- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Biggest political mistake in history, in your opinion
Posted on 6/15/17 at 3:57 pm to Breesus
Posted on 6/15/17 at 3:57 pm to Breesus
quote:
Biggest political mistake in history, in your opinion
Lack of Lobbyist reform
Crassus getting killed and his army destroyed at Pharsalus probably was a bit more important.
0
Posted on 6/15/17 at 3:59 pm to Tiger Prawn
quote:
Declaring war against another country is a political decision.
... an never just a business decision????
Posted on 6/15/17 at 4:03 pm to Tchefuncte Tiger
quote:
Biggest political mistake in history, in your opinion.
Neville Chamberlain bending over and grabbing his ankles by declaring "peace in our time."
Possibly.
There was a cabal in Germany that claimed they were ready to depose Hitler for setting up a replay of World War One in 1938. When the Brits and French caved instead, it set the world on its present course.
Posted on 6/15/17 at 4:27 pm to fouldeliverer
quote:As ugly as it is, no. In the late 18th Century, abolition was not going to happen.
Biggest political mistake in history, in your opinion
Not addressing the abolition of slavery in the Constitution.
The result would have been a North American British Protectorate by 1815.
Posted on 6/15/17 at 4:30 pm to SCLibertarian
Russia and Germany could have carved up Europe and nobody would have ever been able to stop them.
Just like the Cold War divided Europe...Russia could have had the East and Germany could have had Western Europe and England.
Just like the Cold War divided Europe...Russia could have had the East and Germany could have had Western Europe and England.
This post was edited on 6/15/17 at 4:31 pm
Posted on 6/15/17 at 4:42 pm to Jim Rockford
quote:cia is pretty good at handling banana republics
It was a flashpoint. If we had not done an orderly transfer, we'd have had 40 years of protests, sabotage, and bad relations with the whole region.
not sure how it makes any sense to spend a fortune building something then give it away
Posted on 6/15/17 at 4:44 pm to WhiskeyPapa
quote:
A wise man once said war is politics by other means.
quote:
All war represents a failure of diplomacy -Tony Benn
Posted on 6/15/17 at 4:48 pm to mizzoubuckeyeiowa
quote:
Just like the Cold War divided Europe...Russia could have had the East and Germany could have had Western Europe and England.
Germany did not want Western Europe. It wanted the East. I cannot stress this enough. Eastward expansion was one of the core principles of Nazism. it was Hitler's goal from the very beginning. War with England and France was a byproduct of needing to secure his flank, nothing more.
Posted on 6/15/17 at 4:52 pm to HeyHeyHogsAllTheWay
quote:
Dec 8, 1941
*Dec. 11, 1941
Posted on 6/15/17 at 4:55 pm to TheFonz
quote:
Shoot...Hitler should have stopped with Czechoslovakia. Had he done that, let the Jews immigrate from Germany, and kept his shite together in general, he would be considered one of the greatest statesmen of the 20th century.
This. Was Danzig and the Polish Corridor worth risking the destruction of everything you'd miraculously achieved over the past 20 years? Hitler was addicted to gambling worse than Charles Barkley. If he were alive today he would 100% be betting the house on McGregor over Mayweather.
Posted on 6/15/17 at 5:10 pm to ChewyDante
You guys still dont get it. This would be like telling a Catholic "you would be much better off without a Pope." Conquering the East was nearly a Nazi article of religios faith. It wasn't a mistaken choice. It was something set in stone from the time Hitler sat down in Landsberg Prison to write Mein Kampf.
Posted on 6/15/17 at 6:19 pm to Jim Rockford
quote:
You guys still dont get it. This would be like telling a Catholic "you would be much better off without a Pope." Conquering the East was nearly a Nazi article of religios faith. It wasn't a mistaken choice. It was something set in stone from the time Hitler sat down in Landsberg Prison to write Mein Kampf.
First of all, I read Mein Kampf and have studied the period extensively, so I understand Hitler's ambitions to expand Germany's empire into the east.
