Your Opinion: Biggest Screw Up in History

originally posted by: ladyvalkyrie
a reply to: DISRAELI

Yeah, "every two front war" was one of the comments on the original thread. Always have an out.

By their very nature, there are very few wars that don't contain at least one potentially history changing screw up. The Civil War is littered with them and so are WWI and II.

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: ladyvalkyrie

The U.S.S William D Porter(A.k.a the "Frat Boat") is probably one of the funniest f*** ups in history

Man, what a hoot. I have never heard of that. What a movie that would make. George Clooney as the captian, Crispin Glover as the guy who hauls in the anchor and Key and Peele as that galley cooks always having their food and tools spilled from the rocking ship. Socko box office I tell ya.

One of the reply comments to that story was:

I feel like they should just have given the ship blank rounds and and then make up missions for it.
"You go over there in the back and guard that rock! It's a suuuuper important rock!"

I LOVE the movie idea, you are definitely in charge of casting....anyone got the Coen Brothers number????

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: ladyvalkyrie
a reply to: DISRAELI

Yeah, "every two front war" was one of the comments on the original thread. Always have an out.

By their very nature, there are very few wars that don't contain at least one potentially history changing screw up. The Civil War is littered with them and so are WWI and II.

On the topic of wars. Neville Chamberlain waving that piece of paper in the air exclaiming peace in our time instead of preparing for war is an all time stubborn bonehead move. Employing appeasement at all costs, even though he could have easily been in the position of deterrence through strength, resulted in the destruction of Europe.

originally posted by: ladyvalkyrie
Biggest screw up in history.

...ok, so this bit:

He decided to attend the prestigious Vienna Academy of Fine Arts. In October 1907, at age eighteen, he withdrew his inheritance money from the bank and went to live and study in Vienna. Hitler's mother was by now suffering from breast cancer and had been unsuccessfully operated on in January. But Hitler's driving ambition to be a great artist overcame his reluctance to leave her.

He took the two day entrance exam for the academy's school of painting. Confident and self assured, he awaited the result, quite sure he would get in. But failure struck him like a bolt of lightning. His test drawings were judged unsatisfactory and he was not admitted. Hitler was badly shaken by this rejection. He went back to the academy to get an explanation and was told his drawings showed a lack of talent for artistic painting, notably a lack of appreciation of the human form. He was told, however, that he had some ability for the field of architecture.

But without the required high school diploma, going to the building school and after that, the academy's architectural school, seemed doubtful. Hitler resolved to take the painting school entrance exam again next year. Now, feeling quite depressed, Hitler left Vienna and returned home where his beloved mother was now dying from cancer, making matters even worse.

If I had a time machine, I would have perhaps greased the wheels a bit and let him get accepted into art school..architecture is valid art!

a reply to: SaturnFX
Nice try, but preventing Hitler to become the Fuhrer would not have prevented the millions of Germans from wanting to avenge their great War defeat, when a German father sent his son to war in France he told him: Son, kill a Frenchman for me.

a reply to: SaturnFX

Yeah, I forgot to include not accepting Hitler to art school. It's very telling that he 'lacked a feel for the human form'.

a reply to: manuelram16

You've got a good point. Hitler catches all the flack.....but he didn't act alone.

originally posted by: manuelram16
OK I'll play, one of the 'What if ?' Hitler invading Russia

It seems it wasn't his wish at that moment in time at least, still he went ahead.
According to that train conversation with Mannerheim of Finland that is. I find the whole thing weird. Stalin basically tricked Hitler, allowing him to invade Poland..if a little later than Hitler planned, since France didn't fall as quickly as it was supposed to do. Stalin seemingly also wanted the West to destroy itself, (hence Poland) and that he would take over. Thing is, in the video you will hear an incredulous Hitler talking about the 35,000 tanks that the Russians actually had, even though his army did in fact demolish most of them, at great cost though to Hitler's army, and the Russians then pushed them back. Of course Britain and America did supply the Russians with military hardware in the air and on the ground lend lease, that's when it all get's a bit wacky for me.
Ultimately, Stalin never got Poland as a land grab as he wanted, yes he did invade it, by driving out the Nazis, but by then, Poland was a different nation, and the best he could achieve was as an occupying force.
I don't think for a minute, that Hitler's gambit, or Stalin's gambit, as the books go, could have been a really serious consideration by either of them, yet they both went ahead. There's still plenty of WW2 stuff unclassified too!

originally posted by: smurfy
Ultimately, Stalin never got Poland as a land grab as he wanted, yes he did invade it, by driving out the Nazis, but by then, Poland was a different nation, and the best he could achieve was as an occupying force.

Yet he did permanantly keep the half of Poland that he invaded in collusion with Hitler.
This was the more "russian" area of the old Poland (which was always something of a composite nation).
Post-war Poland was only the western half of pre-war Poland, supplemented by compensating territory taken from Germany.

