@@jdr617 yeah but some decisions put on the list were super idiotic as in super American-centric, they changed some events in the last few years but not (at least not on their own) the overall balance of power in the world - bay of pigs, Vietnam, Iraq war, Iran intervention.. if you look on a few hundred years from now, will they have significantly changed the course of history? some defeats indeed speed up the timeline of rise or decline of a superpower but they may not cause it in themselves (Iraq might have shifted things the most of the 4 I mentioned but isn't even as impactful as e.g. the US isolationist policy after WW1, non-ratification and withdrawal from League of Nations and 14 point plan)
More like the only 20 things the Mojo writers remembered from high school. Mojo is a clickbait channel. Why are you giving them your time? Unless you want someone easy to rant at.
WatchMojo isn't really doing justice to the thousands of costly mistakes in history because rather than produce their own historical documentaries, they edit together clips from ACTUAL documentaries. WatchMojo's scope of Human History is limited to what documentaries have been produced that they've been able to take clips from.
WatchMojo is pretty much entirely based around the idea of "I just found this out, I have to tell someone." It seems like all their lists are written by someone while the credits of a documentary are still rolling in the background. No-one's going to WatchMojo for expert insight into super obscure events from 1353 but still, it's like they are just an aggregator for the top Netflix documentaries of the week.
I’m surprised VTH never contested WatchMojo for them mentioning Pearl Harbor and Operation Barbarossa. When it comes to the World War II “mistakes” many videos explain that Operation Barbarossa was the best decision the Germans could’ve done as both nations were thinking of invading each other at some point, the Austrian painter scheduled his invasion earlier due to Germany’s need for oil as despite Romania being Germany’s best friend in Europe, they still aren’t able to produce enough oil in order for them to be comfortable against the USSR so knocking them out right now is the go to option. The fact that the Soviets also humiliated themselves in the Winter War against Finland makes it more convincing as well. When it comes to Pearl Harbor, the problem was how the attack went for Japan, not that they attacked it in the first place, during the attack most of the important ships the United States had was doing a drill at the time. In addition, the Japanese weren’t able to destroy important structures such as the naval repair yards and the fuel storage tanks meaning that the damaged the United States experienced on the 7th would be heal itself much faster than it could’ve. TIKHistory made a really good video on why Germany lost World War II. Military History Visualized made a good video on why Japan would lose no matter what they did.
@@burnypython8230I can agree with you on Barbarossa. But the Attack on Pearl Harbor is where I draw the line. Japan had no way of winning a war against the US. Even if the Carriers were in harbor and the docking facilities were hit. It would be catastrophic for sure. However Japan’s whole strategy revolved around causing so much bloodshed and surprise that the Americans would either bend the knee outright or be so crippled that the Japanese would be able to make such a strong foothold in the Pacific that the Americans would find it too costly to fight. The Pearl Harbor attacks did not shock the Americans into a submissive stance. If anything it enraged them enough that they were willing to defeat the Japs whatever the cost. Japan also did not have the resources of the US. Japan is an island nation with few natural resources so much so they were reliant on conquering other lands to get those resources. America did not have that problem and once America switched into War Time mode there was no stopping them. The US could churn out ships, planes and tanks (far superior tanks might I add. Japanese tanks were garbage due to prioritization on the Navy. Even the M3 Lee which was outdated in Europe by 1942 was still very much deadly in the pacific.) far faster than the Japanese. Once the US gets going they would simply out produce the Japanese and overwhelm them. Even if the whole US Pacific fleet Aircraft Carriers were wiped out the US could simply build them back in a Year once they are up and running. The Japanese Strategy of fighting the Americans was flawed from the start. More success at Pearl would certainly make the Pacific front longer and more bloody. The Japanese might even be able to take Hawaii. But they would be fighting a losing battle.
@@mike04574 They could have used still pictures and included actual meaningful decisions. Plenty of places to get still pictures. This list is absolute trash. Especially the Ukraine war.
Chris! I’ve been watching your channel for several years now and I just guessed a point you were going to make before you said it! I’m weirdly proud of myself!
In 1995, we (my family and I) drove from the Presidio of Monterey to Boise. We had some snacks, including a bag of potato chips, which had been packed at sea level. Before reaching the summit of Donner Pass, the changing air pressure caused the bag to explode. A very high elevation.
How about China, adopting isolationism, in the 14th hundreds, when their technology where ahead of most other Countries. Their Fleet reaching Africa before the European. But then they stopped investing in treasure fleets, and even declared sailing from the Chinese coast in a multi-masted ship a capital offense. Imagine how the World could have looked if they have continued to explore and make trade routes.
Hell they probably would’ve engaged quite a bit in imperialism later and started colonizing much of the world. Lots more places would be speaking mandarin I imagine
Hell they probably would’ve engaged quite a bit in imperialism later and started colonizing much of the world. Lots more places would be speaking mandarin I imagine
Romanian here, i remember learning about China and asia in the 7th grade i believe, in world history, and we did cover China's struggles with the European Empires in 1800s, the boxer Rebbelion, WW1, WW2, it's civil war and the communist Era (with both the Long March and The Great Leap Forward) up to the 1990s(and yes we also covered the Tianamen Square masacre, but it was only a side note). We also covered other asian countries such as Japan, the struggles of Vietnam and Korea, but not in great detail, and part of it was through the perspective of the Impact of European Colonial Empires had in that part of the world. I don't know if it is still covered today, BUT BACK IN MY DAY it was covered. Not in much detail, but it was covered
I'd LOVE to hear what are your Top 10 or Top 20 worst mistakes in history. What I think could be labeled as a huge mistake: Alexanders neglect of having a successor. However, since he died very young, the war among his macedonian generals may have been inevitable. Even if he would have appointed a successor in his last weeks, it would have probably not changed a lot. I am curious what you guys think about this topic. In general, I think it is extremly difficult to make such a list - because in essence you need to know ALL of history. One may know a huge lot about the antics, about Greece, about Rome, maybe know a lot about the Middle Ages and the Renaissance as well. But what about e.g. Asia? That's why I guess such a list will always be very controversial and difficult. Still, I'd be very interested in your ranking :)
I did a university paper about how the treaty of Versailles didn't cause ww1, i explained how tye effects of the treaty were basically negated by 25 and i also compared it to other treaties signed at the same time which were worse in a lot of cases. I managed to convince my professor of my opinion
Also, the British werent well armed. Because the Spanish Armada was the biggest the world had seen at the time. But that dealt alot with size and armament. The british werent better armed than the spanish but had more maneuverable ships which gave them the ultimate advantage
I grew up in Northern California and my family went skiing most years when I was a kid so I’ve driven through the donner pass more times than I can count. I’ve been stuck in a couple bad storms there as a result and let me tell you, even in a CAR it is absolutely terrifying. I’ve thought a lot about how insane I think those people were for braving that. I can’t even imagine how terrifying it was for them but top 20 in history? Absolutely not.
I think another reason why the Aztec decision to invite cortez was not one of the worst decisions, is that disease would have destroyed the empire anyway. Sooner or later, the Autec empire would have crumbled anyway.
I hate recency bias. It’s just because it’s in the moment, but just wait till something really huge happens then we will get a big picture of a really bad decision.
I would also add one that could arguably be here the mongol invasions of Japan in 1274 and 1281. It was a very risky and very costly campaign and by sheer bad luck due to 2 typhoons this basically saved japan. These failures showed that the mongolian empire was no longer invincible 2/3 of the army that was sent to invade japan was destroyed, most of the chinese and korean fleets were also destroyed which then lead to more division and weakened the empires image and political position internally and externally in a massive way. This campaign was definately one of the major threads on the tapestry that unraveled the mongolian empire because because in less than 100 years later the empire was gone.
Chris, please address the error of Custer’s rank. He was NOT a general at Little Big Horn. His commission as a Major General expired in 1866. At the time of his death he was a Lieutenant Colonel.
I can't believe the donner party made it on the list, but the Scottish attempt to found a colony in Panama. They spent 25% of their countries entire wealth of the time, and thought they would be trading wool in the tropics with the natives. It led to the Scottish/English union to cover the resulting debts when the venture failed.
Glaring omission: Alexander opting not to name an heir on his deathbed… I think you can make an argument that the history of Europe, Africa, and Asia plays out entirely differently if he does.
I am unsure how to phrase it, but I think the decision of Publius Quinctilius Varus to take the route he did or to trust Arminius would be in my Top 20 for sure. It resulted in the Battle of Teutoborg Forest, stopped the roman conquest of Germania for centuries and maybe those of Augustus in general. I am wondering whether this could have at least delayed (probably not stop, the disastrous emperors would still have done their thing) the fall of the western roman empire due to at least some of the tribes that migrated and invaded the western roman empire being actually part of one of the empires. But there is a few hundred years of history in between which I don't know much about. Would be interested to hear of someone more knowledgable than me about this.
To anyone wondering the same, I just found a very interesting video called "What if rome conquered Germania?" made by Monsieur Z, dealing with points like "What if the disaster of Teutoburg Forest didn't happen"
Would you ever do any more of those 'fascinating photos from history you may not have seen' videos, I loved the ones you did last year. It seems like a subject you could find almost endless examples of.
