NationStates Jolt Archive

Take your pick! Sorry it took so long to get the poll up, I ran out of good ideas; its late, otherwise I could probably fill a book.

i try not to think of them as blunders, because they make history what it is. if even one military decision was to be reversed, [via our non existent time machine] everything would change. and that gets interesting to think about.

I would say the Schlieffen plan. The mindless, idiotic reshuffling by the younger Moltke fucked the Germans in WWI. The ramifications of German victory would mean about 20 million less deaths, wounds, etc., and a war ending before Christmas...

And also quite possibly no WWII...

Ack, buddy, you gotta check your dictionary. Giving weapons to Iraq wasn't a 'mistake', it was deliberate policy. The same policy that has driven the US to arm tinpot dictators (regardless who resides in the white house) around the world for the last 60 years.

I know they didn't mistakenly give Saddam weapons. I'm talking from a hindsight point of view.

You left out the Charging of the light Brigade???

And Britain didn't really underestimate the American colonists.. the British could qute easily of stamped-out a revolution it it wasn't for the French siding with the Americans.

Ack, buddy, you gotta check your dictionary. Giving weapons to Iraq wasn't a 'mistake', it was deliberate policy. The same policy that has driven the US to arm tinpot dictators (regardless who resides in the white house) around the world for the last 60 years.

And that policy could be viewed as a blunder....

You left out the Charging of the light Brigade???

And Britain didn't really underestimate the American colonists.. the British could qute easily of stamped-out a revolution it it wasn't for the French siding with the Americans.

From what I have studied, it seems to me that France was a rather reluctant helper later in the game. The whole arrogant British attitude of those farmers can't do crap is what I beleive lost them the war. If they'd sent all of the British army over to start with, they probabaly could've crushed the movement before it even really got started. And just think, there would have been no Dubya. :p

And that policy could be viewed as a blunder....

Not when the results were so blatantly predictable and dovetailed so neatly with US administration goals.

Ack, buddy, you gotta check your dictionary. Giving weapons to Iraq wasn't a 'mistake', it was deliberate policy. The same policy that has driven the US to arm tinpot dictators (regardless who resides in the white house) around the world for the last 60 years.
Ack! You need a dictionary. Look up the word mistake then the word accident.

i dont know if it counts as a blunder, but i would say the maginot line.

"hey, theres someone at the back door."
"well who is it?"
"... its nazi germany."

And Britain didn't really underestimate the American colonists.. the British could qute easily of stamped-out a revolution it it wasn't for the French siding with the Americans.

The Americans were quite compotent on the ground, and also had far better weapons (in terms of range and accuracy) than the British which allowed them to employ excellent skirmishers to decapitate leadership and harrass British forces.

It the British navy that the US couldnt beat at the time, but the UK did not act with the general compotence to really stand a chance of completely crushing the revolution. Little seems to have changed.

Teutonberg Wald without a doubt, if you can call it a battle at all. The slaughter of 3 legions stopped the advance of the empire, meaning that the Germans were later free to attack Rome. If the empire had survived, then there would have been no dark or medieval period, and we'd all be using hovercars by now.

Good points, all. There really are so many blunders that it's kinda hard to post them all. I really like the poll, though.

My personal "favorite": Pickett's Charge at the battle of Gettysburg in the American Civil War (more costly than the Light Brigade, although it's hard to relate battles)

Der Lieben is right. Books can be filled with all of the blunders. Cool poll idea, though.

Although it's not really a military blunder - all the military might of the US did nothing to prevent 9/11.

The Germans almost pulled off Babarossa but there was no good excuse other than general decay for Rome to lose to the barbarians.

The Germans almost pulled off Babarossa but there was no good excuse other than general decay for Rome to lose to the barbarians.
Teutoburg was a blunder which happened during the height of Roman power and occurred 200 years before real decline took place

The German invasion of The Soviet Union. Hitler's big f*** up.

