5 Of The Worst Military Blunders In History

[@Unknown5tv]

Which other military blunders would you have mentioned? * The entire channel is demonetized. You can help support the creation of future content using the following links. Thank you. ► ► ► Sign up at www.audibletrial.com/unknown5 to claim a free audiobook of your choice and a 1 month free trial of Audible, the world's largest selection of digital audiobooks. ► ► ►Get 2 FREE months of Skillshare premium here: skillshare.eqcm.net/dqBjW giving you unlimited access to over 22,000 online classes that can help you improve your professional skill set, start a side business you have been planning, or pursue a passion project. No Commitments. Cancel Anytime. My Book Of The Week: ► ► ► amzn.to/2QG10cr Patreon: ► ► ► www.patreon.com/unknown5 My Amazon Link: ► ► ► amzn.to/2WhnXbZ - do your shopping on Amazon and I will receive a commission at no extra cost to you - this greatly supports the production of future content on this channel - Thank you!

[@leogazebo5290]

Unknown5 south not attacking D.C.

[@giannisg3387]

Invading Greece during ww2

[@rakhithe1142]

Unknown5 Please do a video on Koh-I-Noor with it's history,of course.

[@coreyjoines1369]

Unknown5 here's a vid idea of 5 empires that fell to disease. (just saying but I don't know if their were 5 empires that have fell but only would like his as a vid idea)

[@christophwhiteyz9787]

STALINGRAD is number 1, Hitler's army had superior morale, superior technology and he forced them into a street fight for pride and he could of retreated 40-60 miles behind the river Don several times making a circling move before winter near impossible or atleast give his 600k army a chance to fight.

[@stasiso]

0:26 5 Charge of the Light Brigade 5:01 4 Battle of the Teutoburg Forest 9:59 3 Battle of Hattin 14:59 2 Battle of Karansebes 18:40 1 French invasion of Russia

[@keldonmcfarland2969]

Thanks. I was glad to see your timestamps. I was about to do it myself.

[@yuglich]

Romanian here, quick note, It's actually spelled "Caransebeş"

[@thefridge3831]

As a New Zealander, and I'm sure Australians will agree, the Gallipoli Campaign. As you said, lions led by donkeys

[@Japocholo1984]

Billy Woodworth yes ..Gallipoli itself is a shambolic blunder ..

[@jenniferbrewer5370]

I don't get why Gallipoli isn't listed in this video.

[@mrurquhart9138]

on paper it sounded fine, the British officers didn't expect the ANZAC troops to encounter such a well defended Turkish defensive front. Believing that the ANZACs would simply waltz on up the Gallipoli peninsula and take Constantinople (Istanbul). This couldn't have been a more worse assessment of the capabilities of the Turkish army and their determination to defend their homeland.

[@thefridge3831]

Exactly. But also the English generals made them go ashore at the wrong beaches. There's no actual bad blood between the ANZACs and the Turks, there's actually massive respect from back then

[@richardbug3094]

the British wanted the anzacs as diversion, it was planned from the start that the ANZAC were gonna die in a lot of numbers, they had all British troops going to go to Constantinople while the Anzacs were dying in the trenches, then they only stopped the campaign when the british troops fucked up .

[@Amatsaru29]

A few military blunders (in chronological order) 1. Charles XII of Sweden invading Russia 2. Napoleon invading Russia 3. Hitler invading the Soviet Union

[@eduardomedina9849]

They invaded Russia and still lost.

[@hellionus]

Except when they were ...wait for it THE MONGOLS

[@davehallett3128]

@@HNreport i ve taken russia and its satellites many times playing risk

[@blackrabbit212]

@DATING HARLEY QUINN Brilliant summing up!

[@odinforce2504]

This seems to be a reoccurring theme in military history. You try to invade Russia and you end up freezing and starving to death.

[@mannym4470]

Best top 5 channel on KZbin

[@jasondameron815]

i concur

[@ilikekids4217]

Ikr others are like #15 Somme with 1 mil it was bad

[@theflyingdutchman167]

*Frantically trying to finish a resit before twelve o'clock, sees Unknown5 uploaded a 25 minute video on history stuff* "Ohh well, dropping out it is..."

[@cl8804]

Recitation??

[@NAREK139]

Good job, mate. I think you forgot to say that when Napoleon reached Moscow, it was not only abandoned. Russian burned the city down and took all the gold away, so when he thought that he will be able to pay his soldiers and find supplies he was left with nothing.

[@daniellastuart3145]

then only mistake on the Russian campaign was waiting to long before retreating to winter quarters. Napoleon bigger Military Blunder was not dealing with British and the Spanish issue. if he had sent half the grand army to Spain in 1812 Waterloo would never of happen also other Blunders Gen Custer splinting hes command at the Little Big Horn Hitler fighting on to meany fronts at the same time Germany and Japan not working together in WW2 like the Allies 1st day Of Gallipoli Campaign when There could to the heights but did not and like i said Napoleon attitude to the British army in Span lost him he;s empire

[@Metalmonster56]

Daniella about the battle of the little big horn , gen custer used a pincer manuver the splitting of his force wasnt the blunder, the real blunder was him not listening to his indian scouts who seen the sioux encampment at the little bighorn. That day everything went wrong or custer , he was a highly experianced indian fighter an he knew from experiance that the plains indians never grouped together in massive encampments, because of the fact it would be difficult to feed everyone and if they had to move in a hurry it would be alot harder to break a large encampment and move on. However the impossible happened because of all the decimation the sioux had rceived at the hands of the US Cavalry, the main chiefs like sitting bull and crazy horse gatherd along with many other sioux tribes to discuss what was going on, normally these tribes were rivals but all the fighting had force them to set aside old grivences. So on that day everything custer knew was wrong, he was about to charge into a perfect storm , the tactic was for major reno and hi brigade to hit one side of the camp to get the warriors attention , then custer would hit shorlty after catching them off guard , however when major reno began his attack on that early morning he did make progress for atleast the first few minutes then the sioux warriors woke up and relised what was going on, the camp erupted to life with warrior puring from every lodging shooting rifles arrows whatever they could use. within just a few minutes major reno was in full retreat his command all but shattered with no way to tell custer he was about to charge into a hornets nest and the hornets were awake and angry. as reno and what was left of his command retreated up into a draw where he would remain till after the battle when he and what was left of his men made thier escape. Custer as per planned hit the middle of the camp by this time the warriors wouldve seen him coming, it didnt take long after crossing the little big horn river that custer and his command were in full retreat with the sioux all around them firing from all angles. as they retreated up to whats known as last stand hill , his command was breaking own with soldiers trying to flee only to be caught and killed by sioux warriors, now there was even more bad news for custer if you ever get to see the little big horn valley where the battle took place, you will notice its borken land with alot of gullies , ravines it did not favor a cavalry , also the sioux had a technoogical avantage aswell , you see the US cavalry were using the sharps carbine rifle now it was a good rifle powerfull an accrurate, however it was a single shot breach loader on the other hand the sioux were using both bows and the winchester 1873 repeater rifle, aswell as the geography ive went over already also suited the fighting style of the plains indian, where the sharps could get a shot off every 4-5 seconds the sioux warrior armed with the winchester could fire up to 10 or more times before the soldier could reload aim and fire. even the powder used in the rifles cartridges worked aganst custer since at that time most rifle ammo used black powder, which makes alot of smoke when fired and with that many people firing the battle field wouldve ben fogged by the smoke making accurate shooting almost impossible , and the cavalry armed with the sharps that was a death sentence. anyways had custer kept his command intact the casualty rate for the 7th cavalry wouldve bee 100% , the fact he split his command ensured that atleast major reno and what was left of his batallion survived. sadly all of that couldve been avoided had he just listened to his scouts, and sent word or general crook and his army which was only 3-4 days ride away. had he and crook hit the encampment their combined forces of crook and custer wouldve routed the sioux.

