... In Hindsight ...

Which events throughout history were not good ideas in hindsight?

One example is the Gunpowder Plot with Guy Fawkes. Most know that Fawkes had intended to detonate TNT under the House of Lords. Obviously this plan did not come about as he got captured.

It was not a good idea in hindsight for the reason that he would not have only blown up the House of Lords, but most of London as well. This video documents the effect that five pounds of TNT has with a car. How much was involved in the Plot? 1800 pounds.

Can you imagine the carnage had they succeeded?

So, what other events can people think of?

brianthebard

They did a reinactment of the gunpowder plot on the Beeb a few years ago, and it wouldn't have blown up half of london I'm afraid.

elpresdentde

in the 60s during the cultural revolution in china mao decided to rid the country of the so called 4 pest rats, sparrows, flies, and mosquitoes—and on schistosoma-carrying snails. To attain the aim of the elimination of the four pests, everybody was mobilized. Contests were held among enterprises, government agencies and schools in cleanliness. Non-material rewards were given to those who handed in the largest numer of tails of rats, or dead flies and mosquitoes, or dead sparrows. As the movement became something of a sport, children turned out to be a group that jumped at the excitement of these activities and were eminently receptive to the calls for mobilization. Eyewitnesses recall from their youth how they would bang pots and pans so that sparrows would not have the chance to rest on tree branches and would fall dead from the sky from exhaustion.this got so bad that the that a large porportion of the sparrow population died and as a result the locoust swarms had a lot less predators and this resulted in destating crops and fairly largescale hunger in parts of china.it got so bad that the next year china asked the ussr for ten million sparrows in aid.

brianthebard

I think you could pretty much say any civil war was not a good thing in hindsight (perhaps even most people knew it at the time).

ojewriej

TNT wasn't invented until 19th century.

Native Indians being nice and friendly to to the Europeans when they started visiting in the 16th century - that was a pretty bad idea.

FiSe

Back to spiders... DDT was good idea as well:

DDT was originally used during World War II to control typhus which was spread by the body louse. Since then it has been used to control mosquito borne malaria, and was used extensively as a general agricultural insecticide.
Initially DDT was spectacularly successful particularly in the control of malaria, as well as against agricultural pests. But by the 1950s, resistance problems had developed, and during the 1960s, a number of serious environmental problems were identified leading to wide-ranging restrictions on its use.
In recent years numerous studies on DDT have shown its environmental persistence and its ability to bioaccumulate, especially in higher animals. Of particular concern is its potential to mimic hormones and thereby disrupt endocrine systems in wildlife and possibly humans



taken from:
http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/actives/ddt.htm

elpresdentde

bringing canetoads and rabbits down under:)

turgon

Well one prickly one is Operation Barbarossa! Hitler should have focused on Britain and then dealt with the dirty smelly communists. Not that I'm for Hitler. Im just saying from his perspective it was a disaster getting trounced!

guinnessdrinker

The Americans going into Vietnam and completly underestimating the determination of their opposition.

Riddle101

-The Battle of Gallipoli which was thought up by Winston Churchill, the man had no idea how to fight a battle yet he somehow became Prime Minister in WWII.

-The Exectutions of the 1916 Risers

-Vietnam- I'm happy to see that America lost that war as they did nothing good in that war

-Britain and France not trying to stop Hitler ealier on before he became stong

Shutuplaura

Hmm..... I'd say World War 1 in general. Seems like a good idea but didn't really pan out like anyone intended.
Apart from that, Cambodians supporting the Khmer Rouge in the early 1970's. Again, a great idea at the time but in hindsight not that good at all.

Kaiser_Sma

Permit me to go back earlier...
The british king/tyrant Vortigern extending an invitation to the saxons to help them fight off the barbarian picts...woopsy

elpresdentde

turgon wrote: »

Well one prickly one is Operation Barbarossa! Hitler should have focused on Britain and then dealt with the dirty smelly communists. Not that I'm for Hitler. Im just saying from his perspective it was a disaster getting trounced!

it way never likely that he would have able to conquer britian . bend it to his will yes but conquer no its 2 compact a country the brits could always rush enough troops into one area. people would say then say why did d day work well all the troops were over the whole of Europe

guinnessdrinker

Got two Irish ones:

A massive mistake in hindsight has to be Diarmaid MacMurrough's little trip accross the pond, his way of dealing with a relatively short term problem caused more problems than anyone could have imagined but obvioulsy must seemed like a good idea at the time.