Hitler forbidding anyone to wake him up before he went to sleep on the night of June 5th 1944. Only he could give the order for the Panzers to start moving and crush and push the D-Day invasion back into sea, but he forbade anyone to wake him up. So no one did. And D-day succeeded because of it.


I'm glad those military operations never succeeded.

Teutoburg was a blunder which happened during the height of Roman power and occurred 200 years before real decline took place

true true, the Teutonburg thingy was a real shocker but one battle does not a war lose. (oh no, I just made one of those random statements that people tear to shreds with hard evidence, I'm going to sign off, hide and watch a dvd.)

ANY invasion of Russia is a blunder

The French idea of the Maginot Line has to be way up there. You might as well call it the France 1940 failure, because it entailed far more than just their Maginot Line.

The French at Dien Bien Phu (that was a classic - the senior artillery officer there predicted that the Viet Minh would never be able to get artillery to bear on the French base - he later committed suicide by hand grenade out of shame).

I don't know about worst, but the Bay of Pigs may have been one of the funniest. I recall hearing that prisoners were traded for jam.

i dont know if it counts as a blunder, but i would say the maginot line.

"hey, theres someone at the back door."
"well who is it?"
"... its nazi germany."
(with thick german accent)
"Don't worry about us, we have simply come to...
Use the restrooms. Yes, use the restrooms"

Yeah, that gets my vote, I think.

You left out the Charging of the light Brigade???

And Britain didn't really underestimate the American colonists.. the British could qute easily of stamped-out a revolution it it wasn't for the French siding with the Americans.

The first part true. The charge of the light brigade in the Crimean war was the biggest, most stupid blunder on a tactical level. Whether this can be compared to Hitler declaring war on Russia, a strategic level mistake, is another question.

The second part, pure arrogance (and I am british OK)

You forgot that thing in Somalia in 1996 (I think). I cant remember everything about it, and I'm too lazy to Google it, but they Americans tried to assassinate someone and it went terribly wrong. The movie Black Hawk Down is all about that particular event, so if you've seen the movie you will know what I'm talking about.

Teutoburg was a blunder which happened during the height of Roman power and occurred 200 years before real decline took place
Had the Romans subdued the Germans, expansion into Russia could have taken place. The Dark Ages occured because there was no civilisation advanced enough to take the impact of the empire collapsing. Without external enemies, Roman power could have lasted centuries longer.

You forgot that thing in Somalia in 1996 (I think). I cant remember everything about it, and I'm too lazy to Google it, but they Americans tried to assassinate someone and it went terribly wrong. The movie Black Hawk Down is all about that particular event, so if you've seen the movie you will know what I'm talking about.

They were trying to grab two close associates of Aidid in Mogadishu.

Yes, it went wrong. But not as wrong as it could have. Considering the relative lack of support (support that was explicitly denied by Madeline Albright, who was leaning on Les Aspin), if you consider that roughly 100 Rangers were surrounded by thousands of armed Somalis, and managed to come back - including bringing their dead and wounded, it came out OK.

Tactical failure, yes. Stragtegic failure, yes. Product of micromanagement by Madeline Albright, yes.

Too bad that Les Aspin took the fall for it. The orders forbidding the use of an AC-130 and the use of armored US vehicles emanated from her.

I firmly believe that any lesser soldiers would have perished like Custer's 7th Cav.

Of all time, hard to say, there have been many. In recent time, that's easy, it's either Vietnam or the Invasion of Iraq.

Of all time, hard to say, there have been many. In recent time, that's easy, it's either Vietnam or the Invasion of Iraq.

Hard to say that they are equal.

In Vietnam, you have a vibrant insurgency that can concentrate hundreds of fighters in one place at will, and attack US forces at will, even in broad daylight. Insurgents kill 6,111 US soldiers per year, on average, over 9 years. The insurgents were constantly in a position to achieve the political goal of gaining control over the country.