[@daniellastuart3145]

Custer Blunders at the Little Big Horn are meany he's some of them Splitting is Regiment in to 3 columns without knowing the make up or disposition if the Sioux encampment, Blunder no 1 Sending Capt Benteen on a wild goose chase to find the Sioux camp where there had a rough idea where it was and not recalling him before the attack Blunder no 2 the pincer maneuver may of work on a small encampment but the one the size of the Little Big horn no way. He needed twice the men, therefore blunder no 3 not excepting more men in a 2nd Regiment also the pincer maneuver relied on no warriors being in the camp A little note Major Reno did not have a brigade he had some company of 90 troopers you right the ground was not suited for cavalry operation blunder no 4 not understand the ground you fighting on plus Custer was not going for middle of the camp hes going for end but it was too big and he could not get to it blunder no 5 one can also say not taking the sabers was a Blunder no 6 (anyways had Custer kept his command intact the casualty rate for the 7th cavalry would've bee 100% , the fact he split his command ensured that at least major Reno and what was left of his battalion survived.) also this statement dose make sense if Custer hand keep the regiment together there would had a better chance of success. it was Capt Benteen that saved the 7th from total defeat by not following an order that would lead to they total deaths and one biggest Blunders of the episode was to allow the relationship of senor officer to deteriorate to the point were they hated each other . in my mind the 7th cavalry in June 1876 was not fit for service by any military standards and should never of been in the field in saying this i do have this theory the Custer and the 7th were set up for a full and Cook and the top Army Brass wanted Custer out the way. ever dead or disgraced i will ex[pain more late but it getting late in the UK have good day

[@Metalmonster56]

The reason he split his main force into two columns was simple, again the terrain played its role if he wouldve stayed in one column he would not been able to manuver, and with a cavalry you need speed and mobility to be most effective. The initial plan as told at the tribunal into the death of custer stated, that the initial plan was for reno and custer to attack in two columns reno from the south and custer from the north, however most likley as soon as custer came over the rise overlooking the little big horn valley he knew he couldnt go in a single column, so he split his main force into two columns to give them the best chance. and yes had he kept his command intact the casualty rate wouldve been 100% , again if youve never been to the little big horn valley (i have ) you would understand right away how dificult it wouldve been to move horses around that area, the sioux actually picked the area thinking the US cavalry would not follow because it was bad terrain for a horse. as far as the 7th not being fit? fyi the 7th was one of the best equipped , trained and battle ready cavalries in the area at that time. as far as leaving thier sabers they wouldve made little to no diference in the fighting, because you would ned to to be upclose to use them, and by then it wouldve ben to late, custer was outnumberd outgunned and could barley manuever his cavalry. to show you how bad it was siox warriors statedd that at no time did they get their horses to a run, that warriors were litteraly keeping upwith them on foot. funny thing that custer did send a message back to cook , but the message was not urget really nonchalant in its demanor, more or less saying come if you want but i will have on a great victory by the time you arrive, again custers arrogance damns him. as far as cook and the top brass? yeah they didnt like custer bcause custer was an arrogant abrassive ass of a man, however he was a superstar of his time and so regardless they would and did have to answer at a tribunal or what happened. In the end the battle at the little big horn was avoidable and shouldve never taken place, if custer wouldve listened to his indian scouts and waited or reinforcments, had he withdrew and set his ego aside, sadly his own ego drove him into one o the biggest blunders in military history, that w both agree on daniella is custer blundered and big , my discussion isnt that he blunderd only how things went down that sa day, and everything did go wrong for him from technology, to terrain to numbers etc, he overstimated himself and underestimated his enemy all set to the sound of his own ego.

[@daniellastuart3145]

Metalmonster56 i always thought that Gen Custer split he force before he come upon the village and that was sending capt Benteen to he's left. i know he's plan work before but that was on a single village. The one at little big horn was just to big and I still say he should recalled Benteen first and Waite till Capt Benteen returned also when i say unfit for duty I mean one has to accept some on new evidence that come to light over the years . yes it said the 7th was one of the best equipped but every army regiment says that. I have seen some documentary's that say the 7th in 1876 had a lot of new troopers that had never seen the plans let alone a Native American and that they English was poor, which would of lowed they capability's. But my main reason for my commit has nothing to with the men but the relationship between Custer Reno & Benteen and this relationship in my view was so poisonous that put the regiment at risk as history tells us mean good troops end up being defeated because of bad leadership as for Visiting the battle field i would love too, but living in the UK So i can not see that happening but i can imaging how it feels i Visited the Ground of Waterloo in 2015 and it was surreal you could feel that history had been mad there i do agree with you that Custer was an arrogant abrasive ass of a man and that he thought Victory was in the bag and agree that In the end the battle at the little big horn was avoidable and should've never taken place and you last Paragraph but theirs been so meany myths at this Battle and some of them we do not want to let go have a good day

[@PsychoSubSandwich]

I love how you actually fill out each item on the list with a good long description full of details. Other channels just give you the tl;dr and gloss over important details.

[@deathbycognitivedissonance5036]

In Pre-Soviet Napoleonic-era Russia, land conquer you.

[@arseniyonline1234555]

Post-revolution Soviet Russia conquer you too

[@Definitely_Not_Sheev_Palpatine]

@@arseniyonline1234555 The only people the Soviets ever conquered were small, poor countries that couldn't defend themselves, and Germany, which kind of had its hands tied fighting literally the entire f*cking world. And, spoiler alert, they collapsed in 1991. But yeah, great conquerors.

[@siliconcore]

@@Definitely_Not_Sheev_Palpatine so did the British the French Spanish Portugal and all other eu powers

[@godlovesyou1995]

@@siliconcore the british were constantly at war with the french and spanish, often with portugal's help...