To the fourth crusade - yes, yes it does. The Byzantines could still draw upon an army that could possibly take Anatolia eventually. The 'timeline' isn't a few years like WW2, but a few centuries. A lot can happen in that time, but when your capital has been sacked and conquered, and your empire fractured into factional claims to the empire, it's pretty certain what will happen.
I'm actually a bit surprised British Appeasement toward Nazi Germany wasn't on this list, but I guess you could argue that is more NOT doing something, which WatchMojo explicitly stated would not be eligible for this list. While we may deride Neville Chamberlain as a fool for his policy of Appeasement, at the time the policy had good logic to it: Buy time for the UK and France to build up their militaries to match, and then exceed, Germany's, then you can put the screws to Hitler in future negotiations. The issue was that, I suppose, Kristallnacht finally convinced British political leadership that Hitler had to be opposed at the next viable opportunity (meaning Poland), thus abandoning the policy of Appeasement before it could produce the results it was meant to. Had the UK and France not guaranteed Polish independence, how much longer could France have avoided the German hammer? Cause by the time 1941 would come around, Germany would probably not be able to beat the UK and France militarily (and even in 1940, Hitler got very lucky that French military leadership played right into his Ardennes gamble). There is a video by Old Britannia on TH-cam called "Flawed Realpolitik: Chamberlain and the Logic of Appeasement" that tries to present Appeasement as a valid strategy to deal with Hitler in the context of the time, and I think it would be a great video for you to react to Chris (your reaction would probably need to be split into two parts, though; it is a long and dense video), along with a bunch of Old Britannia's other videos.
Great post as always, Chris. Yeah, WatchMojo is in the same category as Looper and such. Very superficial content but worth a watch on occasion depending on the topic. Totally agree on the problem with "recency bias"...great term for it. The fact that you comment so eloquently on videos that you haven't pre-watched always amazes me.
Versailles also triggered the Great Depression. It caused a rolling bank failure from the former Austria Hungary that spread throughout Europe. Was it inevitable even if the German and Austrian banks hadn't been stripped of assets? That is very possible as well. But what Versailles did was make that chance of making it a smaller depression completely disappear.
Pharaoh’s refusal of Moses in Exodus unleashed the 10 plagues. I’d put that one up there. Refusing Hitler’s application to art school, the whole ‘football war’ thing. Not because of its effect but just due to the reasoning behind an armed conflict of nations being over a couple of football games.
Would add.....Operation Market Garden.....Charge of the Light Brigade......General Lee on the 3rd Day of Gettysburgh.....General Burnside at Fredericksburg.....Germany and the Battle of the Bulge.....etc.
Not the main theme of the video, but I’d say the biggest event in human history was the Ottomans taking Constantinople, which led the the European powers seeking alternative spice trade routes, and thus the European discovery of the new world, and everything that comes with that.
The issue with Iran was not only the removal of Mossadegh and the installment of the Shah - the real issue was the funding of Iraq to invade Iran to get rid of Khomeini. The after effects are still in full effect today.
I clicked on this video to see why you're facepalming on the thumbnail. 😂 My initial reaction to the original video was: "I don't know, some of these don't sound like they belong on this list." But I'm no history expert. Always enjoy the learning experiences.
People forget that Versailles also created the conditions for Germany to LOSE WW2. The limit of 100'000 on the armed forces, banning of conscription, forcing officers to serve long terms etc ensured there was no massive trained reservoir of reservists for Hitler. Whereas in the USSR availability of trained manpower (and trained is the key) was a major reason why they could endure the German onslaught, but the German army declined massively in quality as they had to draft in ever more replacements.
It's interesting that they spell Custer as Custar in that old newspaper. I wonder if it's because the spelling of names was not as standardized, or maybe they just made a mistake, which seems unlikely.
Churchill was responsible for trying to use the Royal Navy to force the Dardenelles to attack Constantinople, but was against landing infantry on Gallipoli and was on his way out when that was being planned. His did pursue the naval operation beyond reason, but amphibious operatiin was not his plan.
I saw this video late, but your comment about Custer made me think a bit more about the experiences of Civil War generals in the post-Civil War Era. I recently reread Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee, and was reminded the legacy of several Civil War generals are quite different when considered in the context of what happened in the years that followed. Sherman, Sheridan, and Winfield Scott Hancock were all involved in the subjugation of the Native Americans. I guess an argument could be made that Sherman and Sheridan were a least "successful" (in the sense that the accomplished what they wanted at a cost they found acceptable), if not morally admirable. Hancock pretty much made everything he was supposed to "fix" a lot worse. Obviously these were very different kinds of conflict, and the skills that made a leader successful in one of those conflicts did not necessarily prepare one for the other.
One decision that is potentially one of the most impactful was thorkell Ericsson’s( Leif ericssons brother) decision to attack Native Americans in North America. There was real potential for Norway to be a larger colonial power 500 years prior to the colonization of America. Instead, after winning the initial skirmish the native Americans returned in force and drive thorkell back to his ship where , as legend has it, a Native American arrow pinned him to the prow of his ship. The death toll was relatively small but Norway was the naval power of the time and if it had played its cards a little better it could’ve been the first major empire in North America instead Vinland was a small colony that wasn’t adequately supported to last
You don't honestly believe who attacked first would matter there right? What happened to Vinland would have been carried out by the natives regardless.
I feel like the harshness of the treaty of Versailles is overstated and overplayed. Treaties for losing sides of a war were harsh back then. Germany itself imposed a much harsher peace treaty on Russia. Austria-Hungary was dismantled with Hungary losing upwards of 60% of its population. And the Ottomans were carved up by the winners as well. Germany conceded some territory but was largely left intact after WWI. The conditions that brought about the rise of the Nazi were related to France's harsh demands on war debt repayments regardless of the fact Germany was ravaged by the great depression. UK and US were pushing for leniancy, but France was insistent. So France occupied the Rhineland. If France had been lenient, the Wiemar Republic might not have started printing money like mad in an effort to repay them. And hyper inflation broke Germany's back to the point that the Nazi's had a strong victimization narrative to work with.
Unsurprising since it's WatchMojo but crazy how in a list of 20 I can count the number that should actually be here on one hand and still have enough fingers left over to type this comment
The 1812 invasion of Russia was necessary, and if Napoleon would have listened his marshalls during the battle of the Moskova, he could have destroyed Kutusov's army. He could have sent the Garde impériale to give the coup de grace. The treaty of Versailles was a big mistake because it wasn't harsh enough. Even Foch said "it's not a peace, it's a twenty year armistice". The mistake was made mostly by the US
How about a pleasant stroll through Teutoberg forest with a giant kick me sign, or Harold's decision to attack Willy instead of resting his troops? Another that is an interesting question is Hitler keeping his focus on England's airfields for the entire battle of Britain? What would have happened if he neutralised England? Would he have had the strength to face down Uncle Joseph? Would the Yanks have joined or just dealt with Japan?
The only thing terrible about the Ukraine invasion for me is that it happened on 24.02. which happens to be my birthday. Number 1 is actually something you can put on Number 1.
I think Bay of Pigs in regard to Kennedy's history is overrated. It just made the Cubans more paranoid. What might of have been the "Worst Mistake." is that at the time the US had nuke tipped missiles in Turkey. Khruschev came to the US to meet with Kennedy, and he wanted him to remove the missiles and JFK refused to talk about it. What if he had? What if JFK agreed to remove the missiles with a promise from the Soviets not to put any nukes in the Western Hemisphere. Maybe the US and USSR would have gotten along better.
There are so many more mistakes in history that had an immense influence throughout the timeline. E.g., Crassus going against Parthia, Aurangzeb enraging the minorities of India, Tzar Nicholas II being... Tzar Nicholas II and many, many more.
Rush said it best in Freewill. “And if you choose not to decide you still have made a choice.” WW2 Honorable mentions: A Bridge too Far The British going soft on Hitler for years as he developed a massive arsenal. The French not going on the offensive as soon as the Sudetenland was invaded. If Hitler had an early loss, his mystique would have been blown.
WatchMojo's list seems pretty random and arbitrary, in addition to being very US-centric and Euro-centric and suffering from recency bias. It doesn't help that what defines a "mistake" is subjective.
