NationStates Jolt Archive

Do tell...your opinion anyway.

What was the Greatest Blunder committed during the 20th century?

Is it Hitler's Invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941
Or the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in December of that year?
Stalin's purge of the Red Army in 1937?
France's adoption of the idea that elan and cran will bring victory in 1914?
Germany encouraging Austria-Hungry into a course of action that led to war in 1914?
George Lucas deciding to make 3 more Star Wars movies?

Or any other...think lads and lasses... What was it?

George. W. Bush.

I actually think it was Hitler's halt of the Battle of Britain. The attack on the Soviet Union was a huge blunder, but could have been salvaged and Hitler could have won if he had knocked Britain out of the war (as he had planned). However, he halted the attack prematurely and Britain was able to come back and whoop Hitler's ass.

With Britain out of the war the U.S. would have had no staging area for the invasion of Europe, we would have had no way to adequately supply any troops that we did manage to land, and Hitler would have been able to concentrate his forces instead of spreading them out into what evolved into a multi-front war (Which was the downfall of Germany in both World Wars and something Hitler did want to avoid in WWII).

I should have mentioned this... please no George W. Bush being born...there are so many more disastrous blunders than that...and I think he's been dashed to death and back up again...and to death again, until the process repeats seven or eight times.

Greatest blunder that worked out in civilization's favor: Hitler attacking Soviets.

Greatest blunder that worked out against civilization's favor: Giving the Soviets enough aid that they not only defeated Hitler, they also took eastern Europe and turned it into a prison camp for 40 years.

Okay, besides our friend GWB, greatest Blunders of the 20th century

Hitler enlisting Mussolini: All he did was attrack attention on a third front. That and he failed to occupy Greece successfully, forcing Hitler to devote 200,000 troops there.
The House of Un-American Activities: Really only exposed one traitor, the rest was a bunch of paranoid witch hunts that ended the lives of many innocent people, ruined the lives of dozens of others, and never really accomplished anything.

By 'blunder' do you mean unintentional mistake, intentional mistake, or either one? My answer depends on which one you meant.

George. W. Bush.

.

George H W Bush and Barbara Bush deciding to have children.

Up With People

Up With PeopleA fine contender, but can it compare with Dune? I'm not sure many of the mistakes M. Chuikov cites really count as blunders, the greatest event that was clearly a blunder was Truman's Secretary of State's (cannot remember his name) statement that "South Korea is not within the U.S.'s sphere of protection" (or words to that effect).

Me when I tried to juggle.

So many innocent lives... :'(

Do tell...your opinion anyway.

What was the Greatest Blunder committed during the 20th century?

Is it Hitler's Invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941
Or the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in December of that year?
Stalin's purge of the Red Army in 1937?
France's adoption of the idea that elan and cran will bring victory in 1914?
Germany encouraging Austria-Hungry into a course of action that led to war in 1914?
George Lucas deciding to make 3 more Star Wars movies?

Or any other...think lads and lasses... What was it?

George W Bush counts as 21st century, kiddies, for all who said him (though I would'a too)

anyway, I say George Lucas's actual movies, as opposed to the plan. He planned to make 9 movies, but after the original trilogy things slowed down. By the time he started the Phantom Menace he decided to scrap the last 3. 1 sucked, and the action of 2 was ok but the acting sucked. Teen Annikan looked so constipated when he was angry, it was like live action DBZ

I actually think it was Hitler's halt of the Battle of Britain. The attack on the Soviet Union was a huge blunder, but could have been salvaged and Hitler could have won if he had knocked Britain out of the war (as he had planned). However, he halted the attack prematurely and Britain was able to come back and whoop Hitler's ass.

With Britain out of the war the U.S. would have had no staging area for the invasion of Europe, we would have had no way to adequately supply any troops that we did manage to land, and Hitler would have been able to concentrate his forces instead of spreading them out into what evolved into a multi-front war (Which was the downfall of Germany in both World Wars and something Hitler did want to avoid in WWII).

Even with a victory in the BoB Hitler could not invade Great Britain. First, a victory would not entail the RAF disappearing from the skies, they would simply retreat to bases in Scotland and Wales, which were out of range for Luftwaffe fighters, so the RAF is still active, just not in the force or reaction time it once was. Furthermore, British fighters were rolling off the lines far faster than German ones, Vickers and Hawkins were producing 500 Spitfires and Hurricanes a month, Messerchmitt only produced 140 ME109's and 90 ME110's. So once the RAF falls back into Scotland, Wales, and Northern England, they can replace their losses (they had more trained pilots than fighters, and since a large number of shot down pilots survived, they should have little problem finding pilots), and return to bases around London in a short time.

But, assuming the Luftwaffe has established aerial supremacy in Southern England for a short window, the German invasion still will not work. Firstoff, the Germans had been training, but had yet to show how effective they could be at sinking naval targets, and chasing the RN out of the Channel would be not only costly (the RAF still exists, and there are 1500 Barrage balloons and several thousand AA guns in Southern England), but time consuming. And even if they destroyed every single RN ship in the Channel, reinforcements can be moved down from Scotland and the Mediterranean to make good those losses for the time the RAF is repairing.