In Iraq, the insurgency cannot concentrate hundreds of fighters in one place at will - it turns out to be suicide. They can only attack US forces with roadside bombs - which usually kill far more Iraqis than US soldiers. And, they are reduced to buying a GI Joe doll and claiming that they have kidnapped an American soldier. Insurgents have killed roughly 1000 out of a total 1486 killed in Iraq. In two years. That's a fraction of the casualty rate, while crippling the insurgency. The insurgents are not in a position to achieve the political goal of gaining control over the country.

I believe that as many Iraqis don't like the Americans, there are just as many who can't stand the insurgents either. The insurgents need a serious PR lesson (they are dumber than the US, which is pretty dumb). For starters, you don't bomb passers-by in the street with a random explosion. It tends to piss people off and make them hate you.

The VC were much better at the fish/river thing that Mao talked about. The insurgents in Iraq, by comparison, seem largely ignorant about such things. They are counting on people hating America, but that's not enough.

Hard to say that they are equal.

In Vietnam, you have a vibrant insurgency that can concentrate hundreds of fighters in one place at will, and attack US forces at will, even in broad daylight. Insurgents kill 6,111 US soldiers per year, on average, over 9 years. The insurgents were constantly in a position to achieve the political goal of gaining control over the country.

In Iraq, the insurgency cannot concentrate hundreds of fighters in one place at will - it turns out to be suicide. They can only attack US forces with roadside bombs - which usually kill far more Iraqis than US soldiers. And, they are reduced to buying a GI Joe doll and claiming that they have kidnapped an American soldier. Insurgents have killed roughly 1000 out of a total 1486 killed in Iraq. In two years. That's a fraction of the casualty rate, while crippling the insurgency. The insurgents are not in a position to achieve the political goal of gaining control over the country.

I believe that as many Iraqis don't like the Americans, there are just as many who can't stand the insurgents either. The insurgents need a serious PR lesson (they are dumber than the US, which is pretty dumb). For starters, you don't bomb passers-by in the street with a random explosion. It tends to piss people off and make them hate you.

The VC were much better at the fish/river thing that Mao talked about. The insurgents in Iraq, by comparison, seem largely ignorant about such things. They are counting on people hating America, but that's not enough.

Well by numbers yes, Vietnam would be a bigger blunder. It after all was a war of attrition.

However I think Iraq because of the total lack of any real planning, how they just thought it would be a total cake walk. While they did well in the major conflict part of the war. They really didn't seem to plan past that. I don't know what they were thinking, maybe they really believed they would be greeted with flowers. However any one who knew the nationalism of any of those countries in the middle east had to know that was just bunk.

Well by numbers yes, Vietnam would be a bigger blunder. It after all was a war of attrition.

However I think Iraq because of the total lack of any real planning, how they just thought it would be a total cake walk. While they did well in the major conflict part of the war. They really didn't seem to plan past that. I don't know what they were thinking, maybe they really believed they would be greeted with flowers. However any one who knew the nationalism of any of those countries in the middle east had to know that was just bunk.

I believe that if the insurgents had been smart (especially smarter in the PR department), they would have had more support, and hence, more success.

It's far, far more lethal to be an insurgent in the 21st century. And far, far harder to inflict casualties on US soldiers. From a strictly tactical perspective, the technological difference is extreme - on one hand, the tools of the insurgent have not changed since Vietnam, while the US soldier is armored and better armed with better sensors, radios, etc.

It's not a cake walk - the US takes casualties from the insurgency. But to what effect? The insurgency in Iraq is doomed to failure because they cannot generate enough support in their own country (much less sway public opinion in the US). I don't believe that they have enough strength to pull off their version of Tet, which was a major political victory in the US for VC forces.