[@lettuceman9439]

@@Definitely_Not_Sheev_Palpatine i mean they did become a global superpower rivaling the US and The British Empire

[@grahammiddleton74]

Gallipoli Casualty Figures , April 1915 - January 1916 ( Source: Australian War Memorial ) :- These include death in battle/died of wounds, but exclude wounded/survived. Australia - 50,000 served - total deaths 8,159 New Zealand - 8,556 served - total deaths 2,721 Britain and Ireland - 410,00 served - total deaths 41,418 India - 5,000 served - total deaths 1,350 Newfoundland - 1,000 served - total deaths 49 France - 79,000 served - total deaths 9,789 Ottoman/Turkey - TBC served - total deaths estimated 85,000

[@jeanduhamel9101]

The teutoburg forest part is incomplete, the battle, or the massive ambush stretched on 3 days, and arminius was also in command of the auxiliary cavalry supposed to guard the flanks of the legions.

[@JennyvonHenkelmannLecter]

Reiksguard thank you for taking the words from my mouth. Arminius wasn't his real name either 😉

[@loder8592]

Well in gymnasiums you learn about it,but i dont know if the other school types teach it.

[@MitoW3]

It was not so important as you think. Later new commander Nero Claudius slaughtered Germans, got back captured eagles and was prepared to make Germania new Roman province. For that he got new name Germanicus. Luckily for Germanic tribes Roman emperor had no interest in that and has sent him to fight for the empire in the east.

[@olebergst.5828]

Well... we actually do learn about Arminius. And many people just forget it afterwards because they don't care. I am German and I know about him and the battle longer than I can read.

[@arminiusdescendant8022]

The ancient Romans abandoned their plans to conquer GERMANIA MAGNA (east of the river RHINE) and Poland for ever due to heavy losses which were higher than the prospective profits. Dissenting reports were just Roman propaganda. "Varus, Varus, give me back my legions." Augustus

[@timdegraw1784]

You are... amazing (and I mean that by anyone's possible standards). Your videos are TV length, incredibly narrated, beautifully made, and with topics that are unceasingly fascinating. As for running a demonetized channel, bravo. You're a diamond in the rough, to be sure. Thank you for entertaining me.

[@castlerock58]

The charge of the light brigade was too minor an action to have much impact on history. We only know about it because of a poem. It didn't even affect the outcome of a minor war.

[@Locochris1956]

- and the charge of the heavy brigade was probably the most successful cavalry charge ever so not much of a blunder there.

[@SKa-tt9nm]

Locochris1956 I bet the 40% of the light brigade that didnt make it back in one piece really disagree with the “not much of a blunder” assessment.

[@TheKrislaf]

@@SKa-tt9nm I bet there are many military actions throughout history that cost the lives of more than 40% of the men involved. Comparing this single event to all military actions throughout history would make it look fairly insignificant, even if it has become iconic.

[@willman85]

And a painting.

[@kreevoldar9917]

It also gave birth to the highest single honor a British (or Empire) soldier could ever receive, the Victoria Cross, for that reason it deserves to be remembered.

[@seanmcgowan7137]

Thank you for these great videos. You've put a lot of time and effort researching these events. I'm a huge history buff and I'm binge watching these in fascination.

[@admintheparkapp6215]

Others to consider: Pickett's charge at Gettysburg in the American Civil War perhaps Robert E. Lee's greatest error

[@flickcentergaming680]

OMG yes! Dumbest decision ever.

[@adambane1719]

Nobody cares about American "history" lol

[@cam5816]

⁠@@adambane1719cry, Redditor.

[@vincenthawkins8939]

You should have included Picket's Charge at Gettysburg, Custard's last charge, and the battle of Chancellorsville in which General Jackson was killed by friendly fire as he went out scouting the Union encampments at night. You should have also included the Battle of the Bulge during WW2

[@nunyabizness9045]

Pickett's charge was more of a desperate move. The union army was able to resupply and receive fresh troops almost undisturbed while Lee had to fight with what he had. Lee was very limited on how long he could commit to the northern invasion. Custer's last stand is no doubt a major blunder

[@adambane1719]

American idiocy isn't accepted here

[@cammus]

Another blunder: Brazil 1x7 Germany

[@nickcaesar5833]

Brasil VS Germany 2002 World Cup final 2-0 gave us number 5 thanks:) we don't mind giving you number 4

[@saveligulas5847]

@@nickcaesar5833 1-7 is nice isnt it

[@crqf2010ruler]

@@saveligulas5847 Like England vs Hungary? Oh wait, you're too modie to actually know soccer history, aka poser.

[@RomaInvicta202]

@@crqf2010ruler what is soccer?

[@charismatic1516]

How about Brazil 1-2 Uruguay?

[@scorpiocanuck6321]

I would include the massive encirclements of the Soviet Army by Germany. The fact that Stalin didn't believe that Germany attacked was almost disastrous for the Soviet Union.

[@keir92]

Scorpio Canuck thankfully they still won in the end.

[@colincampbell3781]

I doubt the Charge of the Light Brigade belongs in this list. If I had to nominate a futile charge, it would be Pickett's charge at Gettysburg. But these are tactical errors as opposed the other strategic mistakes described. Other actions I'd consider including: 1) Hitler's attack on Russia 2) The attack on Pearl Harbor 3) Charles XII invasion of Russia 4) The defence (or lack thereof) of Singapore 5) Gallipoli to start with but just about every major battle of WWi. I'm conscious these are mostly relatively modern, western actions. There are almost certainly battles fought in other parts of the world and at other times which also deserve to be highlighted.

[@kevinbergin9971]

Was it over when the Germans' bombed Pearl Harbor?

[@johnnyrico6513]

Binge watching all of these videos. I really enjoy the depth that each point goes into, as well as your voice being full blown ASMR.

[@DeidaraTriops]

I fucking LOVE this channel and am looking forward to every single video!

[@samuelkerckhoff2039]

Hear hear

[@wyldshot666]

DeidaraTriops Nachname FUCK YEAH!!!!!

[@BruisedASScheeks]

Dilly Dilly

[@GuyFromTheSouth]

I have a major fart f3tish

[@ChampionOrBust]

Boy, I hope someone got fired for that blunder

[@notatrollll]

WalterWhite87 “napoleon, Karen would like to speak to the manager.”

[@andrewfalconer8599]

Long story short: Humans can be petty and stupid---Don't be petty and stupid.

[@dreadjavapirate]

Gallipoli as already mentioned. Stalingrad and Kursk in WWII.

[@joelgarcia1115]

Napoleon thumbnail LOL

[@annescholey6546]

Nice city Poltava trashed 200000 times in 600 years😅

[@DJShire_ATL]

Every image of Napoleon I see he look like he is hung over.

[@Domindi]

I've always found it interesting that so many "genius" commanders made the same mistake of trying to invade or conquer Russia. More so because they always had a clear example from the past of it not being a feasible move..

[@shindari]

Because nobody ever took the winter into account. And if they did, they always arrogantly believed they could beat Russia prior to the winter's onset. It never occurs to anybody that the Russians would delay, based on that singular strategy. Always, the enemy was never prepared for the winter. But always, the Russians were. Because Russia always knew that was their one winning strategy. Their only hope. One simple omission from invasion-strategy always led to the same inevitable outcome.