Now, going even further to say the Germans have forced the RAF into the North, and the RN out of the channel for a short time, the Germans were masters of the land, but they had no ability to land troops amphibiously. Odds are they would strike at a major port, this was the idea held at the time that you had to hit a large port (the Higgins boat meant the Allie's didn't have to, but Germany doesn't have this). British ports are fortified, and these types of attacks are costly. This data is gathered from experience the Allies had with these type of landings, and they were far better prepared than the Germans. The huge strain Hitler pulling the Rhine barges out of duty for Sealion caused was unbearable for the Rhineland, German production needed these desperately, and this was a prime reason behind Sealion being abandoned.

And let's not forget these are barges, they are not what the Allies stormed the beaches with, not even what the British stormed Gallipoli with, and the Germans have no experience in this type of warfare. And in the insane idea that they gain a major port, they still lose, the British are berift of heavy weapons (since the Germans won't be landing any in the first attack, it really doesn't matter), but they have a small amount of them (and the US would probably send a huge shipment to the British in the event of an invasion, along with sacrificing the offensive initiative in other theatres to reinforce the Home Isles), and more than enough volunteers to push the Germans back. The Germans cannot effectively reinforce or supply their positions, the RN won't be gone for long, and the Kriegsmarine is not anywhere near the strength to challenge the RN for control of the Channel. And Germany also does not have a viable merchant fleet, the majority of it hadbeen seized at the beginning of the war, and what was left was needed to supply German positions in Norway, and the barges are out of the question, they are desperately needed for the Ruhr. The Germans can also not expect much Air Support as they had had in the Western Offensive, the RAF still exists, and is probably scrambling everything it has, Goering had seen the appaling losses wreacked upon his dive bombers in the opening stages of the BoB, so I can find it hard to believe he would deploy them before he had forward bases. And the ME110 proved a very bad ground-attack fighter, and all their other bombers (Dornier 117's, HE111's) are not effective tactical bombers, and a large amount would be lost to the RAF, along with Luftwaffe fighter losses.

So, in conclusion, even if the RAF lost the BoB, Sealion is still an impossibility.

George W Bush counts as 21st century, kiddies, for all who said him (though I would'a too) DBZ

Tony Blair was elected in the 20th century...

Does Chernobyl count as a blunder?

But I think Hitler's attack on the soviets was the biggest mistake. If he didn't already know, he had conquered france, he could have checked french history and saw that Napoleon made the same mistake. (except it was just Russia of course)

I guess it's true that history repeats itself...

What about Titanic? Or that rocket that blew up? Then their was that German commercial zeppelin, that blew up in America...

What about Titanic? Or that rocket that blew up? Then their was that German commercial zeppelin, that blew up in America...

Challenger and Hindenberg.

But I think Hitler's attack on the soviets was the biggest mistake. If he didn't already know, he had conquered france, he could have checked french history and saw that Napoleon made the same mistake. (except it was just Russia of course)

I guess it's true that history repeats itself...

He had to invade the Soviet Union, it was a clear part of his rhetoric from at least Mein Kampf, and Europe could simply not hold these two ideological enemies (even moreso than Democracy and Communism, which is strange considering how alike the USSR and Nazi Germany were) in itself, war had to happen, one side had to wipe out the other. Where was inevitable between the two, Stalin was revamping the Red Army towards an offensive posture and doctrine, with the obvious intent of grabbing what Germany had, and Germany itself.

Germany wanted "lebensraum" in the East, which meant the Soviet Union. Hitler had been obsessed with what Germany had almost had, what Germany had won in 1918, at Brest-Litovsk. Huge areas of Russian land, the Ukraine, Byelorussia (White Russia, Belarus, three different names), that had been robbed by the Entente's victory, he wanted this land back, and he was going to get it, which also served his needs to eliminate the Soviet Union.

These two countries had to go to war, they were going to go to war, the only thing that can change is the date, in which case Hitler made a huge mistake. His Balkan adventure to help out his ally Mussolini delayed Barborossa a fatal few weeks to June 22nd, ensuring that when the German spearheads reached Moscow, the Winter had set in, which effectivly cancelled out any hope of victory until the Summer (Russian Spring is almost as bad as the winter, the roads during the winter are frozen and can be used, in the Spring when it thaws they become mud death traps, offensives cannot be undertaken in these conditions), by which time the Soviets could have regained there balance and offer defeat to the Germans (as they did).

Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor. The U.S. never should've participated in that war, considering the after-shocks we're facing all the way to this day.

Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor. The U.S. never should've participated in that war, considering the after-shocks we're facing all the way to this day.

Without US intervention, the Soviets would have continued to the Seine (assuming Lend-Lease continues anyway), and Japan would have remained unchallanged in the Pacific, and offered a real challenge to the Soviets, since the cream of their Army and Navy will not be destroyed by the US, in fact, assuming Japan is safe from war with the US, it's likely they would join in an attack on the Soviets from the East, which cancels out the Soviet Far East reinforcements that were critical to stopping Operation Typhoon, and for mounting the Soviet Counterattack, and put the Soviet factories in the Far East and Siberia under threat. So it is likely, the world would have lost that war to the Axis powers.

damn this is tough.

Lets see

1. Hitler not listening to his generals and starting the war early. The war wasnt supposed to begin till 43-45 once the Kriegsmarine had 300-500 U-boats in service and there surface fleet was only 25 to 50% smaller then the british navy. Also Hitler would of had V weapons and jet fighters by this time. Also the much larger U boat force would of been able to starve britain of its fuel.

