Great miscalculations: The French railway error and 10 others

The French railway error
1. The Mars Climate Orbiter
2. The Vasa warship
3. The “Gimli Glider”
4. The Hubble Space Telescope
5. Big Ben
6. Stonehenge model
7. The Laufenburg bridge
8. Scott’s diet
9. The Sochi biathlon track
10. The Millennium Bridge

more….

• Great miscalculations

“They couldn’t hit an elephant at this distance.”

furious said:

• Great miscalculations

“They couldn’t hit an elephant at this distance.”

Britain did a similar thing with new Underground carriages. Too big for the tunnels.

Our mate Adolf made a few fatal boo-boos too.
Switching from bombing British airfields to civilian targets, invading Russia.

The loss of the Mary Rose was like the Vasa’s sinking.

Paul R. Ehrlich’s ‘The Population Bomb’ began with this statement:

The battle to feed all of humanity is over.
In the 1970s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now.
At this late date nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate.

However, in reality the global death rate has continued to decline substantially since then,
from 13/1000 in 1965–74 to 8.37 per 1,000 from 1985–1990.

And despite the population of the world more than doubling, calories consumed/person have increased 24%.

QI, but a curious mix of sheer carelessness and/or miscommunication, for which there is no excuse, and projects pushing the limits of design practice, and failing to see the black swans in advance.

Luckily, the pilot was able to land the plane safely on the Gimli runway, giving the plane the nickname “Gimli Glider”.

Not sure why, but I thought this plane landed on a racetrack. Now that could have been even more fun.

The labor party supporting the debt levy (tax)

One face of the same coin – that’s the problem with the labor party , the liberals are pricks the labor party are snakes.

the French railway station platforms probably needed rebuilding and refurbishment anyway.

wookiemeister said:

The labor party supporting the debt levy (tax)

One face of the same coin – that’s the problem with the labor party , the liberals are pricks the labor party are snakes.

I don’t have a problem with their support for the so called debt tax, but they need to call for a general increase in taxation, rather than expecting the poor, vulnerable, and young to shoulder almost the entire cost of debt reduction.

>Scott and his companions on the trek to the pole are now assumed to have died of starvation.

I thought the ones left at the end committed suicide. Apparently they had the necessary pills or suchlike.

I think it is a British tragedy that Scott is considered a hero.

He ought to be held up as one of history’s greatest doofuses.

dv said:

I think it is a British tragedy that Scott is considered a hero.

He ought to be held up as one of history’s greatest doofuses.

He did seem ill-suited to the job.

dv said:

I think it is a British tragedy that Scott is considered a hero.

He ought to be held up as one of history’s greatest doofuses.

Why is that then?

Bubblecar said:

>Scott and his companions on the trek to the pole are now assumed to have died of starvation.

I thought the ones left at the end committed suicide. Apparently they had the necessary pills or suchlike.

IIRC, Scott was the last of his party to die.

Even more conspicuous when there is the ready example of Amundsen for comparison.

Now Shackleton, he got it done.

Apparently they died just 11 miles from the next food dump. If I was in charge I would have said “Come on lads, there’s only 11 miles to go, let’s make it a race! Last one there has to do the washing up.”

party_pants said:

dv said:

I think it is a British tragedy that Scott is considered a hero.

He ought to be held up as one of history’s greatest doofuses.

Why is that then?

??

He led an ill-prepared, ill-informed, ill-equipped expedition which did not achieve its goal and killed everyone involved.

dv said:

I think it is a British tragedy that Scott is considered a hero.

He ought to be held up as one of history’s greatest doofuses.

Well it was the heroic age of exploration. Not unlike today, if a “celebrity” dies in their prime, they are worshipped.

I wouldn’t have been out there on foot anyway, I would have been on my bike.

dv said:

Even more conspicuous when there is the ready example of Amundsen for comparison.

Now Shackleton, he got it done.

Amundsen was level-headed. Shackleton was lucky.

>Amundsen was level-headed.

Although he ended up dying in the Arctic:

Amundsen disappeared with five crew on 18 June 1928 while flying on a rescue mission in the Arctic. His team included Norwegian pilot Leif Dietrichson, French pilot René Guilbaud, and three more Frenchmen. They were seeking missing members of Nobile’s crew, whose new airship Italia had crashed while returning from the North Pole. Afterward, a wing-float and bottom gasoline tank from Amundsen’s French Latham 47 flying boat, adapted as a replacement wing-float, were found near the Tromsø coast. It is believed that the plane crashed in fog in the Barents Sea, and that Amundsen and his crew were killed in the crash, or died shortly afterward. None of the bodies were found. The search for Amundsen and team was called off in September 1928 by the Norwegian Government.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roald_Amundsen#Disappearance_and_death

Bubblecar said:

Apparently they died just 11 miles from the next food dump. If I was in charge I would have said “Come on lads, there’s only 11 miles to go, let’s make it a race! Last one there has to do the washing up.”

lol. I’m sure they just rolled over and died instead of walking that measly 11 miles.