The south seceded without freeing the slaves first.
If they had freed the slaves first and then seceded they could have hired all the slaves to work the plantations for pennies a day and they could have charged them for room and board if they lived on the plantations.
where else would a bunch of unskilled laborers who can`t read or write find jobs,they would have had no choice but to accept jobs working on plantations doing exactly what they were doing before they were freed, only now they would be getting crap pay and would have to pay for their own food,shelter,clothes,medical care etc.

The union may have still attacked the south but there would have been a lot less support for a war that wasn`t about freeing people.Northern support for the war was already at an all time low when Lincoln released his emancipation proclamation.

originally posted by: DISRAELI

originally posted by: smurfy
Ultimately, Stalin never got Poland as a land grab as he wanted, yes he did invade it, by driving out the Nazis, but by then, Poland was a different nation, and the best he could achieve was as an occupying force.

Yet he did permanantly keep the half of Poland that he invaded in collusion with Hitler.
This was the more "russian" area of the old Poland (which was always something of a composite nation).
Post-war Poland was only the western half of pre-war Poland, supplemented by compensating territory taken from Germany.

That's debatable, since Churchill asked Roosevelt about having a go, Roosevelt said count me out. Neither of them were too much bothered ultimately. That became obvious since the great treks back and forward across Poland began, plus all the murder and mayhem that involved, that's what I am driving at, not one of the victorious leaders really gave a rat's arse about Poland, from beginning to end. If there were any caveats, and there may, you need to look long and hard for that.

Hannibal not following up his victory at Cannae by attacking Rome. He was cut off and isolated deep in the Italian peninsula, and should have acted faster, capitalizing on the Roman army's decimated state. But because he waited, the Fabian strategy succeeded.

Hannibal winning = no Roman Empire = no Western Civilization as we know it.

Louis VII and Conrad choosing to march on Damascus during the Second Crusade. The crusaders were soundly beaten, and the Crusader States were in permanent decline from that point on (though that defeat obviously wasn't the only factor). After the failure of the Second Crusade, European crusaders were disillusioned and their morale was broken, and European kings were far more reluctant to send troops on crusade.

Battle of Prestonpans. The Scots had the momentum during the 1746 Jacobite Revolt, but choosing to engage British regulars on the open field was a big mistake. The Jacobites were annihilated and Scotland effectively lost any chance at independence after that point.

General Lee refusing to listen to Longstreet and ordering Picket's charge. He should have pulled out of Gettysburg. Lee was desperate for a decisive battle and it ended up being his undoing. If the Confederates had chosen to cut their losses and not try to engage the Union in their own territory, they probably could have waged a successful guerrilla war/irregular combat and may have been able to hold out long enough for the Union to sue for peace.

Will post more as I remember them....

Allowing of the three Abrahamic religions to "take over". Ever since then have been the bastion of population control, war, abuse of, etc. Could they have maybe prevented the atheist Communism ruling over countries? Or maybe it would have never came to that in the first place.

originally posted by: smurfy
That's debatable, since Churchill asked Roosevelt about having a go,

What's debatable? The statement I made was "Stalin kept an area of land which used to be Poland".
You can check the point yourself by going to any good historical atlas and watching the movements of boundaries.

First step; Go to a map which shows the shape of pre-war Poland. There would probably be one of "Europe in 1939". Notice how far east the boundaries of Poland extend.

Second step; Go to a map which shows the movements of armies in 1939. There will be a cluster of arrows marking the movement of German armies into western Poland, and another cluster showing Russian armies moving into eastern Poland.
Note carefully where the boundary line runs between German-occupied and Russian-occupied Poland. The two areas will probably be marked out in differenet colours, so it should be easy to spot.

Third step. Go to a map of post-war Europe. Just look at the shape of post-war Poland. Very different from the pre-war outline, yes? More rounded, without the big wedge on the eastern side.
Now look very, very carefully, at the eastern border of modern Poland.
You will see that this eastern border approximately coincides with the 1939 demarcation line between the German and Russian occupations.
Comparison of maps will also show you that modern Poland comprises the half of Poland occupied by Hitler in 1939, incorporating also territories which used to be German (Silesia and southern Prussia).

In short, the point is beyond debate, because it is clearly visible on the maps.
In 1945 Stalin kept the half of Poland which he first seized in 1939.

a reply to: smurfy
Good post, as an interesting note, Russia had very advanced tanks, the T-34 and KV-1, they were derived/copied from a tank designed by American Walter Christie, he offered his tank design to the US army and they rejected it.

Seriously...any/every "war" or armed conflict involving 1st world nations after 6 August 1945.

Conventional warfare in the shadow of nuclear weapons is a fools errand. History has proven they will always end in a stalemate, and they will forever more. The only purpose these conflicts serve is political ego at the expense of innocent soldier's lives.

That is all.