[@cpltrickie]

@@shindari Agreed. They forgot the saying "Those that do not study history are domed to repeat the mistakes of the past."

[@SM-fd2pl]

Only the weather defeated the invaders not the Russians

[@jameslawrie3807]

@@SM-fd2pl That's totally wrong. Look at the archival evidence and not the self serving memoirs of people like Guderian ('Panzer Leader' may as well be 'historical fiction') or Manstein. The Axis lost the bulk of their fighting troops and equipment in Barbarossa and were playing catch-up when the Red Army counter attacked.

[@MrStolboy]

@@SM-fd2pl that is completly false, it was a factor, but not everthing. Russians are not immune to winter you know

[@kippesnikkel5217]

9:48 that is not true. Arminius was defeated by the Romans by Germanicus. Germanicus retreived 2 out of 3 eagles and defeating multiple germanic armies on the way. Arminius was killed by his own tribesmen.

[@stigjacobsen7087]

That Denmark-Norway was under french control is completely wrong

[@deathbycognitivedissonance5036]

Original topics. Always with a thought-provoking teaser.

[@grahamt33]

The Light Brigade -no mention of Captain Nolan, the man who gave the disastrous instruction of where to attack

[@troglobb]

Great work as always. How can a man such as Napoleon be so stubborn

[@jesurenbnb]

You can say he "miscalculated" that he would win

[@BlackandPiink]

Absolutely love your channel! Please, never stop making videos! I love your calm voice, and history. Perfect mix!

[@shababull]

Hi Unknown5, cool video on History Blunders that weren't taught us in History class. least with this, there won't be a test after this lesson!! have a great week!!!

[@Drain_Life_Archive]

1) Someone invading Russia. 2) Someone invading Russia. 3) Someone invading Russia. You'd think that by 1940, the lesson would have been learned...

[@hangar1876]

You could probably make a list of some army invading Afghanistan also.

[@shindari]

@@hangar1876 Seemed to work out pretty well for us...

[@SM-fd2pl]

The weather defeated Napoleon and Hitler, not the Russians! The Russians ran away!

[@Drain_Life_Archive]

@@SM-fd2pl The "it was winter" myth has been greatly debunked over the years, for both wars. Blaming the weather is just an excuse.

[@jameslawrie3807]

@@shindari I dunno. We're all trying to get out and still can't seem to. Twenty years and counting.

[@JamesR1986]

Varus, give me back my legions!

[@vanhasuden1044]

Gallipoli should have been on the list. Just a thought. Maybe a part 2 is in the future?

[@Japocholo1984]

The Gallipoli campaign 'nuff said.

[@BiggHogg870]

Yeah we can add that to the countless blunders the Brits military made.

[@toysintheattic2664]

K Mckivey far outstripped by their triumphs though ‘Nuff said

[@ideathii6012]

steven smith The First 3 Invasions of Serbia 1914, The First 2 Battles of Gaza in 1917, The Battle of Passchendaele 1917, many many more

[@mapleflag6518]

Also the bay of pigs.

[@kotorking]

Absolute waste of live

[@heinrichstrydom961]

Great video. Great Channel. Was wondering, did you consider Stalingrad for this video?

[@TheCAPTAINDESTROYER]

Hello there. Your videos are great. Really enjoy them. Well researched, clear voiceover (a huge problem for some reason on other channels) and great topics. Keep up the great work man!!!!

[@nicolaiitchenko7610]

Love this channel. Would like to suggest "5 Worst Military Cover ups" in history. Might suggest the cover up of Isandlwana disaster by deflecting the story with Rorke's Drift success which goes all the way to Queen Victoria to protect the officers concerned!

[@catalinsoare1261]

Napoleon didn't watched Game of Thrones. He didn't know that winter was coming ;)

[@commodoreluigi1596]

Or Carolus Rex.

[@cronquist09]

The Wall defends itself.

[@sameerthakur720]

Neither did Hitler. But surprisingly the Mongols attacked Russia successfully during winter. Maybe they had seen GoT.

[@grahammiddleton74]

@@sameerthakur720 It was reported that they had all the boxsets

[@scoobycarr5558]

I think Napoleon's biggest blunder besides Russia was marrying a girl named Marie Louise when he was already married to Josephine.

[@Uzbug]

Another excellent video. As a fellow Kiwi said, Gallipoli would be one to add. Market Garden another. In saying that, really enjoy what you post here. Can watch them all day.

[@somebody3143]

In the movie “Kingdom of Heaven,” the disaster that was Guy’s march into the desert, is well illustrated and displayed. This blunder lead to Guy losing 52, yes, FIDDY-DOO, Towns, Cities, and Castles to Saladin! Total. Fricken. Moron!

[@mapleflag6518]

Farty McGee Bruh

[@eriksoley6774]

I would say the biggest military blunder was when Sheriff Teasle and his Deputies took on John J. Rambo. Arminius aka Herman the German caused the first Emperor of Rome, Octavian aka Augustus, to exclaim the famous words, "Varus! Give me back my legions!"

[@luftwaffle4327]

When Hitler invasion of Russia sounds extremely similar to napoleons -presumes to kill russia in weeks -no winter clothes -scorched earth -lack of supplies -largest invasion ever -still lost to winter

[@SKa-tt9nm]

Neutral American what was different was the technology available. Hitler - somewhat reasonably - expected tanks and trucks to move faster than horses and buggies. It clearly didn’t work out that way.

[@luftwaffle4327]

And Napoleon still did better if you put it into perspective

[@antonioacevedo5200]

You forgot to mention Hitler's total failure to neutralize England. It would later lead to the Normandy landings which would then create a two front war that Germany could not win.

[@luftwaffle4327]

Of course I know that I meant specifically Barbarossa, germany and russia unit amount, invasion time, plan and outcome, and reason of loss

[@luftwaffle4327]

Also you know that Russia would of still won even if d-day didn’t happen right?

[@RockerFinland]

The Winter War. Soviet Union's surprise attack to Finland. Heavily outnumbered Finns put up a skillful and effective defense: Soviet Union's total casualties: 381 000, Finland's total casualties: only 70 000.

[@GregoryHadley]

I am a Desert Storm Veteran, the ceasefire, only to wage another Persian Gulf War... This was the end of my honor for the United States of America.

[@Guvo0]

Bro ur a real G and brave to admit that man.

[@stevenmaritz759]

Although the body count was much lower than these battles, the British defeat at Isandlwana was certainly a massive blunder and embarrassment

[@MemestiffGaming]

What about in WW1 when the French marched in their bright uniforms at the enemy trenches with 30,000 killed in one day?

[@foxymetroid]

That was basically down to their inexperience in fighting another major European power with machine guns. They fairly quickly learned their lessons (for the most part. Some generals were too old school for their own good).