Regarding your last question (would the world be better if Germany won WW1), this is in my humble opinion the most fascinating question about alternate history at our time, with "what if the catholics won the 30 years war (btw.: 2nd definestration of Prague, basically with a church being closed as trigger has to be in the top 10) being a close second. But back to the question: The first factor is how does Germany win? Does the US never support the entente that actively due to Germany never starting unrestricted submarine warfare, Germany and A-H make the best out of the 12th battle of Isonzo (they just didn't cross the river piave due to miscommunication; if they marched forward, they would have thrown Italy out of the war before France and UK could safe them)? This would mean that the war stays mostly the same, we have an at least 3 years long war of attricion, but with the other side winning. Or does Germany perform the Schlieffen Plan slightly better, takes Paris again, and France capitulates quickly again? Because those two different paths give out completely different situations, not only for Germany, but even more important for Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman empire. If the latter happens, Austria Hungary would just see slight reforms, but would continue to exist at least for some decades. The Ottoman empire, most likely never being part of the war would continue to crumble and at some point fall apart (which could in that case be the ignition for another World war. Germany would be contempt with some French colonies and a white peace with the UK, while Russia, standing alone would relatively quickly capitulate and lose relatively little of their land. In all likelyhood, there also would not be a communist revolution in Russia, as the reds could only rise to power with support from a desperate Germany. France would not be happy, but being beaten badly by Germany and allies for the 3rd time in around 100 years, they would most likely seek more dialogue. Now the first (more fascinating) scenario. France and the UK crumble through mutinies and capitulate in 1917 or 1918. Germany would take the French colonies and most likely some British ones too to form Mittelafrika. They would also want some reparations, albeit by far more reasonable than what they got dictated by the entente. Austria Hungary would want money plus maybe a piece of Italy (that they don't want land of Serbia was already decided before the declaration of war). The Ottomans would still fall apart, and I think it would result in a similar Turkey to what we have today. Now the victory of Germany paired with the national identity of hard work, the ressources from Mittelafrika and the reparations would result in a huge economic boom, while they would not demilitarize since this was also part of German identity. France and maybe UK would see a rise of either Communism or some sort of Fascism, maybe with their own versions of Holocaust and holodomor, but I don't see the French becoming strong enough to threaten Germany, while the Brits would most likely reallign with their long term ally prussia. Italy would most likely go the same path as in our timeline, but I don't see them confident enough to join France and attack Germany. Austria-Hungary would most likely go through some major reforms (as Karl suggested anyway) and would continue to live on in one form or the other. And the whole world would be way more conservative nowadays. And also to mention: There is no Sykes-Picot, there is most likely no Palestine protectorate and later Israel, etc., so the middle east would by any chance be far more peaceful. The US would remain more isolationist (maybe forever) and be an economic power in their own right, but not the dictator of world policy we see today. Europe today would most likely also be in some sort of trade Union, but without the ideological crusade. China would not be communist realisticly, so you can't really tell what happens to them without the great leap forward. Japan is impossible to tell.
A bad decision I would place on this list would be the Government of Carthage not fully supporting Hannibal Barca in his invasion of Rome. Essentially Hannibal fought Rome with his family's resources in modern day Spain, rather than drawing from the entire Carthaginian nation, and he still nearly brought Rome to it's knees.
Isn't that (paraphrasing) "never fight a land war in South East Asia," from the film, "The Princess Bride?" Specifically from the prologue to the poisoned cup game of wits…?
20) I agree that the Bay of Pigs was a mistake, but one of the 20 biggest mistakes in history? I disagree on that. 19) The Donner Party was a major mistake for the people that made the mistake. Was it that impactful overall? Not really. 18) Gallipoli was poorly executed, but it did divert manpower from Turkey. It is only on here because Churchill was involved. 17) Like the Donner Party, Little Bighorn was bad for the people involved, but once again, it wasn't an impactful event in the long run. 16) Napoleon invading Russia belongs here, though the mistake may have been more the timing of the attack rather than attacking in the first place. 15) I agree that this one was a bad one. It was basically the Soviet Union's Vietnam. You could put Carter's choice of the groups to back on here as well. He should have been more selective. 14) The defeat of the Spanish Armada was significant. Spain rules the seas before this. 13) The Fourth Crusade is one that I just don't know enough about to really say either way. 12) Once again, Chernobyl was bad for those that experienced it, but it was not hugely impactful. People were already afraid of nuclear energy after 3-mile island. Would you expect anything different from Time. That is the level of American journalism in this day and age. 11) Montezuma allowing in the Conquistadors only made the Spanish conquest easier. 10) Moa's great leap was a major failure, and a horrific event. I agree with Chris that Moa, and Stalin, don't get the criticism that they deserve. 9) Toppling the Ayatollah backed regime in Iran was a good thing. The mistake was made years later by Carter, when he put the Ayatollahs back in Charge. Iran did not have a Democracy. Mohammed Mosaddegh rose to power because the Ayatollahs killed the previous prime minister, he cancelled elections and suspended parliament. Iran was far better off under the Sha than it is today under the Ayatollahs. 8) Johnson's handling of Vietnam was a major mistake that had long standing repercussions on American foreign policy. 7) There is no way that Iraq was a bigger mistake than Vietnam. This is nothing more than recency bias. I would say that this one doesn't even belong in the top 20. 6) Austria-Hungary didn't "start" World War I, the Serbians did! Beyond that, had Russia not attacked Austria-Hungary, WWI doesn't happen, at least not at that point. This one should go to Russia and maybe Serbia, not Austria-Hungary. It should probably be higher on the list. 5) Russia invades Ukraine is another recentism pick. It can't be considered this big, especially top five. One could argue the mistake was the push to put Ukraine in NATO when it was well known it could lead to a Russian attack. 4) Japan attacking the U.S. belongs here, though FDR was trying to find a way into the war and actively backing the Allies. 3) Hitler invading Russia was a big mistake, but much like Napolean, it was as much timing. Both invasions started on the same day of the year: June 22nd. An earlier attack might have actually worked. 2) Angering Genghis Khan wasn't a smart thing to do. I'm no expert on Genghis Kahn though, so I really can't comment too much here. 1) I agree the Treaty of Versailles was the biggest mistake in history. Wilson really doesn't get the blame he deserves here. Lists like this is why I don't watch WatchMojo, they make bad lists.
Lincoln did not - and *could* not - micromanage the Civil War to the same extent that Lyndon Johnson did with Vietnam. That sort of detailed management simply was not possible prior to the advent of radio and telecommunications.
Versaille - I don't agree wit Mojo and you: 1. At the end Germany tried not to pay (before Hitler came to power, they paid only 1/3. This wasn't the reason. Also population of the Alliance demanded Germany to pay for starting the war. The reasons Germans felt cheated and created the myth of lost because of Jews and Communists, is shown in the last movie All Quiet on the Western Front: Germany high command didn't admit to Germans they lost, and they asked very quickly for armistice. Germans didn't understand this, becuase they thought they are winning: they have beaten Russia, and the Western Front was far away west: in France and Belgium.
For number 3, while Mr. German Mustache Man was always intending to invade the Soviets and defeat Russian Mustache Man, in the months/weeks before declaring war Russia had halted oil shipments to Germany. This invasion was their only hope of getting the oil they needed since Romania was already doing what it could and Italy had struggled with the African route to oil in the Middle East for ~the past year.
To be fair, he didn't always intend on invading the soviets, and he really wanted to avoid any large scale wars, but due to the hostile actions of the soviet union they believed that they were going to invade the Germans.
I agree that the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan by itself does not warrant to be on the list, but you could argue that it led to the rise of Taliban and Al Qaida, and thus to 9/11, and by extension the War on Terror and the War in Iraq.
My add to this list is Hitler declaring war on America, I get he was technically honor found by the Tripartite pact with his alliance with Japan to do so, but he could've easily avoided it and the Japanese would've been able to do little if anything to punish him for it, thus America is mostly committed into the pacific, and perhaps later on gets devoted to the European theatre, world war 2 would've still ended in Allied victory but perhaps as late as 1946 or 1947 with the soviets holding a much greater part of Europe but maybe a non communist China? who knows..
Yeah, this list is incredibly U.S and 20th century focused. How they haven't included the burning of the Library of Alexandria, yet have included Little Big Run and some travellers I've never heard of getting lost and dying (which happens literally every single day worldwide) is completely beyond me.
Which burning of the library of Alexandria do you mean? The first, second or the possible third and fourth? I mean the first was almost certainly a mistake, but the later burnings likely weren't mistakes and pretty much part of the goals.
Burning of the library of Alexandria is way over blown, not nearly as much information was lost as people think I’d recommend doing some research on it, I totally changed my opinion when I did.
@@blakenorton8360 I'd say that Genghis Khan's sacking of Baghdad and the library there was a much, much greater disaster, as not only were many of the texts saved from Alexandria housed there, but also many works of the Persian, Greek, Egyptian, and Roman nations.
yeah at the same time it’s been overblown. yeah sure it’s the worst unintentional nuclear disaster but gotta hand it to the Soviets, they cleaned up pretty well. nature always reclaims what’s hers 🤷♂️
@@charliewenthe4411 " nature always reclaims what’s hers " well, the area is still inhabitable, and will be possibly till the end of humanity at this pace :D
@@charliewenthe4411 Not really yes they avoided a complete tragedy, but still radioactive dust that managed to get out still is the reason why so many people in Europe are suffering from cancer or at least eastern Europe. Let's not forget that Soviets tried to igonre the entire thing and hid the evidence if not the fact that USA was able to fing out what heppened then it would become a complete disaster, so yeah if not the Americans Soviets would hid the entire thing and likely Cherynobl would end up being problem till now and it still is a minor problem even after Americans reacted.
The consequences for eastern Europe, as a result of the fracturing of the Roman Empire after the Fourth Crusade, were, I think, hugely significant - not to mention the consequences for the Turkish beyliks in Anatolia (or potential lack thereof). There could be so many, many other examples from other parts of the world that could easily rank far higher (in terms of consequences alone) than some of the US-centric examples here, as you say, Chris.
