread implies, is not so much one of brilliant tactical successes, but of one side out-blundering the other side.  

If you wish to check the numbers who fought at Gettysburg try one of the following links.  

StrategyPage.com - How Many Men Fought in the Battle of Gettysburg?
Gettysburg Battle American Civil War July 1863


----------



## Stylus

I'd agree with the above point (while defending my earlier one about how Lee could have won an unwinnable war) – it was very difficult to crush an opposing army on the field, but my thinking was that if Lee had continued to pile defeat after defeat upon the Union, it might have generated enough political pressure to force peace talks.

All the South needed to do was 'not lose' the Civil War – they didn't need to march into Washington or Massachusetts – but the North had to actually win it, physically occupying Richmond and South Carolina.

In fact, despite its 'high tide' reputation, Gettysburg was probably the wrong year for a political victory. The closest the Confederacy came to winning may have been a year earlier at Antietam, in time for the 1862 midterm elections. (And that certainly has to count as a great blunder – a copy of the entire Confederate battle plans found discarded in a field wrapped around a couple of cigars!)


----------



## Urlik

Hurtgen Forest would have to be one of the biggest blunders of WW2
going into the forest and getting bogged down for months almost changed the course of the war.
it created the circumstances for the Battle of the Bulge, was the most costly in terms of lives lost and wounded of any US battle in WW2. it also caused other problems for the allies (for example: Montgomery's advance was held up because of the Roer River dams)

to quote from another site


> Those who fought in the Battle of Hürtgen Forest  fought a misconceived and basically fruitless battle that could have, and should have been avoided.  That is the real tragedy of the Battle of Hürtgen Forest.


----------



## Dimentio

Battle of Karansebes

Probably the most embarrassing military defeat in all of European history.


----------



## Drachir

Dimentio said:


> Battle of Karansebes
> 
> Probably the most embarrassing military defeat in all of European history.



Hmm, sounds like the Austrians were led by the Marx Brothers.


----------



## Urlik

Dimentio said:


> Battle of Karansebes
> 
> Probably the most embarrassing military defeat in all of European history.


 
I thnk we have a winner


----------



## Karn Maeshalanadae

I don't know if it was listed, but I'd say Alexander the Great's refusal to march westward. Imagine if the Roman Empire had never come to pass....?


----------



## Drachir

Manarion said:


> I don't know if it was listed, but I'd say Alexander the Great's refusal to march westward. Imagine if the Roman Empire had never come to pass....?



Maybe not a blunder.  From Alexander's point of view there was nothing to conquer to the west.


----------



## Dimentio

Manarion said:


> I don't know if it was listed, but I'd say Alexander the Great's refusal to march westward. Imagine if the Roman Empire had never come to pass....?



He planned to march westward eventually. But first, he wanted to pacify the Arab peninsula. Nevertheless, his empire would probably have broken up into fragments after his death anyway.


----------



## Karn Maeshalanadae

Dimentio said:


> He planned to march westward eventually. But first, he wanted to pacify the Arab peninsula. Nevertheless, his empire would probably have broken up into fragments after his death anyway.


 

Perhaps it would have, but I think that it would have lasted long enough to have at least a cultural, if not lingual, impact upon Europe.

Nah....the true blunder was trying to take India. After all, elephant cavalry was no light matter.....


----------



## Pravuil

I have two words in response to the title of this thread, but in restraining myself I'm only allowed to use one, per the forum rules...Braddock. How difficult is it to grasp that pride is folly and that you don't send a nice, organized outfit of rank-'n'-file Britishmen against a ragged bunch of guerillas. Not only that, but after rebutted Braddock didn't order a retreat; quite to the contrary, he pressed the attack. Many of his generals were shot by deepwood snipers, I believe he himself was shot, Washington (who was against the whole debacle, or at keast Braddock's way of going about it) was shot several times, some of the British (now in disarray) fired on their allies in the ensuing confusion....Cluster. 

EDIT: up there with Lee, I'd say. =P


----------



## Brian G Turner

Drachir said:


> The way I understand this was that Hannibal lacked siege equipment and did not want to get locked in in a long investiture in enemy territory.  Rome's walls were apparently formidable and would have taken some time to overcome.  He may also have lacked the manpower.  In order for a siege to be successful it is usually necessary to have superior forces outside the walls.  The garrison in Rome may have been as large as Hannibal's army although lacking in experience.