2. Hitler switching from bombing British RAF bases to bombing the cities.

3. The Invasion of Russia. Commiting 200 divisions to an extra front was just plain stupid, sending half those divisions south instead of north towards moscow even dumber. But by this time Hitler thought he was the worlds greatest strategist and refused to listen to his generals.

4. Germany Declaring war on the United States because Japan attacked.

5. Setting up massive concentration camps and using precious trains and railcars to ferry jews from the ghettos to the Concentration camps when those cars should of been used to bring winter cloths and supplies to German troops in Russia.

6. Hitler not listening to Rommel and not moving the tanks onto Normandy beach during the invasion. Hitlers aides not waking him up when the Invasion started.

7. Hitler telling all his forces on the Eastern Front never to retreat no matter what.

Without US intervention, the Soviets would have continued to the Seine (assuming Lend-Lease continues anyway), and Japan would have remained unchallanged in the Pacific, and offered a real challenge to the Soviets, since the cream of their Army and Navy will not be destroyed by the US, in fact, assuming Japan is safe from war with the US, it's likely they would join in an attack on the Soviets from the East, which cancels out the Soviet Far East reinforcements that were critical to stopping Operation Typhoon, and for mounting the Soviet Counterattack, and put the Soviet factories in the Far East and Siberia under threat. So it is likely, the world would have lost that war to the Axis powers.

Actually, I'm on both sides as to whether the US should've participated in WW2 or not. Obviously, in the end. I'm glad because we were attacked.

But look at what happened during and after WW2
- Two atomic bombings
- Seperation of East/West Germany, and East/Western Europe
- Korean War
- Vietnam War
Increase in America's military power.
Persian Gulf War as a result of that
And a second Gulf War

What're the total amount of casualties? Topping 2 million? 3? perhaps 5?


Although, like you said, it probably was good we were there in WW2. We stopped the Nazis on the Western side, stopped the Japanese in the Pacific. And prevented the Soviets from going deeper into Europe.

Hitlers aides not waking him up when the Invasion started.
I heard a funny story about that. I read that his aides were to scared to wake Hitler in the middle of the night to tell him about the D-Day invasion because they were too scared to wake him up.

damn this is tough.

Lets see

1. Hitler not listening to his generals and starting the war early. The war wasnt supposed to begin till 43-45 once the Kriegsmarine had 300-500 U-boats in service and there surface fleet was only 25 to 50% smaller then the british navy. Also Hitler would of had V weapons and jet fighters by this time. Also the much larger U boat force would of been able to starve britain of its fuel.

The Z plan wouldn't have come into effect until 1945, so their surface Navy is still small, and it is doubtful Hitler would have made good his promise to Donitz on the Submarine force. Furthermore, the German economy was bound to collapse if it didn't go to war after 1940, Hitler had made good his country's economic problems on a full blown loan program, he was running it on borrowed money, and it could only keep up the level of production (essentially, wartime) in peacetime for only so long, by 1939 it was reaching the breaking point. So if he holds out any longer, his economy collapses, and the French and British were both reorganizing their armies since at least 1938 (The French even create two armoured divisions), and by '43 they will not be the pushover they were in the Western Offensive, neither will the RAF and Armee d'le Air, which have both modernized by this time.

His V-weapons were useless, except to show off German inguinity, they weren't effective in their role. As for jet fighters, everyone had jet prototypes in the early 40's, late 30's, war just sped this up, whether or not Germany would have produced a viable jet fighter by 1943, with a crushed economy, and no war, is in serious doubt.

2. Hitler switching from bombing British RAF bases to bombing the cities.

I've covered this, but it was a blunder, but had it succeeded, he would have sufferd a worse blunder.

3. The Invasion of Russia. Commiting 200 divisions to an extra front was just plain stupid, sending half those divisions south instead of north towards moscow even dumber. But by this time Hitler thought he was the worlds greatest strategist and refused to listen to his generals.

I've covered this as well, and most of his generals wanted to attack Russia, they just wanted to delay (equally fatal)

4. Germany Declaring war on the United States because Japan attacked.

This one actually gets my vote, his worst blunder.

5. Setting up massive concentration camps and using precious trains and railcars to ferry jews from the ghettos to the Concentration camps when those cars should of been used to bring winter cloths and supplies to German troops in Russia.

Agreed, but while this one is worse in terms of human suffering, the above is the worse blunder.

6. Hitler not listening to Rommel and not moving the tanks onto Normandy beach during the invasion. Hitlers aides not waking him up when the Invasion started.

They could not get there in time at any rate, the attack on the French rail system by the US 8th and 9th Air Forces and RAF Bomber Command had reduced it's effectiveness. The only divisions within reach of Normandy (the ones at Calais, and Brittany) without rail use, would have been utterly devestated by the Allied Air Forces, since to reach there in time to be effective, they would have to move on roads during the day, a death sentence for any Axis armoured force facing the West.

7. Hitler telling all his forces on the Eastern Front never to retreat no matter what.

It wasn't just the East, he did this all the time.

My pick for greatest blunder is going to have to be Rolling Thunder. The decision to go with a slowly spreading, restricted air campain instead of something like Linebacker 2 from the begining cost the United States that war.

I heard a funny story about that. I read that his aides were to scared to wake Hitler in the middle of the night to tell him about the D-Day invasion because they were too scared to wake him up.

It's not a story, that is the truth, Hitler didn't learn of the invasion until late in the day, far too late to issue any command that could effect the invasion, becuase his aides were too afraid to wake him (He had just learned of the buildup to the Soviet Bagration Offensive that would destroy Army Group Center when it was launched, and was not in a good mood).