The point is that in 1939 Hitler was willing to risk a war that would decidedly stack the deck against him in achieving any long term victories or successful eastward expansions in to Soviet controlled territories like Ukraine. His goal was to expand eastward WITHOUT provoking war in the West. The political climate was such after the full occupation of Bohemia and Moravia in March of 1939 until Sept. 1, 1939, that war with the West was effectively assured with an invasion of Poland.
In 1936 Hitler was prepared to withdraw from the Rhineland with a French military response. In 1939, Hitler was willing to risk a war with the Western powers that even his own military commanders thought would be disastrous in order to achieve political ends in Poland. His attitude had become far more brazen and he steadily began throwing caution to the wind with great ease.
His long term ambitions for Germany aside, pragmatically speaking he made a decision that would almost certainly throw not only Eastern ambitions into great unlikelihood of attainment, but the rule of a National Socialist regime in Germany at all.
The East was a foreign policy matter, not a core tenet of the movement. It was a strong belief of Hitler's that Germany needed that land to free itself from foreign geopolitical domination but it wasn't a central tenet of National Socialist philosophy. Hitler could have recognized that invading Poland in 1939 would have been imprudent and refrained and National Socialism in Germany would have rolled on without skipping a beat. The importance of the East is that it's attainment would be vital to ensuring the long term sustainability of a European order dominated by Germany (a thousand year Reich). It was a rational foreign policy belief but given Germany's geopolitical position in 1939, it was not pragmatic to believe that the time was opportune for Germany to seize that land. This is what made the decision so inexplicable. Rather than cultivating a German state which Hitler had already tremendously expanded in power, population, and boundary, Hitler continued with an accelerated timeframe for events that well could have played out over 100 years time. Again, his successful gambles led him to take ever greater risks believing that all these things could be achieved in his very lifetime. This was his greatest flaw in respect to achieving his political goals. After the foreign policy successes from 1936-1939, he lost all sense for patience and caution and became convinced of his own destiny as the savior of Germany.
So no, conquering the East was not "an article of Nazi religious faith." It was a foreign policy conviction of Hitler's that was absolutely subject to revision dependent on political context. But Hitler's ambition for what victory in the East could bring Germany led him to make rash moves to speed up Germany's geopolitical ascent.
Posted on 6/15/17 at 6:37 pm to SCLibertarian
Really it was helping out Italy with Greece. That delayed the already in progress attacks going on in the Soviet Union. It gave the Soviets the time to reset and the war was never the same. Germany should have took more control over Italy's military operations or just not have been its ally.
After the Bolsheviks wrecked Germany in WWI, looted the German people in Weimar Germany, and overthrew many eastern European countries there was never not going to be war with the Soviets (Bolsheviks).
https://youtu.be/kzIRG525l6s
After the Bolsheviks wrecked Germany in WWI, looted the German people in Weimar Germany, and overthrew many eastern European countries there was never not going to be war with the Soviets (Bolsheviks).
https://youtu.be/kzIRG525l6s
Posted on 6/15/17 at 6:39 pm to fouldeliverer
quote:
Not addressing the abolition of slavery in the Constitution.
There would have been no US.
Care to counter?
Posted on 6/15/17 at 6:40 pm to Zach
quote:
Hell, that's not even Hitler's biggest mistake. It was invading Russia.
That wasn't Hitler's mistake.
quote:LINK
After the rapid progress of Army Group Centre through the central sector of the Eastern front, a huge salient developed around its junction with Army Group South by late July 1941. A substantial Soviet force, nearly the entire Southwestern Front, positioned in and around Kiev was located in the salient.[5][6] While lacking mobility and armor due to high losses in tanks at the Battle of Uman,[6]they nonetheless posed a significant threat to the German advance and were the largest single concentration of Soviet troops on the Eastern Front at that time.[citation needed]
On 3 August, Hitler temporarily cancelled the drive on Moscow in favor of driving south and attacking Kiev in Ukraine.[7] However, on 12 August 1941, Supplement to Directive No. 34 was issued, and it represented a compromise between Hitler, who was convinced the correct strategy was to clear the salient occupied by Soviet forces on right flank of Army Group Center in the vicinity of Kiev before resuming the drive to Moscow, and Halder, Bock and Guderian, who advocated an advance on Moscow as soon as possible. The compromise required 2nd and 3rd Panzer Groups of Army Group Centre, which were redeploying in order to aid Army Group North and Army Group South respectively, be returned to Army Group Centre, together with the 4th Panzer Group of Army Group North, once their objectives were achieved. Then the three Panzer Groups, under the control of Army Group Center, would lead the advance on Moscow.[8] Initially, Halder, chief of staff of the OKH, and Bock, commander of Army Group Center, were satisfied by the compromise, but soon their optimism faded as the operational realities of the plan proved too challenging.[9]
On 18 August, OKH submitted a strategic survey (Denkschrift) to Hitler regarding the continuation of operations in the East. The paper made the case for the drive to Moscow, arguing once again that Army Groups North and South were strong enough to accomplish their objectives without any assistance from Army Group Center. Pointing out that there was only enough time left before winter to conduct a single decisive operation against Moscow.[9]
On 20 August, Hitler rejected the proposal based on the idea that the most important objective was to deprive the Soviets of their industrial areas.