• He led an ill-prepared, ill-informed, ill-equipped expedition which did not achieve its goal and killed everyone involved.

Yeah, but apart from that..

dv said:

party_pants said:

dv said:

I think it is a British tragedy that Scott is considered a hero.

He ought to be held up as one of history’s greatest doofuses.

Why is that then?

??

He led an ill-prepared, ill-informed, ill-equipped expedition which did not achieve its goal and killed everyone involved.

The wisest Antarctic explorer was Cook. He got close, decided there isn’t an icy continent there anyway, said if anyone else happens to find it it’s theirs and only on his return to England changed his mind and agreed that, in fact, due to the extreme cold/icebergs etc., there must be land there.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3455960/combined

poikilotherm said:

Bubblecar said:

Apparently they died just 11 miles from the next food dump. If I was in charge I would have said “Come on lads, there’s only 11 miles to go, let’s make it a race! Last one there has to do the washing up.”

lol. I’m sure they just rolled over and died instead of walking that measly 11 miles.

They may have thought it was further away:

After walking a further 20 miles, the three remaining men made their final camp on 19 March, 11 miles (18 km) short of One Ton Depot, but 24 miles (38 km) beyond the original intended location of the depot.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Falcon_Scott#Last_march

The plan to use the dogs and ponies until they dropped dead of hard work, the lash and privation and then eat them is the main reason that God smote them, and what’s more I think I’m on the money.

Bubblecar said:

I wouldn’t have been out there on foot anyway, I would have been on my bike.

I would have used motorized sleds and bought more food

dv said:

party_pants said:

dv said:

I think it is a British tragedy that Scott is considered a hero.

He ought to be held up as one of history’s greatest doofuses.

Why is that then?

??

He led an ill-prepared, ill-informed, ill-equipped expedition which did not achieve its goal and killed everyone involved.

Just asking, since I was familar with the story. Antarctic exploration isn’t my thing.

CrazyNeutrino said:

Bubblecar said:

I wouldn’t have been out there on foot anyway, I would have been on my bike.

I would have used motorized sleds and bought more food

Or gone there by helicopter

party_pants said:

dv said:

party_pants said:

Why is that then?

??

He led an ill-prepared, ill-informed, ill-equipped expedition which did not achieve its goal and killed everyone involved.

Just asking, since I was familar with the story. Antarctic exploration isn’t my thing.

Where was = was NOT

CrazyNeutrino said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

Bubblecar said:

I wouldn’t have been out there on foot anyway, I would have been on my bike.

I would have used motorized sleds and bought more food

Or gone there by helicopter

Air NZ flight, perhaps?

CrazyNeutrino said:

Bubblecar said:

I wouldn’t have been out there on foot anyway, I would have been on my bike.

I would have used motorized sleds and bought more food

Apparently they had tested some motor sledges but found them unreliable.

Peak Warming Man said:

The plan to use the dogs and ponies until they dropped dead of hard work, the lash and privation and then eat them is the main reason that God smote them, and what’s more I think I’m on the money.

Scott’s reliance mainly on ponies was part of the problem. They are less capable in polar conditions, unable to go up steep slopes, can’t feed on local wildlife, slower etc. than dogs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_the_Amundsen_and_Scott_Expeditions

“Had the one-ton depot been placed at latitude 80° S., as planned, Scott and his two surviving companions could have reached it on their return march. Instead, because Scott refused to drive the ponies to their deaths, despite Oates’ urgent advice to do so, the depot was placed some 31 miles short of there. Scott’s party died only 11 miles away.”

Does obvious haulin’ Oates joke

They were probably all on their gap year.

party_pants said:

Just asking, since I was familar with the story. Antarctic exploration isn’t my thing.

Where was = was NOT

Hey PP. If you’re curious about it and want a good read, I’d suggest In Search of the South Pole. I found a copy at my local library and couldn’t put it down. Seriously, some of the stories out of there are unbelievable. I can understand why the explorers may have wanted to go there more than 100 years ago, but don’t get why anyone would want to go there now.

Christopher Columbus used a few dodgy estimations / calculations.

