A week or so ago, I created a thread. It asked the simple question of who the greatest general of all time was. That thread blew up. Because we are a bunch of history nerds, I think that asking history questions and having debates over them would be cool. (Even though I'm a very amateur historian. I only got into history last September.) So, I created this thread for people to debate on history questions. There will always be two questions being asked. One will be open ended, and one will be with a few choices. . Every week, I will change the questions.
Open Ended: What was the biggest mistake in military history?
Multiple Choice: Were the Romans or the Greeks better? This question is from a military, stability, and cultural standpoint.
Please log in to post a reply.
It's crazy how the smallest things have such big consequences. If the driver hadn't driven down that street, the world map would be completely different. The butterfly effect is insane.
Also in ww1 Hitler was spared by British soldier. Hitler was injured.( I think) and a British soldier pointed a gun straight at him. but since Hitler had no gun he couldn't do it. and the soldier spared him instead. imagine if he had taken the shot so many innocent Jewish lives could have been saved.
Edit
He's name was Henry tandey btw for anyone instrested.
Once again, it wasn't the driver's fault. These events were bound to happen with or without the assassination. The tensions between Russian and Austria Hungary were mounting rapidly over the Balkans. The Germans and the Austrians were both confident in their abilities to win a war, they believed that Italy, Bulguria, The Ottoman Empire, and Romania would join the war immedietly.cl0xy wrote:
the worst military mistake (maybe not such a military mistake) is that driver that took the wrong turnIf he took the correct turn -
WW1 wouldn't have started
Their would be no WW2
Their would be no Soviet Union
China probably wouldn't be communist
No nazi's
No Korean War
No Vietnam War
No Cold War altogether
No Nukes
No NATO
No United Nations
No Russian Civil War
No Berlin Blockade
No Mao Zeodong
USA wouldnt be such a superpower
United Kingdom and France would still be considered Empires
No Stalin
No Hitler
No Lenin
Well, saved like 520+ million lives (idk).
+ more.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_TandeyAMG Morgan wrote:
Also in ww1 Hitler was spared by British soldier. Hitler was injured.( I think) and a British soldier pointed a gun straight at him. but since Hitler had no gun he couldn't do it. and the soldier spared him instead. imagine if he had taken the shot so many innocent Jewish lives could have been saved.Edit
He's name was Henry tandey btw for anyone instrested.
Tandey was (I believe) the most decorated private of the war. He actually earned all of his medals after 1917!
Hitler never planned Operation Barbarossa, his generals did. Hitler just demanded they find out a way to attack the Communists, and authorized it once the high command laid out their plans. Some of the masterminds were: Franz Halder, Walther von Brauchitsch, Hermann Goring, and Wilhem von Leeb.AMG Morgan wrote:
they inavded as early as they could hitler was stupid but not that stupid.
Barbarosa wasn't a millitary mistake. Neither was Napoleons invasion.
the operation/campaign wasn’t a mistake , the decisions made during the campaign was a mistake. That cost them their empire._owo_ wrote:
Barbarosa wasn't a millitary mistake. Neither was Napoleons invasion.
I never said anything about Hitler planning. I was just squashing the myth that people seem to think. That the Hitler ordered the attack to begin during WINTERMikhail Kutzov wrote:
Hitler never planned Operation Barbarossa, his generals did. Hitler just demanded they find out a way to attack the Communists, and authorized it once the high command laid out their plans. Some of the masterminds were: Franz Halder, Walther von Brauchitsch, Hermann Goring, and Wilhem von Leeb.
British troops were stationated in iraq too, in Persia (Iran) were stationated sovjet troops. If Turkey would join axis, turkey would fall within 2 monthes.vietcong2005 wrote:
Middle East would be easily taken over by the Axis giving them huge amounts of oil. After the invasion of Africa and the Middle East, the Germans can also pressure the Turkish to join the war.
Middle east could not be conquered by axis.
?????????_owo_ wrote:
Barbarosa wasn't a millitary mistake. Neither was Napoleons invasion.