The division between 2 administration for the Roman Empire (West and East) was probably the thing that helped the empire survive another 1,000 years even after losing Europe. The definitive ending of the empire by the Ottomans was a world changing event, that's for sure.
@@KrafanioIt kept its presence in Europe during those 1000 years though. Plus he means the fracturing of the Byzantine Empire after 1204, not the division of Theodosius in 395.😉
The fracturing of the East Roman Empire was already ongoing before the Crusade. It may have cut off a few decades from the eventual duration, but it did not start or cause that.
@@alexlocatelli2876 Got it, although even after the fracture of the Roman "Byzantine" Empire around 1204 one of those "fractured groups" managed to regain the capital Nova Roma-Constantinople and prolong the life of the empire for almost another 300 years. The life of the Roman Empire in medieval times, (what many know as "Byzantine") was one of real struggle to survive. I guess everything in this world has to have a beginning and an end, makes you think about the current world powers and what their possible endings would look like.
He definitely has underestimated this, he’s not an expert in this area, believe he has underestimated the Byzantines a few times before. Considering how many times the Byzantine have bounced back before this the impacts of the Latin empire extended the instability
The crazy thing about Napoleon was he didn't have to invade Russia. He was bogged down in Spain and instead of focusing there...well you know. Also, it's hard to understate how big Napoleon's defeat was for the history of Russia and really the world. Europe would look very different most likely had Napoleon not been defeated so badly.
basically the same with Hitler. If he stays neutral with the USSR and focuses on the western front, he may have won the war (although there's still the option that the US then plays a bigger part defeating Germany. However, in this case the USSR is not a part of the equation and the cold war doesn't happen)
Yeah Germany was always racing against the clock in WW2. I think without the UUSR against them and the US out of the war directly, the allies would have sued for peace and Germany probably kept austria and half of poland and some other parts of central europe. I've heard Hitler invaded USSR because he was afraid USSR would do it first, which is not a crazy thought.@@Inferiis
The preemptive strike argument. One of the reasons why Hitler believed the conquest of the Soviet Union would be a walkover was the poor showing of the Red Army in the winter war with Finland, invaders have discovered that waging war on Russia hasn’t worked out well, when its been the other way around, it hasn’t worked out well for them.
Hitler was getting the oil he wanted from the Soviet Union before he invaded, imagine the Africa Corps having the manpower and recourses of the Barbarossa assault.
@@Inferiis Both are wrong. Both had little to no choice but to invade russia. Napoleon wanted to defeat the British. And he could not beat their navi. So the only he was able to do was to force main europe to trade with them. And Russia ignored that. If he would have done nothing other countries would have done the same. And with Nazi Germany, the extermination of Russian people was always a main goal. And they needed more Oil. While the Stalin gave Hitler Oil, it was not enough to fuel the whole war.
I agree -- and good post. This was really the last gasp of British and French imperialism. It was hopeless, disastrous and calamitous, and it really set the course for many of the conflicts in that region since then. The U.S. should have broken with the British and French over it, and by endorsing it, we shot ourselves in the foot for the following century. We have never been a neutral arbiter in that region, and casting our lot with the Franco-British takeover was the first mistake in a long chain of them.
@@johnalden5821 all true. I would say, though, that the last gasp of British and French imperialism was the Suez Crisis invasion of Egypt in 1956. The way that combined American and Soviet pressure managed to force them to back down really showed everyone that Britain and France were no longer the colonial superpowers they had once been. One can even reasonably argue that the event was critical for European integration and the development of the EU, as it forced Britain and France to make common cause to make sure they would remain relevant on the world stage.
I agree that it was stupid, but i honestly don't think they could have done something that didn't cause many conflicts. That area of the world just has too many different groups that hate each other and fight for the same land.
@@anderskorsback4104 France still maintains a sort of indirect colonial empire to this day. They never really gave that up. They operate using finance in place of brute force, but the empire is still there and France is taking in a lot of profit from it.
Yeah, Japan didn't invade Korea during World War II, 'cause they'd had control of it for decades already. And referring to the Mongol Khan as "Genghis" as if it's his first name,🙄.
About the Chernobyl disaster: I think you can make a fairly good case for this actually being a top 20 mistake because of the major hit to the reputation of nuclear energy that it caused. This led to a dramatic decrease in construction and research in the nuclear power sector which lead to most countries refocusing on fossile fuels instead. So a lot of the environmental and climate damage as well as many of the millions of lung and heart desease cases that were caused by fossile fuel co2/fine particle emissions can in fact be traced back to this disaster. Great video though. I always enjoy your perspective.
I should've done some scrolling first because I just made pretty much the same comment, Lol. Though I also did leave a recommendation for Kyle Hill's "Half-Life Histories" series too. If you haven't seen it before you absolutely should, it's fascinating stuff.
Could you also argue that the shift in focus to fossil fuels like oil probably had some influence in geopolitics? Oil and gas play a major role in the world.
@@vinylrecord1102 Possibly, but arguing that any particular conflict would not have happened without the Chernobyl disaster is probably very difficult. Most conflicts have a multitude of causes and oil would not have been completely worthless even with more nuclear power. So while it almost certainly made issues worse you can't blame it for any particular event.
I absolutely agree. Public opinion of nuclear energy took a massive hit after Chernobyl. Such a clean, abundant and efficient energy source was put on the backburner due to NIMBYism. But like he says, if it wasn't Chernobyl, another disaster would have had the same effect.
Not done with the vid yet, but I was going to post essentially the same comment. The directly countable deaths are bad, but, the damage that this did to nuclear power overall, and the impacts that had to the climate overall certainly put it on the top 20. Fukushima put the period on the argument, but without Chernobyl, Fukushima would be seen as not a big deal, as there wouldn't have been panicked evacuations that killed far too many people, compared to the zero people that have died to any radiation effects of the incident.
Turning off my alarm and telling myself, "just 5 more minutes," is undoubtedly one of the worst mistakes in history
Right up there with "just one more youtube video before I go to bed"
@@erickburnham4870 it's suddenly 4am and you got work at 8
The exact mistake I’ve repeatedly made this very night as it is 1:12am and I have to be up for work in a few hours XD
The invention of the snooze button.
Just slightly behind 'I do'. 😄
You should make a top 20 or their list of worst decisions in history. I’d love to see your list and hear why
Dude yes. I didn’t hear you mention one alternative after slamming their list
Except Lincoln
yes we would love that.
Yesss
@@jdr617 yeah but some decisions put on the list were super idiotic as in super American-centric, they changed some events in the last few years but not (at least not on their own) the overall balance of power in the world - bay of pigs, Vietnam, Iraq war, Iran intervention.. if you look on a few hundred years from now, will they have significantly changed the course of history? some defeats indeed speed up the timeline of rise or decline of a superpower but they may not cause it in themselves (Iraq might have shifted things the most of the 4 I mentioned but isn't even as impactful as e.g. the US isolationist policy after WW1, non-ratification and withdrawal from League of Nations and 14 point plan)
Videos like this from WatchMojo are "history for those who don't really want to learn history"
yeah watchmojo is known for trash lists
Its not just history
Its more like everything lol
Watchmojo sucks
I would slightly modify your excellent suggestion for WatchMojo's motto...they are "history for those who want to learn history wrong." 😁
Well it is a Canadian Channel so it doesn’t surprise me that their info on US history is incorrect. I don’t think they even learn about us.
More like the only 20 things the Mojo writers remembered from high school.
Mojo is a clickbait channel. Why are you giving them your time?
Unless you want someone easy to rant at.
WatchMojo isn't really doing justice to the thousands of costly mistakes in history because rather than produce their own historical documentaries, they edit together clips from ACTUAL documentaries.
WatchMojo's scope of Human History is limited to what documentaries have been produced that they've been able to take clips from.
WatchMojo is pretty much entirely based around the idea of "I just found this out, I have to tell someone."
It seems like all their lists are written by someone while the credits of a documentary are still rolling in the background. No-one's going to WatchMojo for expert insight into super obscure events from 1353 but still, it's like they are just an aggregator for the top Netflix documentaries of the week.
I’m surprised VTH never contested WatchMojo for them mentioning Pearl Harbor and Operation Barbarossa. When it comes to the World War II “mistakes” many videos explain that Operation Barbarossa was the best decision the Germans could’ve done as both nations were thinking of invading each other at some point, the Austrian painter scheduled his invasion earlier due to Germany’s need for oil as despite Romania being Germany’s best friend in Europe, they still aren’t able to produce enough oil in order for them to be comfortable against the USSR so knocking them out right now is the go to option. The fact that the Soviets also humiliated themselves in the Winter War against Finland makes it more convincing as well. When it comes to Pearl Harbor, the problem was how the attack went for Japan, not that they attacked it in the first place, during the attack most of the important ships the United States had was doing a drill at the time. In addition, the Japanese weren’t able to destroy important structures such as the naval repair yards and the fuel storage tanks meaning that the damaged the United States experienced on the 7th would be heal itself much faster than it could’ve. TIKHistory made a really good video on why Germany lost World War II. Military History Visualized made a good video on why Japan would lose no matter what they did.
dont most youtbuers use clips from actual documentaries?