Hannibal just doesn't seem to have realised how soundly he'd defeated the Romans at Cannae - on the one hand, it's dangerous to underestimate an opponent, but Hannibal certainly over estimated.

He didn't have a problem marching around Italy laying siege to other towns, so I'm not sure any siege of Rome would have been a real technical problem, excepting in Hannibal's mind.

Certainly it didn't stop the Gauls the century before, and they were probably far less organised.

2c.


----------



## Dimentio

Manarion said:


> Perhaps it would have, but I think that it would have lasted long enough to have at least a cultural, if not lingual, impact upon Europe.
> 
> Nah....the true blunder was trying to take India. After all, elephant cavalry was no light matter.....



Alexander wanted to take the whole world. It is said that he started to weep when Callisthenes told him there were more than one world out there.


----------



## Pravuil

Hah. Gotta love Alexander.



I said:


> Hannibal just doesn't seem to have realised how soundly he'd defeated the Romans at Cannae - on the one hand, it's dangerous to underestimate an opponent, but Hannibal certainly over estimated.
> 
> He didn't have a problem marching around Italy laying siege to other towns, so I'm not sure any siege of Rome would have been a real technical problem, excepting in Hannibal's mind.
> 
> Certainly it didn't stop the Gauls the century before, and they were probably far less organised.
> 
> 2c.


 
But were all the other towns of Italy properly fortified if fortified at all? 

There's the rub, the task; beleaguering is.


----------



## Peter Graham

Dimentio said:


> Alexander wanted to take the whole world. It is said that he started to weep when Callisthenes told him there were more than one world out there.


 
This brings to mind perhaps the greatest ever quote to emerge from the sainted Sid Waddell, legendary darts commentator and all round Geordie savant. As Eric "the Crafty Cockney" Bristow won another title*, Waddell gave his view, which was along the lines of:-

"It is said that at the age of 25, Alexander the Great wept salt tears because there were no worlds left to conquer. Eric Bristow is still only 24..."

Regards,

Peter

* You can keep cricket, football, rugby, athletics and all the rest of it. We dominate in real sports - darts, snooker and all those other games where drinking twenty pints _before_ taking part is not viewed as a bar to success.


----------



## Window Bar

A common thread through so many of these is the strategy of Ongoing Attack. In other words, every army gets overextended and every citizenry gets weary. Germany's decision to take on Russia was a near duplicate of Napolean's. Both were immense blunders because they exposed the army to enormous distances and risks without an end in sight.

Imagine if Hitler had stopped after the anschluss with Austria, plus perhaps the occupation of the Rheinland, the Sudetenland and the Germanic sectors of Poland. No world power would have been eager to bleed their own nation dry just to free Germans from Germans. Sure, there would have been grumbles and even a cold war for a generation or so... but if Hitler had stopped, Germany would today be a power on par with the US. There might be a European Community, but they certainly not be headquartered in Brussels.

-- WB


----------



## The Ace

Errr Window Bar.  You've fallen into the old trap.

Hitler really wanted to get to grips with Stalin and to do that he needed a common frontier and a European power base.

It should also be noted that Britain and France had been conned into the whole scenario of Czechoslovakia.

Hitler gambled that his future enemies'd do anything to avoid another war, not realising that they _had _to make a stand over Poland or lose all credibility.


Whole libraries've been written about the mistakes made in Barbarossa but it was inevitable, sowing the seeds of his destruction.

Germany's only hope of success lay in a swift and brutal war lasting no more than eighteen months and both sides knew war was coming.   Hitler's failure to subdue Britain coupled with his attack on the Soviet Union and declaration of war  on the US guaranteed a long war which Germany couldn't possibly win.


----------



## Drachir

The Ace said:


> Errr Window Bar.  You've fallen into the old trap.
> 
> Hitler really wanted to get to grips with Stalin and to do that he needed a common frontier and a European power base.
> 
> It should also be noted that Britain and France had been conned into the whole scenario of Czechoslovakia.
> 
> Hitler gambled that his future enemies'd do anything to avoid another war, not realising that they _had _to make a stand over Poland or lose all credibility.
> 
> 
> Whole libraries've been written about the mistakes made in Barbarossa but it was inevitable, sowing the seeds of his destruction.
> 
> Germany's only hope of success lay in a swift and brutal war lasting no more than eighteen months and both sides knew war was coming.   Hitler's failure to subdue Britain coupled with his attack on the Soviet Union and declaration of war  on the US guaranteed a long war which Germany couldn't possibly win.