Mistakes are things you regret, are you saying napoleon doesn’t regret invading Russia??
Yes, they did have some troops. However, most of them were colonial troops rather than British regular troops. Many of them were lightly enquiped. Plus Iran and Iraq were sympathetic to the Germans. The Soviets did not invade Iran until 1943, and they only did so with a small army.Last Warrior wrote:
British troops were stationated in iraq too, in Persia (Iran) were stationated sovjet troops. If Turkey would join axis, turkey would fall within 2 monthes.vietcong2005 wrote:
Middle East would be easily taken over by the Axis giving them huge amounts of oil. After the invasion of Africa and the Middle East, the Germans can also pressure the Turkish to join the war.Middle east could not be conquered by axis.
(this link is from wikipedia) you are so wrong: read more about invasion in iran, juli/august 1941vietcong2005 wrote:
The Soviets did not invade Iran until 1943, and they only did so with a small army.
I mean if Germany had not invaded the Soviet Union, the Soviets would've never invaded in the first place.Last Warrior wrote:
(this link is from wikipedia) you are so wrong: read more about invasion in iran, juli/august 1941vietcong2005 wrote:
The Soviets did not invade Iran until 1943, and they only did so with a small army.
Ah yes so they were conquered.vietcong2005 wrote:
Iran and Iraq were sympathetic to the Germans
Another war started by BP.Last Warrior wrote:
invasion in iran, juli/august 1941
I’m going to be changing the questions and the format. Now, instead of having multiple choices, I’m going to have a hypothetical question. Here are the questions. 1. What was the most brilliant campaign? 2. What if the Germans had won Stalingrad?
Speaking of history, I just rediscovered the Oregon Trail video game. I’m going to be doing a run through of the original game. If you want to be one of the 5 on the wagon, tell me on my wall. I will tell you if you survive.
if Germany had won Stalingrad, they’d collapse anyway, and the second battle of Stalingrad would be a Soviet victory, Germany would also still have MAJOR losses in Stalingrad: a German victory in Stalingrad would only delay the inevitable which is a German total defeat in ww2BrutusTrump wrote:
I’m going to be changing the questions and the format. Now, instead of having multiple choices, I’m going to have a hypothetical question. Here are the questions. 1. What was the most brilliant campaign? 2. What if the Germans had won Stalingrad?
Stalingrad was worth nothing. Hitler only ordered its attack for symbolic reasons. It did have a strategic value protecting a river but apart from that all Stalingrad was was a city named after the soviet leader for vague reasons.
Stalingrad wasn't a very strategic location. At the start of the battle, it would not have meant much if either side won the battle. The most important thing about it would be it's symbolic significance. Morale might've gone down a little. However, as both sides began pouring more money and manpower into the battle, the importance of Stalingrad grew. If the Germans won, there would be many more Soviet casualties. The Germans would be able to launch a campaign against the Caucasus region. Stalin would have to divert more troops from the north down into the Caucasus. Soviet morale would also go down. While Germany still couldn't win on the Eastern Front, they could've prolonged the war for another year.
The German forces were stretched too wide. Their forces were dispersed, their supply lines were hundreds of mile long, susceptible to attacks from civilians. The poor infanstructure only made supplying troops worse. Even if Moscow of captured it was very likely the fighting would have continued. The entire campaign was a mistake in the first place.BrutusTrump wrote:
Stalingrad wasn't a very strategic location. At the start of the battle, it would not have meant much if either side won the battle. The most important thing about it would be it's symbolic significance. Morale might've gone down a little. However, as both sides began pouring more money and manpower into the battle, the importance of Stalingrad grew. If the Germans won, there would be many more Soviet casualties. The Germans would be able to launch a campaign against the Caucasus region. Stalin would have to divert more troops from the north down into the Caucasus. Soviet morale would also go down. While Germany still couldn't win on the Eastern Front, they could've prolonged the war for another year.
Please log in to post a reply.