@@burnypython8230I can agree with you on Barbarossa. But the Attack on Pearl Harbor is where I draw the line. Japan had no way of winning a war against the US. Even if the Carriers were in harbor and the docking facilities were hit. It would be catastrophic for sure. However Japan’s whole strategy revolved around causing so much bloodshed and surprise that the Americans would either bend the knee outright or be so crippled that the Japanese would be able to make such a strong foothold in the Pacific that the Americans would find it too costly to fight. The Pearl Harbor attacks did not shock the Americans into a submissive stance. If anything it enraged them enough that they were willing to defeat the Japs whatever the cost. Japan also did not have the resources of the US. Japan is an island nation with few natural resources so much so they were reliant on conquering other lands to get those resources. America did not have that problem and once America switched into War Time mode there was no stopping them. The US could churn out ships, planes and tanks (far superior tanks might I add. Japanese tanks were garbage due to prioritization on the Navy. Even the M3 Lee which was outdated in Europe by 1942 was still very much deadly in the pacific.) far faster than the Japanese. Once the US gets going they would simply out produce the Japanese and overwhelm them. Even if the whole US Pacific fleet Aircraft Carriers were wiped out the US could simply build them back in a Year once they are up and running. The Japanese Strategy of fighting the Americans was flawed from the start. More success at Pearl would certainly make the Pacific front longer and more bloody. The Japanese might even be able to take Hawaii. But they would be fighting a losing battle.
@@mike04574 They could have used still pictures and included actual meaningful decisions. Plenty of places to get still pictures. This list is absolute trash. Especially the Ukraine war.
WatchMojo. Pretty sure this is the dark place Simba's dad told us to never go...
This *NEEDS* to be pinned!!!!
Chris! I’ve been watching your channel for several years now and I just guessed a point you were going to make before you said it! I’m weirdly proud of myself!
Nice. Good job!
In 1995, we (my family and I) drove from the Presidio of Monterey to Boise. We had some snacks, including a bag of potato chips, which had been packed at sea level. Before reaching the summit of Donner Pass, the changing air pressure caused the bag to explode. A very high elevation.
Clearly, buying that bag of chips should be on the list. Maybe around number 17 or so.
@@trevorperkins4585I’d say 2 or 1
How about China, adopting isolationism, in the 14th hundreds, when their technology where ahead of most other Countries. Their Fleet reaching Africa before the European. But then they stopped investing in treasure fleets, and even declared sailing from the Chinese coast in a multi-masted ship a capital offense.
Imagine how the World could have looked if they have continued to explore and make trade routes.
Hell they probably would’ve engaged quite a bit in imperialism later and started colonizing much of the world. Lots more places would be speaking mandarin I imagine
Hell they probably would’ve engaged quite a bit in imperialism later and started colonizing much of the world. Lots more places would be speaking mandarin I imagine
Romanian here, i remember learning about China and asia in the 7th grade i believe, in world history, and we did cover China's struggles with the European Empires in 1800s, the boxer Rebbelion, WW1, WW2, it's civil war and the communist Era (with both the Long March and The Great Leap Forward) up to the 1990s(and yes we also covered the Tianamen Square masacre, but it was only a side note). We also covered other asian countries such as Japan, the struggles of Vietnam and Korea, but not in great detail, and part of it was through the perspective of the Impact of European Colonial Empires had in that part of the world. I don't know if it is still covered today, BUT BACK IN MY DAY it was covered. Not in much detail, but it was covered
I'd LOVE to hear what are your Top 10 or Top 20 worst mistakes in history.
What I think could be labeled as a huge mistake: Alexanders neglect of having a successor.
However, since he died very young, the war among his macedonian generals may have been inevitable. Even if he would have appointed a successor in his last weeks, it would have probably not changed a lot.
I am curious what you guys think about this topic.
In general, I think it is extremly difficult to make such a list - because in essence you need to know ALL of history.
One may know a huge lot about the antics, about Greece, about Rome, maybe know a lot about the Middle Ages and the Renaissance as well.
But what about e.g. Asia?
That's why I guess such a list will always be very controversial and difficult.
Still, I'd be very interested in your ranking :)
Even if you think it would be hard, you can’t deny that 40 travelers dying to the weather is not a top 20 in history
In the US civil war Jefferson Davis was more of a Micromanager than Lincoln
I did a university paper about how the treaty of Versailles didn't cause ww1, i explained how tye effects of the treaty were basically negated by 25 and i also compared it to other treaties signed at the same time which were worse in a lot of cases. I managed to convince my professor of my opinion
Also, the British werent well armed. Because the Spanish Armada was the biggest the world had seen at the time. But that dealt alot with size and armament. The british werent better armed than the spanish but had more maneuverable ships which gave them the ultimate advantage
I grew up in Northern California and my family went skiing most years when I was a kid so I’ve driven through the donner pass more times than I can count. I’ve been stuck in a couple bad storms there as a result and let me tell you, even in a CAR it is absolutely terrifying. I’ve thought a lot about how insane I think those people were for braving that. I can’t even imagine how terrifying it was for them but top 20 in history? Absolutely not.
10:45 Henry's rifle vs. the Trap-Door Springfield is the 1873 version of full-size vs. intermediate rifle calibers.
I think another reason why the Aztec decision to invite cortez was not one of the worst decisions, is that disease would have destroyed the empire anyway. Sooner or later, the Autec empire would have crumbled anyway.
I hate recency bias. It’s just because it’s in the moment, but just wait till something really huge happens then we will get a big picture of a really bad decision.
I would also add one that could arguably be here the mongol invasions of Japan in 1274 and 1281. It was a very risky and very costly campaign and by sheer bad luck due to 2 typhoons this basically saved japan. These failures showed that the mongolian empire was no longer invincible 2/3 of the army that was sent to invade japan was destroyed, most of the chinese and korean fleets were also destroyed which then lead to more division and weakened the empires image and political position internally and externally in a massive way. This campaign was definately one of the major threads on the tapestry that unraveled the mongolian empire because because in less than 100 years later the empire was gone.
Chris, please address the error of Custer’s rank. He was NOT a general at Little Big Horn. His commission as a Major General expired in 1866. At the time of his death he was a Lieutenant Colonel.
That always annoyed me.
I can't believe the donner party made it on the list, but the Scottish attempt to found a colony in Panama. They spent 25% of their countries entire wealth of the time, and thought they would be trading wool in the tropics with the natives. It led to the Scottish/English union to cover the resulting debts when the venture failed.
“Ahh a sick foreigner. Let us bring you back with us to heal you”
-Aztec healer to small pox sufferer
Glaring omission: Alexander opting not to name an heir on his deathbed… I think you can make an argument that the history of Europe, Africa, and Asia plays out entirely differently if he does.
I am unsure how to phrase it, but I think the decision of Publius Quinctilius Varus to take the route he did or to trust Arminius would be in my Top 20 for sure.
It resulted in the Battle of Teutoborg Forest, stopped the roman conquest of Germania for centuries and maybe those of Augustus in general. I am wondering whether this could have at least delayed (probably not stop, the disastrous emperors would still have done their thing) the fall of the western roman empire due to at least some of the tribes that migrated and invaded the western roman empire being actually part of one of the empires. But there is a few hundred years of history in between which I don't know much about. Would be interested to hear of someone more knowledgable than me about this.
To anyone wondering the same, I just found a very interesting video called "What if rome conquered Germania?" made by Monsieur Z, dealing with points like "What if the disaster of Teutoburg Forest didn't happen"
Maybe it should be called the most well known historical mistakes instead of the biggest mistakes.
"Twenty worst mistakes with a US only perspective"
Seeing them mention Tenochtitlan made me think: Maybe VHS could do reactions to the show Engineering An Empire?
Would you ever do any more of those 'fascinating photos from history you may not have seen' videos, I loved the ones you did last year. It seems like a subject you could find almost endless examples of.
To the fourth crusade - yes, yes it does. The Byzantines could still draw upon an army that could possibly take Anatolia eventually. The 'timeline' isn't a few years like WW2, but a few centuries. A lot can happen in that time, but when your capital has been sacked and conquered, and your empire fractured into factional claims to the empire, it's pretty certain what will happen.
I'm actually a bit surprised British Appeasement toward Nazi Germany wasn't on this list, but I guess you could argue that is more NOT doing something, which WatchMojo explicitly stated would not be eligible for this list.
While we may deride Neville Chamberlain as a fool for his policy of Appeasement, at the time the policy had good logic to it: Buy time for the UK and France to build up their militaries to match, and then exceed, Germany's, then you can put the screws to Hitler in future negotiations. The issue was that, I suppose, Kristallnacht finally convinced British political leadership that Hitler had to be opposed at the next viable opportunity (meaning Poland), thus abandoning the policy of Appeasement before it could produce the results it was meant to. Had the UK and France not guaranteed Polish independence, how much longer could France have avoided the German hammer? Cause by the time 1941 would come around, Germany would probably not be able to beat the UK and France militarily (and even in 1940, Hitler got very lucky that French military leadership played right into his Ardennes gamble).