One that no one has mentioned was the Vietnam war, from when America participated. Many lives were lost over a war that could never truely have been won. The only way that you could possibly win a war against the Vietnamese was to kill ALL of them because only then would the battle for their hearts and minds not matter any more. The war was also pointless (even though they didn't know it then) because the main aspect of it was to stop the spread of Communism, and after the war was ended it did not spread dangerously anyway.

Actually Rommel wanted the 4 panzer divisions in Western Europe to always be stationed on the beaches in normandy in case of invasion. But the other general in charge of the Atlantic wall and the official commander of the divisions throught the attack was going to come from the North(I cant remember the name of the shortest point in the channel).

Also when the First U.S. troops crossed over into Germany Hitler freaked out and ordered every allied P.O.W. executed and chemical weapons to be fired on the advancing American troops but his Generals refused to pass on the orders so Hitler eventually resciended the orders.

Actually Rommel wanted the 4 panzer divisions in Western Europe to always be stationed on the beaches in normandy in case of invasion. But the other general in charge of the Atlantic wall and the official commander of the divisions throught the attack was going to come from the North(I cant remember the name of the shortest point in the channel).

Also when the First U.S. troops crossed over into Germany Hitler freaked out and ordered every allied P.O.W. executed and chemical weapons to be fired on the advancing American troops but his Generals refused to pass on the orders so Hitler eventually resciended the orders.

Rommel had 4 Panzer Divisions deployed at the beaches, he wanted all that were allotted to Army Group B to be deployed as so, but his commander (von Runstedt was his name), the commander of Army Group B, favoured putting the Panzers in a strategic reserve so all could attack the Allies at the beaches. The issue was brought to Hitler, who made it even worse, giving Rommel a few divisions, giving Runstedt a few, and keeping the rest in a reserve that only he could release.

And Rommel did not want them all at Normandy, he like the Abwehr, and Runstedt, thought the attack was going to come at Calais (the North you refer to), and this is where he deployed the majority of the armoured divisions he was allotted (only one was in the Normandy area). He thought Normandy might be the site of a diversion or follow-up, and had some suspicion that it could be the main site, but Calais was just to tempting, it was closer to Germany, had better ports (they didn't think the Allies would attack a beach like they did, they expected any assault to be at a port), and was the closest France comes to Britain. Everone expected the assault to come at Calais, but everyone dropped that idea except Hitler when the attack came on Normandy.

And even if Rommel had been given control over all the divisions, whether or not they would have been deployed to Normandy is questionable, more might have been sent to Brittany, the Cotentin (close to Normandy), and more to the Calais and Antwerp regions.

As for your other statement, I've never heard of this order, but lacking evidence to the contrary, I can't refute.

I actually think it was Hitler's halt of the Battle of Britain. The attack on the Soviet Union was a huge blunder, but could have been salvaged and Hitler could have won if he had knocked Britain out of the war (as he had planned). However, he halted the attack prematurely and Britain was able to come back and whoop Hitler's ass.

With Britain out of the war the U.S. would have had no staging area for the invasion of Europe, we would have had no way to adequately supply any troops that we did manage to land, and Hitler would have been able to concentrate his forces instead of spreading them out into what evolved into a multi-front war (Which was the downfall of Germany in both World Wars and something Hitler did want to avoid in WWII).

I absolutely agree, well said.

What's up with WW2? I doubt Germany would have won the war even if Hitler had listened to his generals and Japan was bound to end up fighting the US. None of the German decisions were too defining of the 20th century.

I'd go for the Russian Revolution that created USSR. Not a whole lot of good ensued (although Finland and some other small countries gained independence. Hooray for Finland). I can't be sure if anything much would have happened to Communism (or call it Socialism if you will) if there hadn't been such a shining precedent.

George H W Bush and Barbara Bush deciding to have children.


This is why so many in America hate Liberals, Stop the hatemongering and stupidity.

Rommel had 4 Panzer Divisions deployed at the beaches, he wanted all that were allotted to Army Group B to be deployed as so, but his commander (von Runstedt was his name), the commander of Army Group B, favoured putting the Panzers in a strategic reserve so all could attack the Allies at the beaches. The issue was brought to Hitler, who made it even worse, giving Rommel a few divisions, giving Runstedt a few, and keeping the rest in a reserve that only he could release.

And Rommel did not want them all at Normandy, he like the Abwehr, and Runstedt, thought the attack was going to come at Calais (the North you refer to), and this is where he deployed the majority of the armoured divisions he was allotted (only one was in the Normandy area). He thought Normandy might be the site of a diversion or follow-up, and had some suspicion that it could be the main site, but Calais was just to tempting, it was closer to Germany, had better ports (they didn't think the Allies would attack a beach like they did, they expected any assault to be at a port), and was the closest France comes to Britain. Everone expected the assault to come at Calais, but everyone dropped that idea except Hitler when the attack came on Normandy.

And even if Rommel had been given control over all the divisions, whether or not they would have been deployed to Normandy is questionable, more might have been sent to Brittany, the Cotentin (close to Normandy), and more to the Calais and Antwerp regions.

As for your other statement, I've never heard of this order, but lacking evidence to the contrary, I can't refute.

ah. I always got confused with the placement of the western divisions.