Which brings up another blunder.  Hitler's decision to support its Japanese ally by declaring war on the USA made Germany's defeat almost certain.  Even if Germany had not embroiled itself with the USSR it is difficult to see how it could possibly have survived a long war with the US as an enemy.


----------



## Dr. Elitist

To break away, somewhat, from the current debate, I think one of the greatest political blunders in modern history would be the terms agreed to in the Treaty of Versailles. It was, in large part, used by Hitler as justification for his aggressive and destructive foreign policy. There isn't any doubt that Hitler would've behaved any differently, but I think it would make his true nature much clearer, much sooner. If Britain and France had seen how crazy he was from the beginning, their policy of appeasement in the 1930's would never have been implemented, or would certainly have been much shorter lived. On top of that, it would've been harder for Hitler to gain support from the German people and strengthen the Nazi party. It couldn't have stopped WWII, I don't think, but it is possible that this would've stopped the Holocaust. But, that's just my theory.


----------



## J-WO

Drachir said:


> Hmm, sounds like the Austrians were led by the Marx Brothers.



Nah; they'd never be part of any army that would have them as generals.

_*waves cigar, walks away in stooped-over manner*_


----------



## Vladd67

Jev said:


> The Gunpowder Plot. Robin Catesby's (self-described) brilliant idea to blow up Parliament and King James owing to oppression resulted in the powder-layer getting caught while laying out the powder the night before. Everyone's heard of Guy Fawkes, of course. But that's not the worst part...
> 
> They weren't too experienced with gunpowder. So when they fled London those who weren't caught carted the gunpowder along with them. It rained. They wanted the gunpowder to be dry and not wasted. So they (wait for it) _set it in front of a fire to dry_ at Holbeach House, just as their pursuers were about to catch up with them.
> 
> Blam! Explosion! Wounds several of the Plotters, blinds one, makes them unable to even put up an ounce of resistance. Dooms them all, because they thought it would be a great idea to dry off gunpowder in front of a fire.
> 
> (To say nothing of the ensuing Jesuit roundup, the torture and execution of priests and plotters both, and the subsequent persecutions of Catholics, of course, but that gunpowder snafu gets me every time, as far as sheer unnecessary riskiness/lack of foresight.)


I have heard a theory about the drying of the gunpowder 'accident' and that was who ever was responsible for the idea of drying the powder actually realised they were all doomed to arrest, torture, and a gruesome death. Now being Catholics the idea of suicide was out so an 'accident' was arranged. When this failed they followed this up with a Butch and Sundance last stand.


----------



## Vladd67

Well from the point of view of the Zanzibari Sultan ignoring the treaty signed with Britain in 1886 was a bit of a blunder as this led to the shortest war in history, iirc it lasted less than 40 minutes.


----------



## Jardax

10 000s BC - Neanderthalers extincion - Homo sapiens (the most evil species ever) became the dominant humanoid species.
Munich 1938 - missed opportunity to crash Hitler and stopping the worst war ever.


----------



## J-WO

Jardax said:


> 10 000s BC - Neanderthalers extincion - Homo sapiens (the most evil species ever) became the dominant humanoid species.
> Munich 1938 - missed opportunity to crash Hitler and stopping the worst war ever.



Unless, of course, both these things had gone the other way and by 1938 a Neanderthal dictator became the greatest mass murderer of all time.


----------



## Jardax

J-WO said:


> Unless, of course, both these things had gone the other way and by 1938 a Neanderthal dictator became the greatest mass murderer of all time.



 I was a little scared someone can say that.

Latest researches revealing that Neanderthales were a bit different than a common theories describe. They were not those rude and robust beasts, they even knew an abstract art (this fact was not known before) and they were hunted down and eaten by our ancestors...maybe there were more peaceful than we are. But theories coming and leaving the scene..


----------



## J-WO

I heard some archaeologists had found what could have been a flute in one of their graves. Amazing.


----------



## Jardax

J-WO said:


> I heard some archaeologists had found what could have been a flute in one of their graves. Amazing.