[@sparkknocker6222]

No, they did not learn anything. My grandfather was in several battles as a U.S. army infantryman. The French actually accused the Americans as cowards for not charging the trenches as they ordered. Our guys attacked several times at night without an artillery barrage to open the move. This was a dead give away, literally. They went in quietly and terrorized the German Army sentries and seized prisoners and took over positions to the surprise of everyone. The French generals still screwed up thirty years later and it cost them a country.

[@sparkknocker6222]

No, they did not learn anything. My grandfather was in several battles as a U.S. army infantryman. The French actually accused the Americans as cowards for not charging the trenches as they ordered. Our guys attacked several times at night without an artillery barrage to open the move. This was a dead give away, literally. They went in quietly and terrorized the German Army sentries and seized prisoners and took over positions to the surprise of everyone. The French generals still screwed up thirty years later and it cost them a country.

[@Hanomarkhan...]

@@sparkknocker6222 By the time the Americans arrived in 1917, the English, French and Germans had exhausted many resources in the battles of the Somme and Verdun, which were to be decisive (according to the opinion of the états majors...) but revealed, in fact, that neither side could take advantage of the other, we were heading towards a war of attrition, which could have gone on for years without victors. By their presence the Americans gave the advantage to the allies through the influx of new material and human resources, which the Germans, isolated in the heart of the European continent, lacked. The American armies made it possible to make rotations on all the front, to rest the soldiers of first lines, in order to prepare, during the year, the final offensive. A luxury the Germans did not have. And if one could say things about the Americans, it was simply that they had no experience in the trenches, it had nothing to do with cowardice or stupid heroism, and that can't be learned from military manuals. Yes, the United States was decisive in ending the war and deciding a winner, the question one might ask is what would have happened if they hadn't intervened... it would have been worse or... it would have been, in any case, the biggest boucherie in history... nothing to be proud of.

[@luisvilca4467]

If Americans didn't go then the French army would have collapsed on itself with massive revolts from the soldiers they were THAT fed up withe trench war

[@dfunto_rawpunk]

i love your military videos

[@magistrumartium]

6:41 The Romans called him Arminius but his German name was Herman (Hermann). That's right, he was Herman the German! The battle took place in the Teutoburg forest, where that monument was built in the late 1800s, when German nationalism was rising.

[@dabtican4953]

Nah it was where the monument is

[@chairmanlmao4482]

I haven't watched the video yet, but the 1915 Gallipoli landing better be on here. The Allies suffered around 300,000 casualties, and the allies ended up retreating anyway. Biggest waste of life in modern history tbh

[@cadenjones7886]

Mountain Dew MLG Superstar agreed

[@dr.leftfield9566]

The French at Agincourt bearing in mind of 1. vastly superior numbers and equipped fighting men. 2.In their backyard. 3. Not displaying strategy based upon their defeat at Crecy nearly 70 years earlier faced with the same type of enemy weapons.

[@Frank-mm2yp]

One of the strange quirks of history, especially history written by English speaking historians, is that the English won all of the glamorous BATTLES@ Crecy, Poitiers, Agincourt, etc. but eventually lost the WAR and all their territory in France. One hardly ever hears about books, TV mini-series, movies, plays or documentaries about CARCASONNE. You can look it up- but it will probably be in French. Moral of the story: It always pays to have a writer like Wm. Shakespeare on your PR Staff.

[@bennyrobertson]

@@Frank-mm2yp Unless you're Richard III or Macbeth.

[@slimshadow2]

On 17:04 isn't that a picture of the battle for Shipka pass? I am not sure if it is on topic.

[@luisvilca4467]

I consider a military blunder the battle of Cannae from Roman history the Punic wars. It was against Hannibal, the greatest strategist known. I am not disminishing his genious but the disaster of an almost complete anihlation of seventy thousands of soldiers could have been avoided if the army was only comanded by one general, since the army changed command every day. Varro was the one who led them to battle and had the GREATEST idea to combine all legions into a single unit, Hannibal plan was to surround them but Varro made it easy for them to pull off such plan. The battle of canae could have been a victory or at least another defeat if Paulus was in charge in that day, since he had a more strategist view unlike Varro.

[@ronbou4728]

I think that is an unfair assessment of the Cannae campaign. After the Romans arrived at Cannae they really only had 2 choices. They could fight on the side of the river Hannibal wanted or they could fight on the other side which Varro choose. The difference between the two was that hills ran along side Varro's restricting how he could deploy his army but would restrict Hannibal's cavalry. It seems Paulus agreed with Varro's reasoning and on Paulus's day of command he started moving the army to the far to the far side of the bank, about 1/3 of the army. Paulus is also credited with the idea to leave 10000 men on the original side to attack Hannibal's camp if the he did cross to confront Varro. This shows that Paulus did have an active part in the planning. Hannibal seemed to have been able to see where open space would/could become available for infantry maneuver once battle commenced and was able to exploit the space where the cavalry began for his infantry. No Roman commander at this point in time was able to do the same, so I cannot see changing Paulus or anyone else with Varro making any difference. Perhaps a general who would attack on Hannibal's chosen battle field may have done slightly better but it would seem like madness to fight on such open ground against Hannibal's cavalry.

[@musc1esman]

Napolean’s troops eating their horses as all the men dropped like flys only makes me think of Stannis Baratheon’s troops in game of thrones.

[@SiVlog1989]

What about Operation Market Garden? What could be more stupidly suicidal in terms of military strategy than not having the full armada of an airbourne assault in the air at the same time arriving at the target on the same day? Because many of the gliders carrying the troops to the assault on the Rhein bridge in Arnem arrived in the battle zone 24 hours after the first wave the very aspect that makes airbourne assaults so deverstating, surprise, is lost. It could and should have been one of the biggest disasters of world war 2, but for the heroic actions of men like Robert Caine VC defeat would have been unavoidable

[@quillanjacobson1478]

The reason we lost that battle is because Montegomery was a terrible general. He basically is single handedly the reason the war wasn't over after the battle of the bulge. He crippled Patton time and time again when he was going in for the kill by being too hesitant, and the one time he has an aggressive plan, Market Garden, its a shitty plan

[@anorthernsoul5600]

Montgomery had nothing to do with Patton. Monty wasn't a general, he was a Field Marshall, Patton was nothing more than a Corps commander, big difference. I suggest you read some history books instead of indulging in Hollywood propaganda. The German High Command had never even heard of Patton at wars end, he was just another general Newsflash, Battle of the Bulge, Metz/Lorraine and the Hurtgen Forest debacles, individually, all incurred far more losses in men and material than Market Garden ever did. Yet MG liberated more land, towns and people, neutralise the V1 threat on the UK, and secured Antwerp by creating a buffer zone. The other campaigns listed did none of these. What's the difference? Market Garden was primarily listed as a British affair (which it wasn't, Brereton formulated the plan, Commander of the airborne armies, Montgomery decided to act on it) so it is listed as the worst failings of the Allies in Western Europe when it was nothing of the sort. Battle of the Bulge, Metz and Hurtgen Forest were all US affairs and almighty cock ups! Oh and it was Montgomery who pulled the yanks out of the shit in the Battle of the Bulge! The biggest failing of Market Garden was Gavin not taking the Nijmegen Bridge on Day One of the operation. The bridge was the number one objective and he failed in that task. Gavin was commander of the 82nd Airborne, yet another American arsehole who couldn't do his fucking job. He was the primary reason XXX Corps did not get their tanks to the Arnhem Bridge. Not Monty, not SS Divisions, nor lack of radios or airborne troops. Gavin fucked up!!