I recently heard about that order actually and im trying to find more information on it. The only reason I posted it was because it does sound very Hitler eqsue when the slightest things went wrong he overreacted and screwed up even more. Thats why its so hard for people to write alternate Nazi Germany history because Hitler was to irrational. He didnt follow any mold.

The Maginot Line.

Great Idea.......we'll just go around it.

The Maginot Line.

Great Idea.......we'll just go around it.

Well, had they put anything other than Coraps pitiful Ninth Army facing the Ardennes, it might be touted as a great strategic success.

What's up with WW2? I doubt Germany would have won the war even if Hitler had listened to his generals and Japan was bound to end up fighting the US. None of the German decisions were too defining of the 20th century.

I'd go for the Russian Revolution that created USSR. Not a whole lot of good ensued (although Finland and some other small countries gained independence. Hooray for Finland). I can't be sure if anything much would have happened to Communism (or call it Socialism if you will) if there hadn't been such a shining precedent.


Germany would of steamrolled Europe if Hitler was a rational person but he wasnt. Its quite possible Hitler would of never been able to conquer Russia. But he didnt have to all he had to do was just hold on till the soviets exhausted there manpower. Which was well within reason if he allowed his generals freedom of movement. Considering the Russians lost 21 million people they wouldnt of been able to fight much longer. Also if Hitler didnt tell his soldiers to kill the Latvians, The Ukranians and everyone else who was Anti Communist in the SU he would of had a partisan force to aid him against the Red Army.

This is why so many in America hate Liberals, Stop the hatemongering and stupidity.

This is why so many believe that conservatives have no sense of humor. Or were you being intentionally ironic?

This is why so many believe that conservatives have no sense of humor. Or were you being intentionally ironic?
A sense of humor only applies to when something is funny. Someone did the same joke before you. I think the greatest mistake was making permanent members on the Security Council. Why France is on it but India isn't is beyond me.

A sense of humor only applies to when something is funny. Someone did the same joke before you. I think the greatest mistake was making permanent members on the Security Council. Why France is on it but India isn't is beyond me.

Yes, but did you notice the humorous internal contradiction in the other fellow's post?

Also, if you think you're funnier than me, please contribute to this thread: http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=349138

*The creation of a Federal Reserve Bank in 1913. Led to the Crash of 1929 and eventually the Great Depression, which was suppose to have never existed with the introduction of a Federal Reserve Bank.

*The elimination of the Gold Standard in 1933. Prolonged the Great Depression and resulted in inflation unseen during any part in America's history, which continues to this day.

*Communism. Say what you may, it didn't exactly go to plan.

*Pablo Picasso. He himself wasn't a blunder, he created one. Led a lot of people to make crap, shove it in a museum and call it "art", while getting very rich at the same time from people who probably deserved to lose their money for appreciating such garbage.

*Prohibition. First it was alcohol, then it was "marihuana", then (almost) everything else. Billions are spent annually to catch the people who make and sell these substances on the grounds that they are bad for us. Done nothing more than imprison people who posed no threat to anyone by using such substances, as well as the "pushers". Meanwhile, hundreds of millions go hungry and/or have no source of income which could be solved if they grew hemp, which is not only a source of food but can be made into thousands of different products.

*Space exploration. Sure, we've created lots of nice things from it but you'd think from all the money they threw into it and the hollywood propaganda we'd be living on the moon by now. Damn you, Stanley Kubrick, damn you to hell!

Greatest blunder? Easy. The Bolsheviks allowing Stalin to lead.

I would certainly agree with Germany's invasion of Soviet was a blunder, but why has no-one brought up the Munich Agreement? Surely that's far worse.
If France and Britain had refused to sign and backed Czechoslovakia, the war could have been totally avoided. Hitler himself admitted it, when surveying the Czech fortifications. He had seriously underestimated the strength of the Czech defences and it would have taken a long time to crack them. Meanwhile he had only 2 divisions protecting his western flank to Frances 99. Now, say what you like about Frances military might, but I think anyone would agree that 99 vs 2 is a no-brainer. France could have been in Berlin b4 Hitler had turned his troops around.
The Czech army was well-equipped and well-trained - unlike the Polish army who France and Britain did support (they sent calvary against Panzer divisions for god's sake!). By capitulating and giving Czechoslovakia to Hitler gave him security on that side, impressive additions to his army and further bolstered his megalomanical ideals, as well helping prove to himself his impressions of the Allies as spineless. This of course lead to the Polish invasion (he naturally assumed France and Britain would cave in again) and the pro-longing of the war, as he always had in mind that the allies would give up eventually.

I would certainly agree with Germany's invasion of Soviet was a blunder, but why has no-one brought up the Munich Agreement? Surely that's far worse.

It would have been easier to stop him in the Rhineland, he sent two battalions, and would have pulled back at the sight of a single French divisions advancing.

If France and Britain had refused to sign and backed Czechoslovakia, the war could have been totally avoided.

Probably, the Germans got most of their wondeful ideas, designs, and construction techniques for their armour from the Czechs after the Sudetenland and later Bohemia & Moravia were incorporated into the Reich.

Hitler himself admitted it, when surveying the Czech fortifications. He had seriously underestimated the strength of the Czech defences and it would have taken a long time to crack them.

The ones facing Germany anyway, they had next to none on their southern flank, since it had only been German since the Anschluss with Austria, this is why the Czech's backed down, their defenses were outflanked.

Meanwhile he had only 2 divisions protecting his western flank to Frances 99.