Yes, i heard they also discovered an abstract paintings and the fact they used a cosmetics and so. Amazing is how the theories changing, i remember from school theories about stupid monsters. Two friends of mine are anthropologists and they babled about a bit different point of view last time i met them.


----------



## J-WO

Its a similar situation with dinosaurs. When I was 5 years old they were slow, coldblooded losers. Nowadays, science see's them as anything but.


----------



## Peter Graham

> How difficult is it to grasp that pride is folly and that you don't send a nice, organized outfit of rank-'n'-file Britishmen against a ragged bunch of guerillas.


 
Quite difficult, it would appear, given that the coalition are trying to pull exactly the same trick in Afghanistan.

Regards,

Peter


----------



## svalbard

Napoleon's invasion of Russia should rank up there as one of the greatest military blunders. Hitler's decision to invade Russia comes a close second if not worse, because he should have known better.


----------



## The Ace

The crazy thing was, if Hitler had launched a Spring offensive rather than a summer one and had all three army groups converging on Moscow, it might've worked.

The sacrifice of the Greeks and Yugoslavs wasn't in vain.


----------



## svalbard

Looking at it I do not think it would still have worked. Thankfully Hitler just did not have enough men and equipment to get the job done and his own interferance in the course of the war would always have come against him.

The craziest thing is that Hitler would never have had to invade Russia. Stalin had no intention of ever declaring war on Germany and was stunned when the Germans invaded.


----------



## The Ace

It'd take a bigger shark than Jaws to swallow that one.

That pair disembowelled Poland because they_ both_ wanted a common frontier.  One of them was going to try to obliterate the other at the first opportunity and it was just the luck of the draw that Hitler struck first


----------



## svalbard

Stalin was really caught off guard by the invasion. He had no inclination, although the dogs in the street knew what was coming. It is redundant anyway. Even if Hitler had invaded Russia a year earlier he would still have lost.

One example is production. The Russians concentrated all their production and research into churning out one main tank, the T-34. Although it was the most successful tank of the war it was the never the most powerful. The Germans went the other road and produced a bewildering amount of tanks at different levels. The result was that in the end the Germans could never match the sheer volume the Russians were producing or put enough of their own higher(but less reliable) end tanks into the field to make them effective.


----------



## J-WO

If I were Stalin (Blimey, never thought I'd ever say that) I think I would never have expected Hitler to be so stupid as to invade Russia while still embroiled in western Europe. If he'd twittered at the time, he'd probably have the used the term _WTF? _or referred to it as BlitzkriegFail or something equally voguish and irritating.

Except in Cyrillic.


----------



## reiver33

Going over some old ground here but nevertheless...

Erickson in 'The Road To Stalingrad' intimates that the heavy concentration of Soviet forces in the Ukraine was with an eye to a pre-emptive strike on Germany if required - the favoured invasion route being via southern Poland to avoid forested East Prussia.

Poor production by the German war economy until Speer took charge was symptomatic of the overall lack of pre-war planning for a European conflict, let alone a World War. The Allied portrayal of the Nazis as hell-bent on world domination was just propaganda – the outbreak of war caught the Germans by surprise. It’s one of those logic traps; the guarantees made by Britain and France to Poland were hollow as it was obvious they would be unable to intervene, militarily, in the time taken for Germany to defeat the Poles. _Therefore_ the British and French governments are just ‘going through the motions’ and should Poland ‘force’ Germany into military action there will be protests but nothing more, leading to another Munich-style conference. 

Based on German ‘strategic’ planning vis-à-vis the navy it would seem Hitler anticipated a war with France (over Alsace-Lorraine) in 1944/45, but that all other German territory lost after WW1 could be recovered through negotiation and/or limited (one-sided) conflict.

In terms of the basic question ‘could Germany have defeated the Soviet Union?’ then the answer is ‘no’, given the personalities involved. There were sane voices who realised the logistical limitations and advocated a two-year campaign; first year to a line Leningrad-Smolensk-Kiev/Kharkov, then dig in to await the Soviet winter offensive while building the supply infrastructure and stockpiling supplies. Then a late spring ’42 offensive aimed at encircling only because the Soviets would throw in everything they had to defend it.