[@quillanjacobson1478]

I was using General as a General term by definition meaning commander of an army or an army officer of very high rank. I wasn't literally saying his rank was general numb nuts. second i was referring to Monty showing up late to Houffalize because his pussy ass tactics led him to launching the attack two days late by which time the bulk of Germans made it back across the line. And you don't get to say shit about America in world war 2, because we are the only reason you aren't speaking German to me. Before we showed up all you were doing was getting your ass kicked across Africa and losing entire countries in under a few weeks. If you actually believe the shit you're spouting at me you're fucking retarded. German High Command never heard of Patton by the wars end? how about i leave you with a direct quote from Hitler's chief of operations “We regarded General Patton extremely highly as the most aggressive Panzer General of the Allies, a man of incredible initiative and lightning-like action…. His operations impressed us enormously, probably because he came closest to our own concept of the classical military commander.” Alfred Jodl, who served as Hitler’s chief of operations from 1940 until the end of the war, told American interrogators, “He was the American Guderian. He was very bold and preferred large movements. He took big risks and won big successes.” General Heinz Guderian himself, after Germany’s surrender, told his Allied captors, “From the standpoint of a tank specialist, I must congratulate him for his victory since he acted as I should have done had I been in his place.”

[@quillanjacobson1478]

and if you want to talk about failures in Market Garden let's talk about the British forces failure to cut off the German 15th army and it's 80,000 troops in Antwerp

[@groblerful]

Monty said that the operation was 90% sucessful

[@smooth_sundaes5172]

I wouldn't say that in terms of numbers the charge of the light brigade was among the "worst" military blunders. Certainly Ney's charge at Waterloo was not only significantly larger but was a turning point for Napoleons eventual defeat.

[@CG87343]

Gettysburg. Specifically Picketts Charge.

[@mariocisneros911]

On the South's side . Bull Run on the North

[@r.crompton2286]

CG87343 Agree. If the Confederacy had kept its troops south of the Mason-Dixon Line, the North may not have won that war outright. How many battles through '61 to early '63 did the Union win in their quest to neutralize Virginia? They may have had to sue for peace and allow the South to set its own agenda if Lee had only reinforced his defence along the Potomac and in the passes through the Shenandoah Mts.to prevent an encirclement. If there's no Gettysburg, then the war is not so predictable.

[@scoobycarr5558]

There were some blunders on the Union side as well: Burnside's failure at Fredericksburg and Hooker's blunder at Chancellorsville.

[@90srule96]

Lee actually ordered it and approved it. But Southerners couldn’t come around to calling it “Lee’s Charge”, since REL was so beloved. So Pickett gets the credit/blame.

[@r.crompton2286]

@@90srule96 You've hit the nail of the head. Lee's gamble but Pickett's legacy.

[@johsenior1535]

the nr 1, the invasion of Russia by napoleon, isnt a blunder. it was simply a different form of warfare which was unknown to any army/general at that time. the russian strategy of scorched earth was simply brilliant, to whittle down the French army and finally defeat them. given the importance on pride for the noble officers in both armies during warfare at that time, having the enemy refusing to do battle was simply unimaginable. The russians even had a lot of trouble to keep their own soldiers in check as they felt humiliated by letting the French army march without trying to stop them. so it doesnt qualify as a blunder that napoleon and anyone with him failed to understand this new strategy.

[@omarhernandez361]

my damn favorite channel, all your videos are so interesting and you do know how to narrate.

[@coltonhiggins663]

Best KZbin channel for historical events

[@mindseyemelodies]

You fell victim to one of the classic blunders-the most famous of which is, “Never get involved in a land war in Asia”-but only slightly less well-known is this: “Never go against a Sicilian when death is on the line”!

[@herashr]

I think you should do with the five most intimidating militaries in history

[@EpaminondastheGreat]

The invasion itself was not a mistake. Napoleon's plan was mainly to invade what is now Lithuania, defeat the two Russian armies that they were deployed there in detail and in turn force the Tsar to sue for peace. He was not overconfident to believe that the Russians would give a decisive battle since that was the attitude of the Russian High Command while the Nobility did not wish to have its lands burned or sacked by the French or the Russians. In fact Napoleon knew all those and he was right in his assumption. Immediatedly after the French invaded, the Russians planned to give battle. It was a matter of pride as well. The reason they did not give in initially was because they wished to do so with their armies united so that they could increase their odds. Ironically, the French strategy of trying to beat each army separately did not allow the Russians to fight in full strength until they finally managed to combine their armies at Smolensk where guess what, they gave battle, and lost. As a result Barclay de Tolly, the commander in chief was fired and General Kutuzov took over with orders...guess what, give a decisive battle, and he did at Borodino where he lost again and was forced to retreat. The Russians were not retreating deliberatly, they were retreating hoping to buy some time to regroup after their defeats and fight on again. Kutuzov, promised that he will give battle again outside Moscow and he would have hadn't Napoleon's army marched as rapidly as it did forcing Kutuzov to withdraw. Napoleon's main blunder in the campaign was that he decided to stay in Moscow for five weeks hoping to live off the land as much as possible so that he could save supplies he had at Smolensk. He was unfortunate though because the winter struck much earlier than usual, particularly when Napoleon's army was retreating to Smolensk. The terrible cold, poor supplying, the constant Cossack attacks as well as costly fighting retreats with the regular Russian army led to the devestation of the French army. Had Napoleon retreated earlier he could have saved his army and commence the campaign soon after.

[@jenniferbrewer5370]

Well said, your Majesty.

[@EpaminondastheGreat]

+Jennifer Brewer Thank you, my little -green- friend....

[@marcuspovlsen9175]

Emperor Palpatine where is padme? Is she safe, is she Alright?

[@EpaminondastheGreat]

Marcus Povlsen It appears in your anger, you killed her...

[@marcuspovlsen9175]

I. I couldn't have she Were alive i felt it..... nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooonooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooonooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

[@rdf4315]

Man I can never get enough of watching his channel he's become the new history channel for me good job and keep the videos coming.

[@josephaether377]

eventually, everyone in the world just told the Russians, "okay, you keep that land..." it's kinda like conquering antarctica. it's just way too cold to be worth it. The Ruskies knew exactly what they were doing by retreating slowly into the frozen expanse. it seems like that was always their strategy.