Err... he had a bit more than two divisions, but still, not a lot. But the French did not have 99, they had a modestly sized regular army, and upon mobilization could count about 70 divisions in their ranks, the 100 figure was what they had in May 1940, after mobilization and 7 months of preperations. Not to mention they did not start their rearmament program until after Munich.

Now, say what you like about Frances military might, but I think anyone would agree that 99 vs 2 is a no-brainer. France could have been in Berlin b4 Hitler had turned his troops around.

Whether or not France could have won in 1938 is mostly moot, since had the West actually stood up and DOW'ed Hitler, many prominent Germans (foremost among them the Abwehr leader, Admiral Whilhelm Canaris) had plans to overthrow him, this time with far more support than the later July 1944 plot. Before Munich, he was popular, but not quite on the levels as after, when any idea of an overthrow with an Allied war was gone.

The Czech army was well-equipped and well-trained - unlike the Polish army who France and Britain did support (they sent calvary against Panzer divisions for god's sake!).

The Polish Army was not only larger, but led by somewhat experienced officers (From the Polish-Soviet War), the Czech Army was on par with it. The stories of Polish Lancers charging German tanks are completely figments of German propoganda, no such incident happened. The closest one came was when a Polish cavalry group saw some German artillery (which was horse drawn), and decided to scatter it, unfortunately for them, several German tanks were supporting the artillery, and they did not charge the tanks, they fell back. Polish AT weapons actually had a respectable kill rate against German Armour. Poland's downfall was the plan to defend everything (though they had reason to defend Silesia, it's where their industry was located), so spreading their Army thin and unable to plug any gaps, which was the exact wrong thing to do in the face of a blitzkreig attack.

By capitulating and giving Czechoslovakia to Hitler gave him security on that side, impressive additions to his army and further bolstered his megalomanical ideals, as well helping prove to himself his impressions of the Allies as spineless. This of course lead to the Polish invasion (he naturally assumed France and Britain would cave in again) and the pro-longing of the war, as he always had in mind that the allies would give up eventually.

What is even worse is that it was Czechoslovakia they sold out, the only real democracy in Central Europe, and long a member of the "Little Entente" and basically France's little brother (Hence why Daladier refused to agree with Chamberlain, but when Roosevelt refused to back France, he had to back down and go along with Chamberlain). Poland was anything but a democracy in 1939, they had not been since 1926, and when Germany moved against the rest of Czechoslovakia in 1939, the Poles even took some parts of Czech land.

The Maginot Line.

Great Idea.......we'll just go around it.Actually the maginot Line was a scess in its intetntion, to force a German invasion to go through the low countries, guarenteeing GB would be France's ally against Germany. There were proposals to extend the lline further north, but the Fortresses at Belgium could surely hold out long enough for British troops to reinforced Belgium and an attack on Holland would be political suicide for Germany - if they invaded Holland even the Poles would have declared war forcing Germany into a two front war. The Maginot Line was a sucess and did exactly what it was supposed to do (force the Germans to invade through the low countries), those goals were perhaps poorly chosen.

Zinoviev and Kamenev aligning with Stalin because they didn't like Trotsky personally.
The vietnam war.
The atomic bombs dropped on Japan.
Winklepicker shoes.

The assissnation of Gandhi.

Who knows if a few more years of his life would have done anything towards sealing the breach between Pakistan and India. It would probably have been better than the alternative.

Teletubbies. All the wars you have listed pale in comparison to the horror of the Teletubbies.

The Polish Army was not only larger, but led by somewhat experienced officers (From the Polish-Soviet War), the Czech Army was on par with it. The stories of Polish Lancers charging German tanks are completely figments of German propoganda, no such incident happened. The closest one came was when a Polish cavalry group saw some German artillery (which was horse drawn), and decided to scatter it, unfortunately for them, several German tanks were supporting the artillery, and they did not charge the tanks, they fell back. Polish AT weapons actually had a respectable kill rate against German Armour. Poland's downfall was the plan to defend everything (though they had reason to defend Silesia, it's where their industry was located), so spreading their Army thin and unable to plug any gaps, which was the exact wrong thing to do in the face of a blitzkreig attack.

Ah, you beat me to saying that :) Polish cavalry were mainly scouts, or the horses were used as transportation. They didn't fight on horseback. And btw, Demented Hamsters, pretty much all nations at the start of WW2 had cavalry brigades.

the biggest blunder....hum... *thinks* ......there i so many...er....maybe...er....i'll get back to you!

The Greatest Blunder was America stopping at Berlin. While Russia's military was emaciated, weakened, and basically at the end of their rope after battling so fiercly with the Nazi's, America should have kept going and conquered Russia while it had the opportunity.

Among many, many benefits, there'd have been no cold war, no Berlin Wall, no nukes threat to the extent experienced for so long after WWII, and Russia would have never invaded Afghanistan which created the harbinger of death and purveyor of hate, Osama Bin Laden.

The Greatest Blunder was America stopping at Berlin. While Russia's military was emaciated, weakened, and basically at the end of their rope after battling so fiercly with the Nazi's, America should have kept going and conquered Russia while it had the opportunity.

Among many, many benefits, there'd have been no cold war, no Berlin Wall, no nukes threat to the extent experienced for so long after WWII, and Russia would have never invaded Afghanistan which created the harbinger of death and purveyor of hate, Osama Bin Laden.