Ignoring his generals' advice to bypass Kiev and push onto Moscow was Hitler's biggest mistake. If Hitler had bypassed Kiev, the German army would have reached Moscow before winter and before the Soviet forces could have assembled an effective counteroffensive.
Posted on 6/15/17 at 6:46 pm to HeyHeyHogsAllTheWay
quote:
Does " used a private server instead of a government server for her email" make the list?
If not for that blunder could Hillary have won the 2016 election? fricking yourself out of being the first female POTUS is a pretty big blunder.
If Hilldawg would have divorced Slick after the Lewinsky BS she would have been seen as the Alpha woman and probably in the White House before Obammy.
Posted on 6/15/17 at 6:50 pm to HeyHeyHogsAllTheWay
quote:
Biggest political mistake in history, in your opinion by HeyHeyHogsAllTheWay
Two that haven't been mentioned yet:
1. The French never having a peaceful transition from absolute monarchy to constitutional monarchy created all sorts of horrible relics that made the 20th Century bloody, and arguably set the stage for leftist actions we are still dealing with today (revolutionaries help bolster Marxism and later social Marxism). With no French Revolution we don't see the levee en masse armies, we don't have german unification post-napoleon because there is no napoleon, we don't see the church removed from European everyday life, etc.
2. We don't know the true and full ramifications as of yet, but the extension of NATO past the core nations of western Europe and the creation of the Eurozone are all significant developments. What is the purpose of NATO now as we add countries we don't have a direct interest in protecting, save their status as new NATO members? What is the prolonged effect of the Eurozone on the diverse economies and cultures of Europe? What innovation is being stifled/what is festering and being covered up?
Posted on 6/15/17 at 6:53 pm to Foch
3. With the fall of the soviet union and the rise of China in the late 80's through 00's, why didn't China get rid of their client state in S. Korea at a time when US defense spending dropped under Clinton? If the Chinese had moved to demilitarize the Korean peninsula we surely would have packed up much of our forward Asian military presence at a time when we were doing the same in Europe. Their aggression in pacific waters means we now likely are committed to keeping up our presence, but geopolitically, wouldn't it have been smarter for them to get rid of the madmen in korea at a time when Clinton was ready to pack it all up and we had no serious basing remaining in the Phillipines?
Posted on 6/15/17 at 7:09 pm to Ace Midnight
quote:
You want to know how I know you have no clue as to what the 3/5 compromise was all about?
Yeah, he has that one a little off
Posted on 6/15/17 at 7:10 pm to WeeWee
quote:
Ignoring his generals' advice to bypass Kiev and push onto Moscow was Hitler's biggest mistake. If Hitler had bypassed Kiev, the German army would have reached Moscow before winter and before the Soviet forces could have assembled an effective counteroffensive.
The soviets would have just burned Moscow as war production was already being transitioned to the Ural mountains. Germany would have bought time and had more tactical success, but eventually strained supply lines and the mass of soviet industry would have caught up with Germany. Hitlers grand plans to link up his caucus armies with his north African armies went up in flames without much soviet help, and Italy was low hanging fruit awaiting allied action no matter how well hitler did in the east. The main problems of logistics, unified command, and inadequate industrial base wouldn't have been solved by capturing Moscow.
Page 5 of 11
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News