I also think that this drives the desperation of Syria and Iran. They hear talk of invasion by the US. Well, we know the conventional forces would be wiped out in a few weeks. Followed by a suppressed insurgency within a few years. If you consider that right now, Iraqi insurgents receive aid from Syria and Iran, where will Syrian and Iranian insurgents receive aid from if their own governments fall?

Insurgents without monetary and logistical support evaporate.

So Syria and Iran see no real defense against the US - except through nuclear weapons - which they do not yet possess. I can only imagine how uneasy watching the insurgency in Iraq be crushed makes them feel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_San_Jacinto

Making camp and having all your troops go to sleep without setting out any guards sounds like a blunder to me. Certainly given how lopsided the victory was it did not work too well for the Mexicans.

From what I have studied, it seems to me that France was a rather reluctant helper later in the game. The whole arrogant British attitude of those farmers can't do crap is what I beleive lost them the war. If they'd sent all of the British army over to start with, they probabaly could've crushed the movement before it even really got started. And just think, there would have been no Dubya. :p

French involvement was extremely significant. The truly decisive battle of the war was, in my opinion, the Battle of the Chesapeake, in which a french fleet prevented the royal navy from resupplying Cornwallis at Yorktown.

In reality, I don't think British conduct during the war can really be classified as a great military blunder, compared to the losing sides of most other wars in history. I find it rather more likely, that you're just trying to be smug by suggesting it.


As for the greatest military blunder of all time, I expect it was probably perpetrated by the British. Our military history is rife with cockups. Some, like the Charge of the Light Brigade, live on in such infamy, that they become practically synonymous with military incompetance. The battle of the Somme is another; trust the British to engage in the bloodiest (over a million casualties), yet practically the most indecisive, battle in history.

Definately Atlantis' invasion of teh moon. Despite the fact that they were even more technologically advanced than we are, they not only lost, but teh moon completely wiped out their civilization.

I think the general "Invasion of Russia" is the classic military blunder. With bonus points for the subcategory ". . . in the winter."

"Fighting on two fronts" is also high on the list. With bonus points for ". . . and being Germany."

I find myself leaning towards Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor happening hours before the official declaration of war was delivered.

This had the effect of energizing and mobilizing the American government and hence the american industrial ability.

While the attack was partly successful in that the harbor was demolished, and the ships at dock were sunk, the attack missed the aircraft carriers that were the primary target, and did nothing to the Pacfic Sub Fleet that was then able to hamstring the Japanese Navy's supply efforts for the rest of the war, which ended in catasrophe for the Japanese.

Rah, the answer is Other: Dien Bien Phu.

French involvement was extremely significant. The truly decisive battle of the war was, in my opinion, the Battle of the Chesapeake, in which a french fleet prevented the royal navy from resupplying Cornwallis at Yorktown.

In reality, I don't think British conduct during the war can really be classified as a great military blunder, compared to the losing sides of most other wars in history. I find it rather more likely, that you're just trying to be smug by suggesting it.


As for the greatest military blunder of all time, I expect it was probably perpetrated by the British. Our military history is rife with cockups. Some, like the Charge of the Light Brigade, live on in such infamy, that they become practically synonymous with military incompetance. The battle of the Somme is another; trust the British to engage in the bloodiest (over a million casualties), yet practically the most indecisive, battle in history.

Myp oint is though, the British should have won long before then. They should have pwnd at the start and wiped out the revolutionaries, but the sent hardly any men over at first, 'cause they didn't see colonial uprising as a big threat. And then stupid Burgoyne screwed up Saratoga big time.

You forgot the current war????

You forgot the current war????

I wante avoid politics and plus, even if you disagree with it seems that its not so much a blunder as it is injust. But that's all I'm saying on it, and please don't trun this into a War in Iraq thread.

I wante avoid politics and plus, even if you disagree with it seems that its not so much a blunder as it is injust. But that's all I'm saying on it, and please don't trun this into a War in Iraq thread.

Sorry, I will not. Then, I'd say Hitler...Hitler was a blunder altogether.