There is a video by Old Britannia on TH-cam called "Flawed Realpolitik: Chamberlain and the Logic of Appeasement" that tries to present Appeasement as a valid strategy to deal with Hitler in the context of the time, and I think it would be a great video for you to react to Chris (your reaction would probably need to be split into two parts, though; it is a long and dense video), along with a bunch of Old Britannia's other videos.
Great post as always, Chris. Yeah, WatchMojo is in the same category as Looper and such. Very superficial content but worth a watch on occasion depending on the topic. Totally agree on the problem with "recency bias"...great term for it. The fact that you comment so eloquently on videos that you haven't pre-watched always amazes me.
Versailles also triggered the Great Depression. It caused a rolling bank failure from the former Austria Hungary that spread throughout Europe. Was it inevitable even if the German and Austrian banks hadn't been stripped of assets? That is very possible as well. But what Versailles did was make that chance of making it a smaller depression completely disappear.
How about the German government making Hitler their chancellor?
Chernobyl is one of the really bad decisions as you need to look not only on the death toll but the impact it had on moving away frum nuclear energy.
Catwoman , The Room , Inhumans, Fantastic Four 2015 and Howard the Duck
Pharaoh’s refusal of Moses in Exodus unleashed the 10 plagues. I’d put that one up there. Refusing Hitler’s application to art school, the whole ‘football war’ thing. Not because of its effect but just due to the reasoning behind an armed conflict of nations being over a couple of football games.
Would add.....Operation Market Garden.....Charge of the Light Brigade......General Lee on the 3rd Day of Gettysburgh.....General Burnside at Fredericksburg.....Germany and the Battle of the Bulge.....etc.
You honestly should make your own list lol would love to watch that
Not the main theme of the video, but I’d say the biggest event in human history was the Ottomans taking Constantinople, which led the the European powers seeking alternative spice trade routes, and thus the European discovery of the new world, and everything that comes with that.
Chris, thank you for emphasizing what happened in China during the Great Leap Forward
The issue with Iran was not only the removal of Mossadegh and the installment of the Shah - the real issue was the funding of Iraq to invade Iran to get rid of Khomeini. The after effects are still in full effect today.
I clicked on this video to see why you're facepalming on the thumbnail. 😂 My initial reaction to the original video was: "I don't know, some of these don't sound like they belong on this list." But I'm no history expert. Always enjoy the learning experiences.
Maybe it’s top 20 well know events. The amount of bad decisions throughout history is probably endless.
People forget that Versailles also created the conditions for Germany to LOSE WW2. The limit of 100'000 on the armed forces, banning of conscription, forcing officers to serve long terms etc ensured there was no massive trained reservoir of reservists for Hitler. Whereas in the USSR availability of trained manpower (and trained is the key) was a major reason why they could endure the German onslaught, but the German army declined massively in quality as they had to draft in ever more replacements.
It's interesting that they spell Custer as Custar in that old newspaper. I wonder if it's because the spelling of names was not as standardized, or maybe they just made a mistake, which seems unlikely.
Churchill was responsible for trying to use the Royal Navy to force the Dardenelles to attack Constantinople, but was against landing infantry on Gallipoli and was on his way out when that was being planned. His did pursue the naval operation beyond reason, but amphibious operatiin was not his plan.
My #1 worst decision in history: Eve listening to the serpent.
I love your reaction videos, love your channel. Great to have a fellow Christian history lover! God Bless!
I saw this video late, but your comment about Custer made me think a bit more about the experiences of Civil War generals in the post-Civil War Era. I recently reread Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee, and was reminded the legacy of several Civil War generals are quite different when considered in the context of what happened in the years that followed. Sherman, Sheridan, and Winfield Scott Hancock were all involved in the subjugation of the Native Americans. I guess an argument could be made that Sherman and Sheridan were a least "successful" (in the sense that the accomplished what they wanted at a cost they found acceptable), if not morally admirable. Hancock pretty much made everything he was supposed to "fix" a lot worse. Obviously these were very different kinds of conflict, and the skills that made a leader successful in one of those conflicts did not necessarily prepare one for the other.
One decision that is potentially one of the most impactful was thorkell Ericsson’s( Leif ericssons brother) decision to attack Native Americans in North America. There was real potential for Norway to be a larger colonial power 500 years prior to the colonization of America. Instead, after winning the initial skirmish the native Americans returned in force and drive thorkell back to his ship where , as legend has it, a Native American arrow pinned him to the prow of his ship. The death toll was relatively small but Norway was the naval power of the time and if it had played its cards a little better it could’ve been the first major empire in North America instead Vinland was a small colony that wasn’t adequately supported to last
You don't honestly believe who attacked first would matter there right? What happened to Vinland would have been carried out by the natives regardless.
One could make an argument for Hannibal refusing to march on Rome after Lake Trasimene being a top 20 worst decisiones ever.
I feel like the harshness of the treaty of Versailles is overstated and overplayed. Treaties for losing sides of a war were harsh back then. Germany itself imposed a much harsher peace treaty on Russia. Austria-Hungary was dismantled with Hungary losing upwards of 60% of its population. And the Ottomans were carved up by the winners as well. Germany conceded some territory but was largely left intact after WWI. The conditions that brought about the rise of the Nazi were related to France's harsh demands on war debt repayments regardless of the fact Germany was ravaged by the great depression. UK and US were pushing for leniancy, but France was insistent. So France occupied the Rhineland. If France had been lenient, the Wiemar Republic might not have started printing money like mad in an effort to repay them. And hyper inflation broke Germany's back to the point that the Nazi's had a strong victimization narrative to work with.
Ah yes, the donner party is top 20, but the suez crisis isnt even mentioned...
Now we need VTH's Top 20 Worst Mistakes in History.
Chris, it's Watch Mojo. We should have expected this.
Unsurprising since it's WatchMojo but crazy how in a list of 20 I can count the number that should actually be here on one hand and still have enough fingers left over to type this comment
I would recommend spectrums ranking of Roman emperors it’s really interesting and also fire of learning last words of every Roman emperor
#1 Switching director of the Hobbit movie from Guillermo del Toro to Peter Jackson.
The 1812 invasion of Russia was necessary, and if Napoleon would have listened his marshalls during the battle of the Moskova, he could have destroyed Kutusov's army. He could have sent the Garde impériale to give the coup de grace.
The treaty of Versailles was a big mistake because it wasn't harsh enough. Even Foch said "it's not a peace, it's a twenty year armistice". The mistake was made mostly by the US
McDonald’s elimination of the Snack wrap is Top 20
They needed five entries to get a good one. 20% accuracy. Eek!
See, it's a mistake to watch a WatchMojo video, you lose braincells every time you do, lol
this is gonna be good lmaoooo I got out of this sort of content about half a year ago but I cannot miss this one
How about a pleasant stroll through Teutoberg forest with a giant kick me sign, or Harold's decision to attack Willy instead of resting his troops?
Another that is an interesting question is Hitler keeping his focus on England's airfields for the entire battle of Britain?
What would have happened if he neutralised England?
Would he have had the strength to face down Uncle Joseph? Would the Yanks have joined or just dealt with Japan?
The only thing terrible about the Ukraine invasion for me is that it happened on 24.02. which happens to be my birthday.
Number 1 is actually something you can put on Number 1.
The death of the VCR….TRAGIC.
I think Bay of Pigs in regard to Kennedy's history is overrated. It just made the Cubans more paranoid.
What might of have been the "Worst Mistake." is that at the time the US had nuke tipped missiles in Turkey.
Khruschev came to the US to meet with Kennedy, and he wanted him to remove the missiles and JFK refused to talk about it.
What if he had? What if JFK agreed to remove the missiles with a promise from the Soviets not to put any nukes in the Western Hemisphere. Maybe the US and USSR would have gotten along better.
There are so many more mistakes in history that had an immense influence throughout the timeline. E.g., Crassus going against Parthia, Aurangzeb enraging the minorities of India, Tzar Nicholas II being... Tzar Nicholas II and many, many more.
I feel like you should make your own video of top 20 biggest mistakes in history
Absolutely stunned that Napoleon invading Russia isn’t top 5
I think the berlin conference should be on this list at least top 10.
Rush said it best in Freewill. “And if you choose not to decide you still have made a choice.”
WW2 Honorable mentions:
A Bridge too Far
The British going soft on Hitler for years as he developed a massive arsenal.
The French not going on the offensive as soon as the Sudetenland was invaded. If Hitler had an early loss, his mystique would have been blown.
Mr. Harris also plays a great Moriarty in Sherlock Holmes
WatchMojo's list seems pretty random and arbitrary, in addition to being very US-centric and Euro-centric and suffering from recency bias. It doesn't help that what defines a "mistake" is subjective.
That guy who decided to try and convince people he was the son of an all powerful super being.
31:40: Making John Travolta a commander in WW II is definitely a horrible idea.
Regarding your last question (would the world be better if Germany won WW1), this is in my humble opinion the most fascinating question about alternate history at our time, with "what if the catholics won the 30 years war (btw.: 2nd definestration of Prague, basically with a church being closed as trigger has to be in the top 10) being a close second.