However, Hitler’s personality was based on immediacy – he seemed psychologically unable to await events and kept forcing the pace. Hence his declaration of war upon the USA in December ’41 when the offensive stalled outside Moscow. He was angry, frustrated and seized on the Japanese attack as a means to take the initiative – regardless of how little sense this made.

The slogan ‘Today Germany, tomorrow the world!’ was probably better ascribed to the USSR (politically) and the USA (culturally)…


----------



## paranoid marvin

In my opinion.

If Hitler hadn't invaded , Stalin would , and the war would have been over much sooner than it was. Don't forget Hitler almost won in Russia , and he probably would have if he had secured the oil fields instead of attacking Stalingrad. 

An unexpected , pre-emptive strike was successful in the west , and it should have been successful in the east. With the West in disarray , Hitler's only real mistake was not invading 6 months - even 12 months - earlier If it HAD been , then what are the chances that , with  secure borders , limitless supplies of oil ,labour and equipment , that any attack on mainland Europe would have been successful? Or would even have been attempted?

As for Stalin , if he hadnt been the man he had been , then he would never have got to the top. In a world of dog-eat-dog , who's to say that another Russain leader wouldnt have been even worse?


----------



## C Of K

The Battle of Five Forks

Here's the blunder of the whole thing.



> Pickett's unfortunate military career suffered another humiliation—he  was two miles (3 km) away from his troops at the time of the attack,  enjoying a shad bake north of Hatcher's Run with Maj. Gens. Fitzhugh Lee and Thomas L. Rosser.  He had neglected to inform his men of the generals' absence, leaving  them leaderless. Atmospheric conditions muffled the sounds of battle  sufficiently that Pickett was unaware of the fighting. By the time he  returned to the battlefield, it was too late.


General Pickett and other Confederate Generals were 2 miles away enjoying a few fishes while 3,000 of their men were being slaughtered. This loss helped hastened Confederate surrender. I would hate to have to write up a report for this battle.


----------



## J-WO

On the bright side, a food critique would have some great material.


----------



## Captain Campion

paranoid marvin said:


> In my opinion.
> 
> If Hitler hadn't invaded , Stalin would , and the war would have been over much sooner than it was. Don't forget Hitler almost won in Russia , and he probably would have if he had secured the oil fields instead of attacking Stalingrad.
> 
> An unexpected , pre-emptive strike was successful in the west , and it should have been successful in the east. With the West in disarray , Hitler's only real mistake was not invading 6 months - even 12 months - earlier If it HAD been , then what are the chances that , with secure borders , limitless supplies of oil ,labour and equipment , that any attack on mainland Europe would have been successful? Or would even have been attempted?
> 
> As for Stalin , if he hadnt been the man he had been , then he would never have got to the top. In a world of dog-eat-dog , who's to say that another Russain leader wouldnt have been even worse?


 
I read an interesting book a few years back named "Hitler's Panzers East" which argued rather effectively (IMO) that Hitler's chance at winning WW2 was lost when he diverted the spearheads of Army Group South to encircle Soviet forces around Kieve (summer, 1941). The general theory is that using those forces as intended--to take Moscow--would have caused a collapse of the soviet government, eliminated the Moscow-Gorki muster zone for Soviet forces, made the northern and southern fronts untenable for Soviets, and severely hampered communications throughout the wester half of Russia.

Whether or not this is true, no one will ever know. But when in school I wrote a few papers on the eastern front and researched it rather thoroughly. Personally, I'm amazed at how close Germany came to beating the Soviets that first year but after 1941 I think the best they could have hoped for was some kind of negotiated stalemate in the east. The Russia supply of raw materials and manpower was seemingly endless.

I agree with the poster who suggested Stalin would have invaded west at some point--a Nazi/Soviet conflict was almost inevitable. In many ways, Stalin's Soviet Union was much like Nazi Germany. The Soviets invaded and conquered half of Poland and the Baltic states, not to mention trying to take Finland. Considering how many raw materials the Soviets were supplying the Germans, the world is fortunate that they did not put aside their idealogical differences and combine forces.


----------



## Null_Zone

The Ace said:


> The crazy thing was, if Hitler had launched a Spring offensive rather than a summer one and had all three army groups converging on Moscow, it might've worked.
> 
> The sacrifice of the Greeks and Yugoslavs wasn't in vain.


 
But the spring rains had been quite late that year so the Germans could have simply become bogged down even further from their objectives.


----------