And a more recent one:

The British government's disasterous policy of internment without trial from 1971 to 1975. Talk about pouring fire onto the flames. Again, must have seemed like a quick solution to a current problem but they managed to turn a whole community against them and once again acted like a recruiting sergent for the IRA. Not to mention being bought to the European Court of Human Rights by Ireland for their treatment of some of the internees.

Great thread btw.

PDN

It's a warm Summer's evening in Braunau-am-Inn, Austria in 1888. Alois, a customs officer, arrives home from the pub.

Alois: How about an early night?

Klara: Sorry, dear, I've got a head ache.

Alois: But it's been three weeks!

Klara: Ah, go on then.

Probably seemed like a good idea at the time to Mr and Mrs Hitler.

FiSe

Yep, their name lives forever

stek

That numpty in Longford who bought his niece a couple of Grey Squirrels to play with!

Recreating the Jewish state in 1948 and allowing it to expand into neighbouring countries, with the support of the US.

McArmalite

PDN wrote: »

It's a warm Summer's evening in Braunau-am-Inn, Austria in 1888. Alois, a customs officer, arrives home from the pub.

Alois: How about an early night?

Klara: Sorry, dear, I've got a head ache.

Alois: But it's been three weeks!

Klara: Ah, go on then.

Probably seemed like a good idea at the time to Mr and Mrs Hitler.

:D Nice one PDN.

Deleted User wrote: »

Recreating the Jewish state in 1948 and allowing it to expand into neighbouring countries, with the support of the US.

Very, very true.

Manic Moran

As Monty said.. "Rule 1 on Page 1 on the Book of War is "Do not march on Moscow"

I think people have started to figure that out by now.

1,800lbs of gunpowder isn't a whole hell of a lot. An F/A-18 Hornet can haul five M84 2,000lb bombs, each of which has 950lb of modern explosives. A single Hornet is not going to blow up most of London, not even London of the era.

NTM

Belfast

The welfare state and Keynesism.

Pride Fighter

The Sicily expedition by the Athenians during the Peloponnesian war.
If the Sassanid Persians and Eastern Roman empire did not kick the sh1t out of each other in the 7th Century they would have been able to defeat the rise of an Islamic empire.
Daimler Benz and Ford owning the patent rights for hydrogen fuel cell cars and as a result we are heading for an economic catastrophe due to our dependence on oil.

Red Hand

boneyarsebogman wrote: »

Which events throughout history were not good ideas in hindsight?

One example is the Gunpowder Plot with Guy Fawkes. Most know that Fawkes had intended to detonate TNT under the House of Lords. Obviously this plan did not come about as he got captured.

It was not a good idea in hindsight for the reason that he would not have only blown up the House of Lords, but most of London as well. This video documents the effect that five pounds of TNT has with a car. How much was involved in the Plot? 1800 pounds.

Can you imagine the carnage had they succeeded?

So, what other events can people think of?

TNT wasn't used, in fact I think it was Alfred Noble in the late 19th centuary that invented dynamite. 1800 pounds of gunpowder...sure do be in the vicinity when it goes off, but it won't blow up most of London.

I don't think that 1800 pounds of modern high explosive wouldn't blow up Elizabethan London either.

kreuzberger

boneyarsebogman wrote: »

Which events throughout history were not good ideas in hindsight?

One example is the Gunpowder Plot with Guy Fawkes. Most know that Fawkes had intended to detonate TNT under the House of Lords. Obviously this plan did not come about as he got captured.

It was not a good idea in hindsight for the reason that he would not have only blown up the House of Lords, but most of London as well. This video documents the effect that five pounds of TNT has with a car. How much was involved in the Plot? 1800 pounds.

Can you imagine the carnage had they succeeded?

So, what other events can people think of?