But back to the question: The first factor is how does Germany win? Does the US never support the entente that actively due to Germany never starting unrestricted submarine warfare, Germany and A-H make the best out of the 12th battle of Isonzo (they just didn't cross the river piave due to miscommunication; if they marched forward, they would have thrown Italy out of the war before France and UK could safe them)? This would mean that the war stays mostly the same, we have an at least 3 years long war of attricion, but with the other side winning.
Or does Germany perform the Schlieffen Plan slightly better, takes Paris again, and France capitulates quickly again?
Because those two different paths give out completely different situations, not only for Germany, but even more important for Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman empire.
If the latter happens, Austria Hungary would just see slight reforms, but would continue to exist at least for some decades. The Ottoman empire, most likely never being part of the war would continue to crumble and at some point fall apart (which could in that case be the ignition for another World war. Germany would be contempt with some French colonies and a white peace with the UK, while Russia, standing alone would relatively quickly capitulate and lose relatively little of their land. In all likelyhood, there also would not be a communist revolution in Russia, as the reds could only rise to power with support from a desperate Germany. France would not be happy, but being beaten badly by Germany and allies for the 3rd time in around 100 years, they would most likely seek more dialogue.
Now the first (more fascinating) scenario. France and the UK crumble through mutinies and capitulate in 1917 or 1918. Germany would take the French colonies and most likely some British ones too to form Mittelafrika. They would also want some reparations, albeit by far more reasonable than what they got dictated by the entente. Austria Hungary would want money plus maybe a piece of Italy (that they don't want land of Serbia was already decided before the declaration of war). The Ottomans would still fall apart, and I think it would result in a similar Turkey to what we have today. Now the victory of Germany paired with the national identity of hard work, the ressources from Mittelafrika and the reparations would result in a huge economic boom, while they would not demilitarize since this was also part of German identity. France and maybe UK would see a rise of either Communism or some sort of Fascism, maybe with their own versions of Holocaust and holodomor, but I don't see the French becoming strong enough to threaten Germany, while the Brits would most likely reallign with their long term ally prussia. Italy would most likely go the same path as in our timeline, but I don't see them confident enough to join France and attack Germany. Austria-Hungary would most likely go through some major reforms (as Karl suggested anyway) and would continue to live on in one form or the other. And the whole world would be way more conservative nowadays. And also to mention: There is no Sykes-Picot, there is most likely no Palestine protectorate and later Israel, etc., so the middle east would by any chance be far more peaceful.
The US would remain more isolationist (maybe forever) and be an economic power in their own right, but not the dictator of world policy we see today.
Europe today would most likely also be in some sort of trade Union, but without the ideological crusade.
China would not be communist realisticly, so you can't really tell what happens to them without the great leap forward. Japan is impossible to tell.
I will say Chernobyl is pretty significant because it has affected America’s perception on nuclear power.
A bad decision I would place on this list would be the Government of Carthage not fully supporting Hannibal Barca in his invasion of Rome. Essentially Hannibal fought Rome with his family's resources in modern day Spain, rather than drawing from the entire Carthaginian nation, and he still nearly brought Rome to it's knees.
Isn't that (paraphrasing) "never fight a land war in South East Asia," from the film, "The Princess Bride?" Specifically from the prologue to the poisoned cup game of wits…?
20) I agree that the Bay of Pigs was a mistake, but one of the 20 biggest mistakes in history? I disagree on that.
19) The Donner Party was a major mistake for the people that made the mistake. Was it that impactful overall? Not really.
18) Gallipoli was poorly executed, but it did divert manpower from Turkey. It is only on here because Churchill was involved.
17) Like the Donner Party, Little Bighorn was bad for the people involved, but once again, it wasn't an impactful event in the long run.
16) Napoleon invading Russia belongs here, though the mistake may have been more the timing of the attack rather than attacking in the first place.
15) I agree that this one was a bad one. It was basically the Soviet Union's Vietnam. You could put Carter's choice of the groups to back on here as well. He should have been more selective.
14) The defeat of the Spanish Armada was significant. Spain rules the seas before this.
13) The Fourth Crusade is one that I just don't know enough about to really say either way.
12) Once again, Chernobyl was bad for those that experienced it, but it was not hugely impactful. People were already afraid of nuclear energy after 3-mile island. Would you expect anything different from Time. That is the level of American journalism in this day and age.
11) Montezuma allowing in the Conquistadors only made the Spanish conquest easier.
10) Moa's great leap was a major failure, and a horrific event. I agree with Chris that Moa, and Stalin, don't get the criticism that they deserve.
9) Toppling the Ayatollah backed regime in Iran was a good thing. The mistake was made years later by Carter, when he put the Ayatollahs back in Charge. Iran did not have a Democracy. Mohammed Mosaddegh rose to power because the Ayatollahs killed the previous prime minister, he cancelled elections and suspended parliament. Iran was far better off under the Sha than it is today under the Ayatollahs.
8) Johnson's handling of Vietnam was a major mistake that had long standing repercussions on American foreign policy.
7) There is no way that Iraq was a bigger mistake than Vietnam. This is nothing more than recency bias. I would say that this one doesn't even belong in the top 20.
6) Austria-Hungary didn't "start" World War I, the Serbians did! Beyond that, had Russia not attacked Austria-Hungary, WWI doesn't happen, at least not at that point. This one should go to Russia and maybe Serbia, not Austria-Hungary. It should probably be higher on the list.
5) Russia invades Ukraine is another recentism pick. It can't be considered this big, especially top five. One could argue the mistake was the push to put Ukraine in NATO when it was well known it could lead to a Russian attack.
4) Japan attacking the U.S. belongs here, though FDR was trying to find a way into the war and actively backing the Allies.
3) Hitler invading Russia was a big mistake, but much like Napolean, it was as much timing. Both invasions started on the same day of the year: June 22nd. An earlier attack might have actually worked.
2) Angering Genghis Khan wasn't a smart thing to do. I'm no expert on Genghis Kahn though, so I really can't comment too much here.
1) I agree the Treaty of Versailles was the biggest mistake in history. Wilson really doesn't get the blame he deserves here.
Lists like this is why I don't watch WatchMojo, they make bad lists.
Lincoln did not - and *could* not - micromanage the Civil War to the same extent that Lyndon Johnson did with Vietnam. That sort of detailed management simply was not possible prior to the advent of radio and telecommunications.
I don't think I ever agreed with a Watch Mojo list.
Is the problem with watch mojo Is that they tend to make a lot of stuff up, Or leave stuff completely out of context to make it fit a certain agenda.
Versaille - I don't agree wit Mojo and you:
1. At the end Germany tried not to pay (before Hitler came to power, they paid only 1/3. This wasn't the reason. Also population of the Alliance demanded Germany to pay for starting the war. The reasons Germans felt cheated and created the myth of lost because of Jews and Communists, is shown in the last movie All Quiet on the Western Front: Germany high command didn't admit to Germans they lost, and they asked very quickly for armistice. Germans didn't understand this, becuase they thought they are winning: they have beaten Russia, and the Western Front was far away west: in France and Belgium.
For number 3, while Mr. German Mustache Man was always intending to invade the Soviets and defeat Russian Mustache Man, in the months/weeks before declaring war Russia had halted oil shipments to Germany. This invasion was their only hope of getting the oil they needed since Romania was already doing what it could and Italy had struggled with the African route to oil in the Middle East for ~the past year.
To be fair, he didn't always intend on invading the soviets, and he really wanted to avoid any large scale wars, but due to the hostile actions of the soviet union they believed that they were going to invade the Germans.
I agree that the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan by itself does not warrant to be on the list, but you could argue that it led to the rise of Taliban and Al Qaida, and thus to 9/11, and by extension the War on Terror and the War in Iraq.
My add to this list is Hitler declaring war on America, I get he was technically honor found by the Tripartite pact with his alliance with Japan to do so, but he could've easily avoided it and the Japanese would've been able to do little if anything to punish him for it, thus America is mostly committed into the pacific, and perhaps later on gets devoted to the European theatre, world war 2 would've still ended in Allied victory but perhaps as late as 1946 or 1947 with the soviets holding a much greater part of Europe but maybe a non communist China? who knows..
Chernobyl damaged the reputation of nuclear energy. That's a long lasting impact.
Watch mojo deciding to make historical content is one of the Top 20 worst mistakes in history
aloha
Number One: “In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.”
Terry Pratchett right? Great author
@@joshuacampbell1625 Douglas Adams. Hitchhiker's Guide. Relatively similar styles though.
@@brianhall4182 yeah think I had a Mandela effect moment lol.
But hey, at least the big bang burger bar is nice, isn't it?
@@joshuacampbell1625 GNU Pterry.
Pete Carrol calling a passing play in the Super Bowl has to be up there
I hate that you remind me of this.
So bad.
As a Seahawks fan, you killed me.