[@cdeschrevel5341]

I like Russians! Greetings from the Netherlands

[@drsabyasachibanerjee185]

Been a one of the biggest military Artillery supply chain management and Technology services this types of video is very useful for me

[@Th3Sw3DiShDuD31]

The battle of poltava was kind of a blunder, started the downfall of swedish domince in europe.

[@heaterpistol6067]

Invading Russia is almost always a blunder.

[@mazda1942]

Is it worth adding the allied landing at Dieppe pre D Day. Big mistake.

[@freyavdv4194]

Very well explained!

[@cammus]

Its amazing how History repeats it self, the Grand Armée retreat from Moscow bears ressemblance with Operation Barbarosa from Hitler's Nazi army, people can't understand that Russia is almost another planet and they know how to defend them selves, amazing stuff.

[@lsatep]

Yes and people are using the term "conqueror" way too loosely. Napoleon was NOT a conqueror. A conquest is the permanent subjugation of an enemy force so that they never challenge you again. Napoleon never achieved this permanent conquest, just mere superficial occupation of territory. This is especially true since it was Napoleon himself and France who ended up getting conquered by the enemy. A real conqueror does not get conquered by those he allegedly conquered. Alexander did not end up get conquered by the Persians. Caesar did not end up get conquered by the Gauls. Cortes did not get conquered by the Aztecs. Pizarro did not get conquered by the Incas. A basic rule of thumb for conquests is that if you are compelled to leave a territory you occupied and you never return, then it is NOT a conquest. Napoleon was compelled to leave Egypt, compelled to leave Germany, compelled to leave Italy etc. Calling Napoleon a conqueror is just more evidence of biased European historians trying to change the narrative after the fact. The true narrative is that Napoleon is a story of tragedy for Europe, not triumph.

[@mrpotatoweiler5192]

lsatep then again, it took 7 coalitions to get rid of him. He did not have unlimited troops and had almost all of Europe against him. They learned his moves and all, so it was inevitable his empire would fall. It was his huge blunder in Russia, however, which was his major downfall as it turned all of the Germans against him and he was highly out numbered. So, if the allies had just given up (didn’t fight 7 wars against him) and he hadn’t made countless bad decisions, he would have been a conqueror. But nonetheless, he was a military genius and had an amazing run in his 20 year military career.

[@thomasaquinas2600]

I was surprised that the Light Brigade was one of the 5 blunders. The number of KIA was less than 120. Stalin's errors led to the loss of Kiev, and 660,000 prisoners, some 5,500x the loss. Stalin's errors in WW2 probably cover all 5 slots, but we may include the 'victory' at Pearl Harbor of Yamamoto, Hitler's stopping the drive on Moscow, then the next year at Stalingrad, sending his army back west needlessly, ending hopes of taking Moscow and Stalingrad, resp. Hitler's worst blunder was pouring men into North Africa after it was lost, creating a loss of more men there than at Stalingrad. Did we leave out Gen. Custer, Haig(WW1) and almost all commanders in that tragic war.

[@daniellastuart3145]

. Napoleon Invading Russia was not the blunder it was staying Moscow for to long waiting for the czar to surrender before putting is army in winter quarters but Napoleon biggest blunder was in what he did not do in Spain and Portugal

[@zach7193]

Battle of Culloden, Invasion of Russia by Hitler, Swedish invasion of Russia, Sicilian Expedition, and Battle of the Crater. Other military blunders in history, Unknown5.

[@NoirOrchestre]

Azincourt.

[@sameerthakur720]

Azincourt was a bloody victory. Oh, sorry, you meant for the French. Got it.

[@jackcloud4728]

NoirOrchestre I don’t think a defeat counts as a blunder tbh

[@NoirOrchestre]

@@jackcloud4728 Well from what I heard, the French knights just charged the English and the Welsh without any sense of order (maybe in response to some taunting), turning what could have been an easy victory into a disaster, which pretty much lead to the end of the great Frank knighthood. Also Henry V slaughtered the prisonners after the battle.

[@gregb6469]

Pickett's Charge on day 3 at Gettysburg was a major blunder on Lee's part.

[@SantomPh]

Guy is pronounced "Gee" like "key"

[@riks081]

Like ghey?

[@andraslibal]

Well, Napoleon had the decisive victory at Borodino but he failed to commit the Imperial Guard.

[@edgdula8549]

Germany's invasion of The USSR in WW2!

[@jameslawrie3807]

He was in a stupid position only a Nazi could get himself into. They only had six months of fuel left after The Battle of France and it was either get the Caucasus' oil or be starved out. While the UK suffered from U Boats it was nothing compared to the havoc the Germans wrought in The First World War and the UK was going to be able to ride it out which meant the blockade would continue. His big problem with the USSR was that he had to balance his logistical needs with his ideological insanity which led to a clearly obvious splitting of priorities. But you're definitely right, the Heer got mangled demolishing the initial Red Army and all the casualties were the combat specialists in the divisions which meant when when the rebuilt Red Army surged back the Nazis were a shadow of themselves.

[@adolin1338]

Have to be more specific Ed. Conflict between the Nazis and USSR was inevitable. Hitler halting his forces to consolidate flanks instead of pushing straight to Moscow, that was the real blunder. Take Moscow and all of Russia falls

[@MisterJackTheAttack]

@worldd777 The Mongols did a pretty good job in the 1300s and Poland did a fair job in the 1600s.

[@gengis737]

@@adolin1338 Except without consolidation millions of soviet soldiers would have attacked the German infantry, far behind the armored units.

[@gengis737]

@@jameslawrie3807 Oil was not a problem, with Romania and Hungary Nazis could fight four years more. What they could not achieve was to reach all vital areas of USSR at once, becoming vulnerable to counter attacks once their small armored elite was spent. Whatever the direction they took or the halts they did.

[@krasiarsho8868]

the picture at 17:00 min is from battle of Shipka pass 1877 in Bulgaria

[@ivareskesner2019]

When I clicked this I thought I already knew the top three - Teutoborg Forest, Napoleon's ill prepared skiing trip in Russia and at the top - the mother of all military fuckups that did no less than change the course of modern history - Hitler's invasion of Russia, Stalingrad in particular. If The Third Reich hadn't invaded Russia and subsequently let almost a million soldiers freeze and starve to death in Stalingrad, all of Europe would be marching to propaganda songs and goose stepping to rally speeches in German while venerating Hitler's embalmed body in a huge Berlin mausoleum. Quite a thing to leave out as no 1, let alone not even include in the list, no?

[@shahzaibahmed.]

please refrain from abusive language Thank you

[@ogmayo4123]

Shahzaib Ahmed stfu

[@jameslawrie3807]

Not really. The Germans were being strangled by the UK blockade and Europe was fast running out of fuel. At the beginning of Operation Barbarossa the Nazis only had six months of oil left. It was go for the Caucasus or lose. All those panzers would have been pill boxes. If Hitler had had half a brain he should have stopped at Czechoslovakia.

