The American people are embarrassingly stupid

[SamSpade]

Custer really doesn't even come close, all he did was wipe out his command, the loss had no beairng on the outcome of the Indian Wars, in fact, probably ensured the Indians were treated worse. Funny thing was he was a good commander in the Civil war, one of the best the union had.

And Benedict Arnold was far and away the biggest hero of the Revolution aside from Washington himself (who was detested by a few of his egotistical generals).

 

[Larry Gude]

Right...

Yes, and I think that when a military leader makes an assumption that gets his whole command killed, that's a pretty big blunder.

..but in the grand scheme of things, 200 men ain't much.

The Russians lost 400,000 men in the last month of the war with Germany as they closed on Berlin...and they were winning.

 

[scottrobts]

I could babble about history all day long, always fun to think of. Trust me on the Gordon Rhea books, he is an awesome writer. I woudl love to catch one of his battlefield tours someday, he does one once in a while, I see them advertized on occasion.

 

[Hessian]

Biggest Blunder?

Britain refused to complete the sale of 2 dreadnoughts to Turkey in 1914 (War was imminent)

then...
Germany allowed two warships (battleship & cruiser) to be handed over to Turkey (they were fleeing British pursuit)

then...
The Ottoman empire signs on to join the Central powers and blocks off the Dardenelles

then...
Russia can't export its entire grain crop and an economic collapse accompanies several military embarrassments,,,feeding the critics/radicals

then...
Britain can't reopen the Dardenelles, and Russia experiences the first revolution and gets out of WWI (Treaty of Brest Litovsk)

then...
Russia's "white" goverment collapses and is replaced by Lenin's Reds.

and it all began with Britain ticking off the Turks.

 

[Toxick]

..but in the grand scheme of things, 200 men ain't much.

Question: If someone does something so incredibly stupid or inept that it actually measures 8.0 on the richter scale - even if nobody dies, does that make it any less of a blunder?


Little Bighorn might not have been the most costly blunder in history - or even in the top 50 of history's most costly blunders - however the magnitude of the folly itself coupled with a survival rate of 0.0%, it's pretty much a whopper.

The Russians lost 400,000 men in the last month of the war with Germany as they closed on Berlin...and they were winning.

My point exactly.

Deathcount != Blunder Magnitude



(For those not familiar with the logical symbol "!=" it means, "not equal")

 

[vraiblonde]

Britain refused to complete the sale of 2 dreadnoughts to Turkey in 1914 (War was imminent)

But was that a true major blunder? That's only a mistake in hindsight because of the chain of events it set off.

 

[SamSpade]

Little Bighorn might not have been the most costly blunder in history - or even in the top 50 of history's most costly blunders - however the magnitude of the folly itself coupled with a survival rate of 0.0%, it's pretty much a whopper.

Agree. Unlike other battles, this was one he chose to engage in. Walking into an ambush against advice usually strikes most people as kind of stupid. It ranks up there with having your back against the sea and no hope of retreat.

Cannae on the other hand, was not a blunder - it was a success based on brilliant tactics by a superior commander. Agincourt was not a 'blunder' - it was genius. The Battle of Stirling Bridge was not a blunder necessarily - but the English should have known the Scots were fighting for their lives and weren't going to follow any rules of war. El Alamein, Iwo Jima, Omaha Beach, Stalingrad, Gettysburg - were not 'blunders'. They were costly.

I agree. Carnage is not equal to blunder. Blunders are when you do something identifiably stupid and it costs a battle, a campaign, a war.

 

[Larry Gude]

Good question...

Question: If someone does something so incredibly stupid or inept that it actually measures 8.0 on the richter scale - even if nobody dies, does that make it any less of a blunder?


Little Bighorn might not have been the most costly blunder in history - or even in the top 50 of history's most costly blunders - however the magnitude of the folly itself coupled with a survival rate of 0.0%, it's pretty much a whopper.





My point exactly.

Deathcount != Blunder Magnitude



(For those not familiar with the logical symbol "!=" it means, "not equal")

The Union breakout from Chattanooga was a titanic blunder and the commanders lost all control of their men. And they routed Bragg and began the begining of the end of effective resistance in the West.

Custer simply did the same thing he did his entire career; mindlessly attack like the idiot he was.

So, blunder? Damn, war itself is perhaps the greatest blunder. It almost always brings about change in ways both worse and sometimes better for all sides. Just the worst way to do business.

 

[Larry Gude]

I think Gettysburg...

Agree. Unlike other battles, this was one he chose to engage in. Walking into an ambush against advice usually strikes most people as kind of stupid. It ranks up there with having your back against the sea and no hope of retreat.

Cannae on the other hand, was not a blunder - it was a success based on brilliant tactics by a superior commander. Agincourt was not a 'blunder' - it was genius. The Battle of Stirling Bridge was not a blunder necessarily - but the English should have known the Scots were fighting for their lives and weren't going to follow any rules of war. El Alamein, Iwo Jima, Omaha Beach, Stalingrad, Gettysburg - were not 'blunders'. They were costly.

