A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics


Centerfield is the blog of the Centrist Coalition. Send story ideas to cf at centristcoalition . com

Explore the Centrist Blogosphere, an aggregator which lists the latest posts by Centrist bloggers

These bloggers are part of the Centrist Coalition:
Ambivablog
Another Opinion
Austin Centrist
Charging RINO
Donklephant
Maverick Views
The Moderate Voice
Moderate Voters
Stubborn Facts

Independent Nation

Center Links:

<< ? The VCWC # >>

Independent Nation

Radical Middle

Resources:

 

July 30, 2007

Open Fortunate Mistakes Thread

Bring out yer favorite mistakes!

Do you have any mistakes in history you're particularly glad of?

I'll start it out with General Lee invading the North, leading to Gettysburg. It was hopeless, of course. Lee thought he could make it through the better-resourced Union to hurt some city important enough to turn Northern opinion, at least, because the North kept sending big army after big army into Virginia against him and losing to his smaller army. He thought that meant Northerners were bad at fighting, or maybe badly commanded.

Lee's immediate inferior officer, General Longstreet, saw it differently, and was against the invasion. He thought, rightly, that the Northern invasions had failed because it was an age when the defensive has the advantage in any fight. In some ages, the offensive has the advantage (when Hitler, Napoleon, and Alexander were picking up turf). in other ages, the defensive has the advantage - the Civil War and WWI were in such a time, because bullets could be fired fast enough stop any attempt to take turf bloodily, and nothing to stop those bullets had been invented yet.

If another Lee subordinate, "Stonewall" Jackson, had still been alive, he might've felt the same way and had enough prestige to stop the invasion, because of several actions he was given high credit for. One piece of evidence that he did see the defensive as important is that his command invented the WWI-style trench.

Posted by Jon Kay at July 30, 2007 07:31 PM
Comments

Napoleon and Hitler invading Russia both come to mind. In both cases, the logistics just weren't there to cope with the climate and the sheer size. And if either had simply refrained, the additional resources elsewhere in Europe would have made them much, much harder to defeat.

Europe under a French Empire would have been unfortunate. Especially for Britain. Europe under Hitler for decades would have been horrible -- even more horrible than the short version was.

Posted by: wj at July 30, 2007 08:13 PM

Mao's ideologically driven famines, and destruction of the Chinese intellectual and entrepenurial classes, is another. Only consider what China's economic and military power would be today, if the policies of the last 10-15 years had been implemented before the Great Leap Forward.

Posted by: wj at July 30, 2007 08:47 PM

I'd say that it was Sir Alexander Fleming's discovery of penicilan after he'd been away on vacation for a while and found some of his cultures had mold on them. Most folks would have just thrown them the moldy dishes, but he decided to study the mold. LIke the sign says "Neat, organized people never make the exciting discoveries that I do."

History wise, it's Christopher Columbus accidentally bumping into America while looking for China.

Militarily, I'd say the Spanish Armada is my favorite, because I've always been a big Elizabethan fan. A close second is Mary, Queen of Scots, stupidly fleeing to England after her blunders cost her her throne.

But as far as American history is concerned, the Hessians keeping Christmas is number one. But Jon's example is a good one too.

Posted by: Blue Jean at July 31, 2007 02:29 PM

Japan attacking the US instead of going after British interests in the Far East or helping Germany dismember the USSR. Those two nations were incredibly vulnerable, a situation they should have taken advantage of instead of attacking a nation not directly involved with the war. By the way Longstreet was at the top of the hill at Fredericksburg and saw wave after wave of Union troops try to take his well fortified position. He had a high opinion of the bravery of Union troops and knew under able commanders they could be tough, something Grant proved later.

Posted by: grognard at August 5, 2007 12:22 AM

In fairness, Lee had little choice but to invade the North. The Confederates had fewer soldiers, fewer factories, and fewer armaments than the North to begin with. The fact that the South lasted as long as it did is a tribute to Lee's ingenuity--and the Northern generals' ineptitude.

With the Northern blockade getting tighter and tighter, the Cons' options were narrowing down to "surrender or starve". ("King Cotton" may be many things, but if you can't sell it, eat it, or shoot it at the enemy, it's worthless.) Lee tried a third option--a lightning strike at the North. Even if he didn't capture DC, he'd get much needed supplies for his army, boost Southern morale while delivering a blow to the North's (maybe enough to enforce an armistance on the South's terms), perhaps even persude England and France to open up their coffers and support the South, the way France and Spain supported Washington after his victory over the Hessians.

So...it was a calculated gamble. Didn't pay off.

Posted by: Blue Jean at August 6, 2007 01:06 AM

In fairness, Lee had little choice but to invade the North. The Confederates had fewer soldiers, fewer factories, and fewer armaments than the North to begin with. The fact that the South lasted as long as it did is a tribute to Lee's ingenuity--and the Northern generals' ineptitude.

With the Northern blockade getting tighter and tighter, the Cons' options were narrowing down to "surrender or starve". ("King Cotton" may be many things, but if you can't sell it, eat it, or shoot it at the enemy, it's worthless.) Lee tried a third option--a lightning strike at the North. Even if he didn't capture DC, he'd get much needed supplies for his army, boost Southern morale while delivering a blow to the North's (maybe enough to enforce an armistance on the South's terms), perhaps even persude England and France to open up their coffers and support the South, the way France and Spain supported Washington after his victory over the Hessians.

So...it was a calculated gamble. Didn't pay off.

Posted by: Blue Jean at August 6, 2007 01:06 AM

Oops. Sorry about the double post.

Posted by: Blue Jean at August 6, 2007 01:07 AM

Echo about Lee. It was a desparation move, but that was what he had left.

The other thing hoped for was convincing Euro-nations to risk running the blockades. Since the South had little to pay with, taking booty was a consideration.

Posted by: Tully at August 6, 2007 03:33 PM
(Comments on this entry may be closed after 7 days to prevent spam)




Do you choose the politicians, or do they choose you? Find out how to put the people back in charge.

Declare Your Independence - Unity08.com

Archives


Recent Entries

February 2008
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29  


Powered by
Movable Type 2.661