[@n43510]

The Nazi-Soviet Pact was a sham on both sides. Both Hitler and Stalin planned to double-cross the other. If Hitler hadn't invaded the Soviet Union, Stalin would have invaded Germany just a year or two later. By late 1942, the Soviet Union was out-producing Germany 2:1 in top-notch tanks. You don't design great tanks, build factories, and ramp up production on that scale in a year. Stalin was more than ready for a war against Germany. He just didn't expect Germany to start it. What really sank Hitler was his alliance with Mussolini. If Italy had stayed neutral - but still trading with Germany, thus making an economic blockade impossible - Hitler wouldn't have had to commit forces to shoring up the Italians in the Balkans and wouldn't have had to assign one of his best generals, Rommel, to shoring up the Italians in North Africa. Time as well as resources were wasted.

[@mpulickottil]

I can think of a few from the American Civil war (in no particular order) 1. The frontal assault by Lee at the Battle of Gettysburg (Picket's charge) in 1863 when the Union army clearly had the higher ground and an earlier charge the previous day had failed. 2. The Union front assault at Marye's Heights at the Battle of Fredericksburg in 1862 3. The union assault of the Confederate army completely unaware that they had be reinforced by Gen. Longstreet's core.

[@purplehaze2358]

When the great emu war doesn’t make the list.

[@cally77777]

A controversial alternative no one's mentioned, Harold's decision to immediately give battle to William of Normandy at Hastings in 1066, thus losing the Kingdom of England. Harold's army had just marched twice the length of the country, to defeat an invasion by Harald of Norway. William had meanwhile crossed the channel, and sent out cavalry to plunder the countryside. He was established in position, and was not getting any reinforcements, so there was little if anything to be gained by attacking immediately. On the other hand, by waiting Harold could rest his army, and allow for more of his own forces to gather. Considering how closely fought the battle was, this might easily have swung it the other way. Many considered that Harold was rash, impatient, perhaps even overconfident after his recent victory, while William showed calm consideration, so thus a blunder with huge historical consequences.

[@sarasarah1810]

the French at Dien Bien Phu...

[@Crashed131963]

Dien Bien Phu was a complete F-up. Good one.

[@raynus1160]

Napolean's foray into Russia is eerily similar to the German 6th Army's 130 years later.

[@fortis3686]

Where's Operation Barbarossa or Operation Iraqi Freedom?

[@tomacatalin6253]

Alonzo Aldaba Operation Barbarossa wasn't necessarily a military blunder

[@soupofcan9697]

Alonzo Aldaba Barbarossa was not a military blunder. It was just a close Soviet success. Certainly not a military blunder because Winter or just Hitler's idiocy alone either

[@jenniferbrewer5370]

I'd have to say Pearl Harbor and the following German declaration of war on the US were two of the most epic military blunders in history. Not only did they piss us off, their actions caused the United States to take from them what both regimes wanted most, to be the leading nation on Earth.

[@UmVtCg]

Iraqi Freedom was a succes. And most certainly did not lead to loads of allied casualties. And as a resuld should not be on this list, there were no big militairy mistakes.

[@CrossBreedTacoHD]

You're joking right? Pearl harbor was a decleration of war. Exactly what franklin wanted so he could get the support of congress and the people to formally get involved into the war. This lead to the draft (giving the allies more manpower), this lead to the private sector helping the war effort (massively increasing production), it lead to more minds of thought (gernals, captains, sergeants), it lead to beginning of the manhatton project, the list can go on. The point being is that dont you fucking dare pretend that if america hadnt joined the war, and only continued to supply the allies, there wouldnt have been a difference.

[@Netlife-001]

Superb pictures. Great job👍

[@joeyjamison5772]

The worst military blunder ever: December 7th, 1941.

[@enricopozon9861]

Pearl Harbor. Yes. I remember. I'm in the Philippines.That date was also my great-grandfather's death.

[@alvvinreynosa9368]

On America? For not being ready for a Pacific War even with all the Intel or Japan not sinking the carriers? I think Midway was a big blunder for Japanese Imperial Navy

[@hankmurphy3882]

George Mcclellan not attacking Lee's forces after the first (and only day) of fighting at Antietam. He had more fresh reserves than Lee had in his entire army (let alone the forces that had fought the previous day). He would almost certainly could have finished the Army of Northern Virginia in Sept 1862

[@aAaa-gj1lh]

13:17 jesus in chainmail does not exis...

[@chetbr]

somehow you cannot leave out Tannenburg in WW1 and Dien Bien Phu is right up there

[@oswaldolopez4627]

What about the first battles of WWI? when the bright red and blue french uniforms costed them entire armies. Or the time the Ottomans lost an entire army in the Caucassus because of their arrogance. Or the time the USA underestimated the Vietnamese and lost an entire war to an "inferior" enemy?

[@oswaldolopez4627]

what?! I would love to hear, or in this case, read your arguments about that. How was Vietnam not a defeat for the USA?

[@thesexyorphan2519]

My grandmother told me that back when she was living in America there was very HUGE protests to not fight another war for a country that can't defend itself, and then President Nixon abandoned his office and the person who picked up after him threw out the signed order to where if the NV Army or the Viet Cong invaded South Vietnam they would immediately intervene but they didn't want to keep Nixon's promise to South Vietnam because no one didn't want a American to die for a country they have no history with...

[@oswaldolopez4627]

The Sexy Orphan nevertheless they did my friend, America wanted to test the best they had against the best of the USSR in terms of military tech. And yes. In the battlefields they "won" almost every engagement. But to what end? Just To lose public approval back home and further push the west world towards all those social changes we live today? To that "classic" USA of old, was it worth it? Was it a real victory? Like the one they had in WW2? I think not.

[@foxymetroid]

When the US left, it was basically a draw that both sides agreed to. What happened was that Congress refused to allow South Vietnam to be further funded with US tax dollars while both the Chinese and Soviets continued to flood North Vietnam with money and supplies.

[@oswaldolopez4627]

foxymetroid You are so right. Americans didn't want to fund another war. Times were changing. T.V., and all the cultural revolution helped the world to see all the realities of modern warfare. What I'm saying is that if the USA had won, they would had settle the terms for everyone and everything there, sadly, they Lost.

[@noelakinsola3234]

A brilliant analysis of these historical battles. However, how could you omit Operation Barbarossa? That was the greatest military blunder. I would appreciate some feedback!

[@darkhyena85]

Fredericksburg, Little Bighorn, Battle of Isandlwana, Stalingrad

[@rockgod6180]

darkhyena85 Operation Market Garden

[@adambane1719]

You forgot to mention Blockbuster neglecting to crush Netflix in the beginning, and launch their own online DVD service.

[@KowboyUSA]

Why did they hang a jumbo size condom on the side of their bearskin hat? 2:17 *

[@chew337]

Best list videos on KZbin !