Uhh...Do you honestly think the American public would have supported another 3-4 years of war and millions of deaths?

The Greatest Blunder was America stopping at Berlin. While Russia's military was emaciated, weakened, and basically at the end of their rope after battling so fiercly with the Nazi's, America should have kept going and conquered Russia while it had the opportunity.

Among many, many benefits, there'd have been no cold war, no Berlin Wall, no nukes threat to the extent experienced for so long after WWII, and Russia would have never invaded Afghanistan which created the harbinger of death and purveyor of hate, Osama Bin Laden.

That's true but don't forget that they were an American ally. They had no reason to attack them.

Ah, you beat me to saying that :) Polish cavalry were mainly scouts, or the horses were used as transportation. They didn't fight on horseback. And btw, Demented Hamsters, pretty much all nations at the start of WW2 had cavalry brigades.

Not just cavalry brigades, the French Army featured entire cavalry divisions (Coraps Ninth Army deployed these two in the Ardennes, and they were pushed aside with great ease). And Kanabia is right about WWII Cavalry doctrine, it was not of the charge tactics of the previous century, WWII Cavalry used horse to quickly move around the battlefront, when they met the enemy, they dismounted and fought as light infantry, but even then there are records of successful charges.

During the Battle of France, an Allied (I believe Australian) cavalry unit was stumbled upon by a German infantry unit. The Germans, knowing the standard cavalry tactic of advancing then dismounting, took their time to set up a defensive posture, and were completely surprised by the Allied cavalry charging them, which scattered their unit and defeated them. This was only becuase they were not prepared for a charge, and did not alter the Battle for France in anyway, but it is the last recorded charge of a cavalry unit.

The Greatest Blunder was America stopping at Berlin. While Russia's military was emaciated, weakened, and basically at the end of their rope after battling so fiercly with the Nazi's, America should have kept going and conquered Russia while it had the opportunity.

Among many, many benefits, there'd have been no cold war, no Berlin Wall, no nukes threat to the extent experienced for so long after WWII, and Russia would have never invaded Afghanistan which created the harbinger of death and purveyor of hate, Osama Bin Laden.

Wishful thinking from the perspective of hindsight, but I doubt America had the means to occupy all of Russia.

Do tell...your opinion anyway.

What was the Greatest Blunder committed during the 20th century?

Is it Hitler's Invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941
Or the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in December of that year?
Stalin's purge of the Red Army in 1937?
France's adoption of the idea that elan and cran will bring victory in 1914?
Germany encouraging Austria-Hungry into a course of action that led to war in 1914?
George Lucas deciding to make 3 more Star Wars movies?

Or any other...think lads and lasses... What was it?

Easy. The idiotic decision to put reparations in place against Germany after WWI. Had it not been for those, it can be argued the economy in Germany wouldn't have collapsed and the climate wouldn't have ripe for a nut like Hitler to rise to power in the first place.

As for funniest blunder, how about that Maginot Line? Wacky, wacky stuff!

Yes, I think that the Treaty of Versailles was a pretty big blunder.

And pretty much all of World War I. Pick a battle-it was bound to be a blunder.

Such as the Battle of the Somme, and Verdun.

Easy. The idiotic decision to put reparations in place against Germany after WWI. Had it not been for those, it can be argued the economy in Germany wouldn't have collapsed and the climate wouldn't have ripe for a nut like Hitler to rise to power in the first place.

As for funniest blunder, how about that Maginot Line? Wacky, wacky stuff!

Considering the French were out for blood, not only for the war, but to avenge the humiliating Treaty of Versailles they had been forced to sign, it's unlikely you can avoid that. Further, their economy would still have collapsed, since it was the Great Depression which catapaulted Hitler to power (they wer emerging from their earlier depression).

As for the Maginot Line, as has been stated, it did what it was supposed to, it could not be extended (For financial, infrastructure, economic, and political reasons), and prevented a German invasion into France through Alsace Lorraine. Had Billotes First Army been in front of the Ardennes instead of Coraps Ninth, they could have blunted the German schwerpunkt and the Maginot Line would be touted as a brilliant success. It wasn't the Maginot Line that was the blunder, it was the oft named "Maginot Mentality" of the French Army in 1940.

George W Bush counts as 21st century, kiddies, for all who said him (though I would'a too)

Are we to understand that George W. Bush was born at some time after midnight 31st December 2000, and that he is thus at most roughly three and a half years old? I think we should be told if that is indeed the case.

Are we to understand that George W. Bush was born at some time after midnight 31st December 2000, and that he is thus at most roughly three and a half years old? I think we should be told if that is indeed the case.
it does explain a lot

Considering the French were out for blood, not only for the war, but to avenge the humiliating Treaty of Versailles they had been forced to sign, it's unlikely you can avoid that. Further, their economy would still have collapsed, since it was the Great Depression which catapaulted Hitler to power (they wer emerging from their earlier depression).

You mean the Germans :-)

If the reparations had not been forced, then Germany would not have taken such large loans from the US, which was a reason they were hit so bad by the Wall Street Crash...

Electronic Arts :sniper:

You mean the Germans :-)

If the reparations had not been forced, then Germany would not have taken such large loans from the US, which was a reason they were hit so bad by the Wall Street Crash...

No, the French had been forced to sign the Treaty of Versailles, the one before the one that ended World War I. That particular Treaty of Versailles ended the Franco-Prussian War.