I agree. Carnage is not equal to blunder. Blunders are when you do something identifiably stupid and it costs a battle, a campaign, a war.

...was a titanic blunder on Lee's part.

 

[vraiblonde]

Damn, war itself is perhaps the greatest blunder.

War itself is only a blunder if you lose and are sitting there with your tail between your legs going, "Man, was *that* a dumb idea..."

One could say that George Bush is a blunderer, but he's still not as dumb as Saddam Hussein. One is still alive and still the head of his country. The other one....

 

[Larry Gude]

Saddam Hussein is/was an idiot...

War itself is only a blunder if you lose and are sitting there with your tail between your legs going, "Man, was *that* a dumb idea..."

One could say that George Bush is a blunderer, but he's still not as dumb as Saddam Hussein. One is still alive and still the head of his country. The other one....

...he was just begging to get whacked.

Name me a war that wasn't a blunder. And PS; I lost. You are now married to a convict. :

 

[vraiblonde]

And PS; I lost. You are now married to a convict.

:snort:

Poor little honey



WWII for example:

One could say that Hitler blundered because he ended up losing (not to mention dead). But things went his way for a good long time.

One could say that the Allies blundered in letting it get so far before they reacted, but that's all hindsight.

*War* is not a blunder. *Not* going to war or waiting too long is a major blunder.

 

[Hessian]

But was that a true major blunder? That's only a mistake in hindsight because of the chain of events it set off.

It is a blunder because the two battleships they witheld from the Turks had vitually no impact on the war. They were active at Jutland, one was damaged, and then it was years of pointless patrols before they were either scapped in the postwar treaties or sold to Paraguay.

Britain even had THE Turkish crews physically removed from the vessels after their trials, and dropped them unceremoniously on shore. The ships had been named by Turkish school children and paid for with their coppers.

This decision by the British admirality gave the Germans a valuable ally, cost the British empire about 200,000 men, sealed the fate of Russia in 1917 & the Romanovs, and had a profound effect on the 20th century.

Barbara Tuchman: The Guns of August. 1962.

 

[2ndAmendment]

Lincoln was one of our best my friend!

I disagree. Lincoln stepped on the Constitution just like FDR. FDR is credited with "We can tel the people the Constitution says anything we want. They don't know what it says." or something like that. Even if not really a quote, it was the way he governed. When he found the Constitution in his way, he ignored it.

People today do not know what the Constitution says because few every read it. Others read it in ways that were not intended or supported by the original intent as expressed by early Supreme Court rulings and by works by the founders.

I rank Lincoln and FDR as worse than Carter. Carter was just incompetent. Lincoln and FDR rent the very fabric the United States was founded on and the U.S. has never recovered from the damage.

 

[Bustem' Down]

Or maybe it's just Zogby pollers:


Please name me one thing - just one - that would qualify Kennedy as a "great" President. Just one.

As for FDR - many of the financial and social problems we're having today stem from his "New Deal" crap. And when the Supreme Court found parts of the New Deal unconstitutional, good ol' FDR proposed his court-packing bill to thwart them (so much for Checks and Balances). Let's also mention that he had 120,000 Japanese-Americans forced into internment camps during WWII.

As far as Presidents go, as opposed to cult of personality, Nixon was a FAR better President than either Kennedy OR FDR.

Civil Rights, that's why he's considered great. I'm not arguing any point, just pointing that out.

 

[Larry Gude]

I know we disagree...

I disagree. Lincoln stepped on the Constitution just like FDR. FDR is credited with "We can tel the people the Constitution says anything we want. They don't know what it says." or something like that. Even if not really a quote, it was the way he governed. When he found the Constitution in his way, he ignored it.

People today do not know what the Constitution says because few every read it. Others read it in ways that were not intended or supported by the original intent as expressed by early Supreme Court rulings and by works by the founders.

I rank Lincoln and FDR as worse than Carter. Carter was just incompetent. Lincoln and FDR rent the very fabric the United States was founded on and the U.S. has never recovered from the damage.

...we've been down this path before.

Lincoln transformed us from the several states to the United States and truly created one nation under God. He argued that the Constitution did not require that we lose the nation it applied to in order to preserve the document inviolate. We can differ on whether this is good or bad.

Jefferson Davis threw the baby out with the bath water by holding true to Patrick Henry's proclamation. Davis's perfect pursuit of liberty, to every dotted 'i' and every crossed 't' is far more to blame in the lengths he and his side went to to destroy the Union than is Lincoln for the lengths he went to to save it. We can differ as to whether this is good or bad.

Lincoln left a nation able to debate over righting wrongs and addressing grievances, as did FDR. Davis failed to see to it that his survived at all. There is nothing to differ about here.

As for Lincoln and FDR, Lincoln dented up the Constitution here and there as necessities of war which it survived pretty much intact. W's doing the same thing now. FDR tried to re-write it as a matter of course.

Just my view.