Guy Fawkes didnt have TNT , which wasnt invented until centuries later . He was using black powder which is much less powerful. Furthermore the charge was placed underground in a stone chamber which would have ensured the only casualties would have been those in the building above . It was a geat idea that unfortunately didnt come off .

Napoleon concentrating his military expedition on Egypt as opposed to landing and creating a republic in Ireland was recognised by him as a major mistake in hindsight . Disastrous mistake . He concentrated upon gathering the artefacts of empire as opposed to building the strategic structure French European dominance required . Utter stupidity and the result of someone losing the plot completely .

For Hitler a key mistake was permitting the British Expiditionary Force evacuate from Dunkirk . Panzer regiments were ready and waiting to roll onto the beaches with full air support but he ordered them to hold back . Had he taken out their army which was a sitting duck and there for the plucking Britian would immediately have sued for peace . The Germans could have walked up whitehall with not a shot fired . The soldiers on the beaches didnt even possess even half ways effective anti tank weapons , would have been a turkey shoot like the road out of Kuwait in Gulf one .

Betamax Video

Clive Sinclairs Sinclair CV

The Fenians impatience with John Hollands new fangled underwater boat known as a submarine , and their trying to sail it without knowing how to properly resulting in it sinking when they didnt want it to sink.

kreuzberger

elpresdentde wrote: »

it way never likely that he would have able to conquer britian . bend it to his will yes but conquer no its 2 compact a country the brits could always rush enough troops into one area. people would say then say why did d day work well all the troops were over the whole of Europe

had he taken care of them at Dunkirk there would have ben no troops to rush anywhere . Its also likely had he landed in England the ruling class would have followed suit with the rest of europe and opted to collaborate fully .

kreuzberger

kreuzberger wrote: »

had he taken care of them at Dunkirk there would have ben no troops to rush anywhere . Its also likely had he landed in England the ruling class would have followed suit with the rest of europe and opted to collaborate fully .

They had to cross the English channel first, something they attempted and failed.

Red Hand

kreuzberger wrote: »

Napoleon concentrating his military expedition on Egypt as opposed to landing and creating a republic in Ireland was recognised by him as a major mistake in hindsight . Disastrous mistake . He concentrated upon gathering the artefacts of empire as opposed to building the strategic structure French European dominance required . Utter stupidity and the result of someone losing the plot completely.

Well, not necessarily. I thought that the whole reason of the French being in Egypt was so that they could build a canal to the Red Sea, and control the routes to India and Asia. In my opinion that is somewhat strategic, no? Plus, the Egyptian debacle was circa 1796/1797 or so, and before Napolean crowned himself Emperor?

Fratton Fred

kreuzberger wrote: »

Napoleon concentrating his military expedition on Egypt as opposed to landing and creating a republic in Ireland was recognised by him as a major mistake in hindsight . Disastrous mistake . He concentrated upon gathering the artefacts of empire as opposed to building the strategic structure French European dominance required . Utter stupidity and the result of someone losing the plot completely .

For Hitler a key mistake was permitting the British Expiditionary Force evacuate from Dunkirk . Panzer regiments were ready and waiting to roll onto the beaches with full air support but he ordered them to hold back . Had he taken out their army which was a sitting duck and there for the plucking Britian would immediately have sued for peace . The Germans could have walked up whitehall with not a shot fired . The soldiers on the beaches didnt even possess even half ways effective anti tank weapons , would have been a turkey shoot like the road out of Kuwait in Gulf one .

You seem to forget that Britain is an Island. those troops evacuated from Dunkirk didn't stop Hitler invading, it was the RAF and the Royal Navy. Oh and although the troops on the ground didn't have anti tank weapons, the Germans were in range of the guns of the RN which would be more than capable of damaging a few tanks.

The same applies to Napoleon setting up a bas in Ireland. How was he going to gt here? at the time, the Royal Navy was busy blockading he French Fleet, or defeating it. You may have noticed one or two strategic defences around Ireland as well, such as the Martello towers or Duncannon Fort.

As for Guy Fawkes, if the plot had been succesfull, it would have only added more oil to the anti catholic fire, so it was a mistake either way.