“Oh no!!” Throws headset 😂
I’d put that top 3 without a doubt
I'm so sorry but watching Chris's face during number 19 just had me DEAD, this man was dying inside LMFAO
It’s so apparent 🤣🤣🤣
19th: 40 deaths
18th: 500,000 deaths
That escalated quickly 😂
And then his face at the end when seeing Wilson :)
Pure disgust lmao 🤣
Makes for good stories to scare kids, but ultimately had no effect whatsoever for the history of the U.S.
The worst decision in history has to be Franz Ferdinand's driver making a wrong turn 😂😂
If watch mojo said that I would have absolutely pissed myself 😂
Alternatively you could also say that chosing a driving who isn't familiar with Sarajevo was a bad choice, given the rising tensions with nationalists
Yeah, this list is incredibly U.S and 20th century focused. How they haven't included the burning of the Library of Alexandria, yet have included Little Big Run and some travellers I've never heard of getting lost and dying (which happens literally every single day worldwide) is completely beyond me.
Classic WatchMojo...
Which burning of the library of Alexandria do you mean? The first, second or the possible third and fourth? I mean the first was almost certainly a mistake, but the later burnings likely weren't mistakes and pretty much part of the goals.
I mean as far as I recall the burning of the library of Alexandria was probably just an accident.
Burning of the library of Alexandria is way over blown, not nearly as much information was lost as people think I’d recommend doing some research on it, I totally changed my opinion when I did.
@@blakenorton8360 I'd say that Genghis Khan's sacking of Baghdad and the library there was a much, much greater disaster, as not only were many of the texts saved from Alexandria housed there, but also many works of the Persian, Greek, Egyptian, and Roman nations.
Also can we talk about the irony that Cherynobl was literally doing a SAFETY TEST when the worst ever nuclear meltdown happened
yeah at the same time it’s been overblown. yeah sure it’s the worst unintentional nuclear disaster but gotta hand it to the Soviets, they cleaned up pretty well. nature always reclaims what’s hers 🤷♂️
@@charliewenthe4411 " nature always reclaims what’s hers " well, the area is still inhabitable, and will be possibly till the end of humanity at this pace :D
@@charliewenthe4411 Not really yes they avoided a complete tragedy, but still radioactive dust that managed to get out still is the reason why so many people in Europe are suffering from cancer or at least eastern Europe. Let's not forget that Soviets tried to igonre the entire thing and hid the evidence if not the fact that USA was able to fing out what heppened then it would become a complete disaster, so yeah if not the Americans Soviets would hid the entire thing and likely Cherynobl would end up being problem till now and it still is a minor problem even after Americans reacted.
The consequences for eastern Europe, as a result of the fracturing of the Roman Empire after the Fourth Crusade, were, I think, hugely significant - not to mention the consequences for the Turkish beyliks in Anatolia (or potential lack thereof). There could be so many, many other examples from other parts of the world that could easily rank far higher (in terms of consequences alone) than some of the US-centric examples here, as you say, Chris.
The division between 2 administration for the Roman Empire (West and East) was probably the thing that helped the empire survive another 1,000 years even after losing Europe.
The definitive ending of the empire by the Ottomans was a world changing event, that's for sure.
@@KrafanioIt kept its presence in Europe during those 1000 years though. Plus he means the fracturing of the Byzantine Empire after 1204, not the division of Theodosius in 395.😉
The fracturing of the East Roman Empire was already ongoing before the Crusade. It may have cut off a few decades from the eventual duration, but it did not start or cause that.
@@alexlocatelli2876 Got it, although even after the fracture of the Roman "Byzantine" Empire around 1204 one of those "fractured groups" managed to regain the capital Nova Roma-Constantinople and prolong the life of the empire for almost another 300 years.
The life of the Roman Empire in medieval times, (what many know as "Byzantine") was one of real struggle to survive.
I guess everything in this world has to have a beginning and an end, makes you think about the current world powers and what their possible endings would look like.
He definitely has underestimated this, he’s not an expert in this area, believe he has underestimated the Byzantines a few times before. Considering how many times the Byzantine have bounced back before this the impacts of the Latin empire extended the instability
That's quite the thumbnail... man watch mojo doesn't do a good job outsourcing it's script writing.
The crazy thing about Napoleon was he didn't have to invade Russia. He was bogged down in Spain and instead of focusing there...well you know. Also, it's hard to understate how big Napoleon's defeat was for the history of Russia and really the world. Europe would look very different most likely had Napoleon not been defeated so badly.
basically the same with Hitler. If he stays neutral with the USSR and focuses on the western front, he may have won the war (although there's still the option that the US then plays a bigger part defeating Germany. However, in this case the USSR is not a part of the equation and the cold war doesn't happen)
Yeah Germany was always racing against the clock in WW2. I think without the UUSR against them and the US out of the war directly, the allies would have sued for peace and Germany probably kept austria and half of poland and some other parts of central europe.
I've heard Hitler invaded USSR because he was afraid USSR would do it first, which is not a crazy thought.@@Inferiis
The preemptive strike argument. One of the reasons why Hitler believed the conquest of the Soviet Union would be a walkover was the poor showing of the Red Army in the winter war with Finland, invaders have discovered that waging war on Russia hasn’t worked out well, when its been the other way around, it hasn’t worked out well for them.
Hitler was getting the oil he wanted from the Soviet Union before he invaded, imagine the Africa Corps having the manpower and recourses of the Barbarossa assault.
@@Inferiis Both are wrong. Both had little to no choice but to invade russia.
Napoleon wanted to defeat the British. And he could not beat their navi. So the only he was able to do was to force main europe to trade with them. And Russia ignored that. If he would have done nothing other countries would have done the same.
And with Nazi Germany, the extermination of Russian people was always a main goal. And they needed more Oil. While the Stalin gave Hitler Oil, it was not enough to fuel the whole war.
The Sykes - Picot agreement is another one. It directly created the Middle East that we know today and everything that resulted from it.
I agree -- and good post. This was really the last gasp of British and French imperialism. It was hopeless, disastrous and calamitous, and it really set the course for many of the conflicts in that region since then. The U.S. should have broken with the British and French over it, and by endorsing it, we shot ourselves in the foot for the following century. We have never been a neutral arbiter in that region, and casting our lot with the Franco-British takeover was the first mistake in a long chain of them.
@@johnalden5821 all true. I would say, though, that the last gasp of British and French imperialism was the Suez Crisis invasion of Egypt in 1956. The way that combined American and Soviet pressure managed to force them to back down really showed everyone that Britain and France were no longer the colonial superpowers they had once been. One can even reasonably argue that the event was critical for European integration and the development of the EU, as it forced Britain and France to make common cause to make sure they would remain relevant on the world stage.
Definitely yes.
I agree that it was stupid, but i honestly don't think they could have done something that didn't cause many conflicts. That area of the world just has too many different groups that hate each other and fight for the same land.
@@anderskorsback4104 France still maintains a sort of indirect colonial empire to this day. They never really gave that up. They operate using finance in place of brute force, but the empire is still there and France is taking in a lot of profit from it.
WatchMojo always make bad decisions in their videos in my experience. Do some research, guys
They produce clickbait trash and nothing more.
Nah, research is too.much overhead for their business 😂
Yeah, Japan didn't invade Korea during World War II, 'cause they'd had control of it for decades already. And referring to the Mongol Khan as "Genghis" as if it's his first name,🙄.
They're too busy hiring narrators who over pronounce foreign words arbitrarily.
I mean when the topic is all of history that is a large task. Then again if you aren’t up for it- don’t make the video.
About the Chernobyl disaster: I think you can make a fairly good case for this actually being a top 20 mistake because of the major hit to the reputation of nuclear energy that it caused. This led to a dramatic decrease in construction and research in the nuclear power sector which lead to most countries refocusing on fossile fuels instead.
So a lot of the environmental and climate damage as well as many of the millions of lung and heart desease cases that were caused by fossile fuel co2/fine particle emissions can in fact be traced back to this disaster.
Great video though. I always enjoy your perspective.
I should've done some scrolling first because I just made pretty much the same comment, Lol. Though I also did leave a recommendation for Kyle Hill's "Half-Life Histories" series too. If you haven't seen it before you absolutely should, it's fascinating stuff.
Could you also argue that the shift in focus to fossil fuels like oil probably had some influence in geopolitics? Oil and gas play a major role in the world.
@@vinylrecord1102 Possibly, but arguing that any particular conflict would not have happened without the Chernobyl disaster is probably very difficult. Most conflicts have a multitude of causes and oil would not have been completely worthless even with more nuclear power. So while it almost certainly made issues worse you can't blame it for any particular event.
I absolutely agree. Public opinion of nuclear energy took a massive hit after Chernobyl. Such a clean, abundant and efficient energy source was put on the backburner due to NIMBYism. But like he says, if it wasn't Chernobyl, another disaster would have had the same effect.
Not done with the vid yet, but I was going to post essentially the same comment. The directly countable deaths are bad, but, the damage that this did to nuclear power overall, and the impacts that had to the climate overall certainly put it on the top 20. Fukushima put the period on the argument, but without Chernobyl, Fukushima would be seen as not a big deal, as there wouldn't have been panicked evacuations that killed far too many people, compared to the zero people that have died to any radiation effects of the incident.