George W. Bush- Come on, if he wasn't president over 900 dead Americans would be alive right now.

Invasion of Iraq- There was no need to, they lied to us.

Hitler's refusal to build jets- If he had, the Me-262, He-162, Ho IX, and other advanced jets would have torn Allied planes from the sky.

Electronic Arts :sniper:


You got to be kidding. Without EA we would have never had Medal of Honor, a quality adaptaion of Lord of the Rings Two Towers and Return of the King for consules, we would lose a large portion of the gaming industry.

Call of Duty, good game. Made by ex-MOH team memebers who worked for EA.

BLACK LABEL:sniper:

Thier a bad company.

Hitler's refusal to build jets- If he had, the Me-262, He-162, Ho IX, and other advanced jets would have torn Allied planes from the sky.

Given Germany's constant fuel constraints, basic lack of anywhere to safely deploy them, and the Allies own jet programs (which would have been rapidly sped up in the face of a credible German threat), all they've really done is buy themselves maybe a month or two off from Strategic Bombing. They cannot outproduce the US (the largest Aircraft Industry in the world at the time, with over 96,000 planes manufactured) and UK once they get their jets in production (they'd had them since at least 1942/43, they were just put through a lot of testing, and deployed shortly after the ME-262 (which had it's own defuncts due to rushing).

Did you forget Der Furher steped in and keep Jet production down till about late '43 early '44. Even then he only wanted Jet Bombers. If they were allowed to build jets in mid '42, the battle in the skies would have come out very different.

Did any of you know a German Junkers (pronounced Yunkers) Ju 390 got within sight of New York City without getting spotted and flew back to Germany?

Are we to understand that George W. Bush was born at some time after midnight 31st December 2000, and that he is thus at most roughly three and a half years old? I think we should be told if that is indeed the case.

How do you know he isn't a clone? Maybe a test tube created President!

It's a conpiracy I tell you!

-puts on the tin foil hat-

;)

Did you forget Der Furher steped in and keep Jet production down till about late '43 early '44. Even then he only wanted Jet Bombers. If they were allowed to build jets in mid '42, the battle in the skies would have come out very different.

Did any of you know a German Junkers (pronounced Yunkers) Ju 390 got within sight of New York City without getting spotted and flew back to Germany?

The JU 390 flight is still labeled as "alleged" since there is little evidence that clearly indicated it reached within 15 miles of New York.

If they had begun construction of Jet Fighters in mid-42, they would not have reached levels that make a difference until at least mid-43, but which time the Allied Air Forces are larger, and practicing far more effective tactics than the Luftwaffe. The ME-262 was just used in far too many roles, especially as a ground-attack fighter (at which it was abysmal). The Allies could have fielded acceptable levels of jet fighters by late '43 early '44 at the latest, and they have a much better pilot replacement program.

The ME-262, while it entered production later, was still the work of that extra year, whether or not any '42 era jet fighter could have been quite as effective is unseen, and the Germans were not adept at training pilots from propellor-driven aircraft to jet-engined ones, and they also cannot replace their losses in jet pilots at any acceptable rate.

How do you know he isn't a clone? Maybe a test tube created President!

It's a conpiracy I tell you!

-puts on the tin foil hat-

;)


As long as its one of those normal conspiracies rather then the Jewish one from that other thread

Did you forget Der Furher steped in and keep Jet production down till about late '43 early '44. Even then he only wanted Jet Bombers. If they were allowed to build jets in mid '42, the battle in the skies would have come out very different.

Did any of you know a German Junkers (pronounced Yunkers) Ju 390 got within sight of New York City without getting spotted and flew back to Germany?

There were only two prototypes.

It was not spotted because it turned back 20km (12 miles) from the coast.

Also, the claim is widely disputed.

FDR's New Deal.

George W. Bush- Come on, if he wasn't president over 900 dead Americans would be alive right now.

Invasion of Iraq- There was no need to, they lied to us.

Hitler's refusal to build jets- If he had, the Me-262, He-162, Ho IX, and other advanced jets would have torn Allied planes from the sky.

Only the last one happened in the 20th Century. Enough with the "I hate Bush", nobody cares anymore.

Only the last one happened in the 20th Century. Enough with the "I hate Bush", nobody cares anymore.
Depends when you consider the 20th century finished.

:rolleyes: Depends when you consider the 20th century finished.

Do you remember that night when the sky exploded :p ?

Greatest blunders of the 20th Century:

- Hitler's invasion of the Soviet Union
- Japan's attack against the US
- The partition of Palestine
- Western imperialism in Africa
- US intervention in Vietnam

Greatest Blunders of the 20th century:

-The People's Court.
-The Heimlich Maneuver
-Football Helmets.
-The wristwatch
-The FCC.

Tony Blair was elected in the 20th century...

True but it was such a big blunder for Great Britain that the ramifications go back through history; i.e. it is being removed by Nalir and the EU so that GB becomes nothing of note off the shores of France

The biggest blunder in the 20th century happened after World War 1 imho, when Germany received punishment instead of support after having lost World War 1. This led to great discontent among the populace and allowed Hitler to exploit this situation.

:rolleyes:

Do you remember that night when the sky exploded :p ?Was that when the Earth blew up? You remember, when we moved onto the giant earth ark? You know, when we had to pack up everything and move in the middle pf the night, but we didn't tell the stupid people because we were afraid they'd panic . . .. Um, nevermind, forget I said anything.