From Christopher Columbus

Where Columbus did differ from the view accepted by scholars in his day was in his estimate of the westward distance from Europe to Asia. Columbus’ ideas in this regard were based on three factors: his low estimate of the size of the Earth, his high estimate of the size of the Eurasian landmass, and his belief that Japan and other inhabited islands lay far to the east of the coast of China. In all three of these issues Columbus was both wrong and at odds with the scholarly consensus of his day.

[…]

As far back as the 3rd century BC, Eratosthenes had correctly computed the circumference of the Earth by using simple geometry and studying the shadows cast by objects at two different locations: Alexandria and Syene (modern-day Aswan). Eratosthenes’s results were confirmed by a comparison of stellar observations at Alexandria and Rhodes, carried out by Posidonius in the 1st century BC. These measurements were widely known among scholars, but confusion about the old-fashioned units of distance in which they were expressed had led, in Columbus’s day, to some debate about the exact size of the Earth.

[…]

Columbus therefore estimated the distance from the Canary Islands to Japan to be about 3,000 Italian miles (3,700 km, or 2,300 statute miles), while the correct figure is 19,600 km (12,200 mi), or about 12,000 km along a great circle. No ship in the 15th century could carry enough food and fresh water for such a long voyage, and the dangers involved in navigating through the uncharted ocean would have been formidable. Most European navigators reasonably concluded that a westward voyage from Europe to Asia was unfeasible. The Catholic Monarchs, however, having completed an expensive war in the Iberian Peninsula, were desperate for a competitive edge over other European countries in the quest for trade with the Indies. Columbus promised such an advantage.

Lucky for him, America (and the Carribean) was in the way. :)

Not so lucky for the Americans and the Carribean, though, I suppose.

From Hispaniola

Hispaniola […] contains two sovereign nations, with the Dominican Republic occupying the easternmost 64% of the island’s area, and Haiti the remainder. It is the site of the first European colonies founded by Christopher Columbus on his voyages in 1492 and 1493.

[…]

The Taíno population of the island was rapidly decimated, owing to a combination of new infectious diseases, to which they had no immunity, and harsh treatment by Spanish overlords. In 1503 the colony began to import African slaves, believing them more capable of performing physical labor. The natives had no immunity to European diseases, including smallpox, and entire tribes were destroyed. From an estimated initial population of 250,000 in 1492, 14,000 Arawaks were left by 1517.

In 1574, a census taken of the Greater Antilles reported 1,000 Spaniards and 12,000 African slaves on Hispaniola.

That’s over 95% of the native population dead within 25 years of first contact. :(

Amundsen certainly was a great planner, as too was Mawson. Shackleton wasn’t as good a planner but he partially made up for it by being a great leader. Scott ended up being neither a good planner nor a particularly good leader.

Nicolai Hanson was the first person buried on Antarctica.

MartinB said:

Amundsen certainly was a great planner, as too was Mawson. Shackleton wasn’t as good a planner but he partially made up for it by being a great leader. Scott ended up being neither a good planner nor a particularly good leader.

Scott was pretty sure that Amundsen would beat him anyway. If he had any sense they wouldn’t have bothered.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emilio_Palma

Emilio Marcos Palma (born January 7, 1978) is an Argentine national who is the first person known to be born on the continent of Antarctica.

Talking about amateurish British explorers, I’m reading about the attempts on Everest in the early 1920’s.

One amusing aspect is that although they made all sorts of heavy weather just getting to the base of the mountain, the locals managed to supply them with a regular postal service in both directions.

dv said:

Nicolai Hanson was the first person buried on Antarctica.

Would he be more or less preserved?

Hanson, too, was a great miscalculation.

Bubblecar said:

MartinB said:

Amundsen certainly was a great planner, as too was Mawson. Shackleton wasn’t as good a planner but he partially made up for it by being a great leader. Scott ended up being neither a good planner nor a particularly good leader.

Scott was pretty sure that Amundsen would beat him anyway. If he had any sense they wouldn’t have bothered.

But he did Amundsen a great service. He had taken photos at the South Pole, where the Norwegian flag had been already placed. Left no doubt, unlike exploration of the North Pole, which was in dispute for a long time afterward.

Divine Angel said:

dv said:

Nicolai Hanson was the first person buried on Antarctica.

Would he be more or less preserved?

I think so DA. I’ve seen a photo of a mummified seal’s head which is thought to be 300 years old.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Talking about amateurish British explorers, I’m reading about the attempts on Everest in the early 1920’s.

One amusing aspect is that although they made all sorts of heavy weather just getting to the base of the mountain, the locals managed to supply them with a regular postal service in both directions.

LOL. The new records make me laugh.

The youngest non-Sherpa female etc.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Talking about amateurish British explorers, I’m reading about the attempts on Everest in the early 1920’s.

One amusing aspect is that although they made all sorts of heavy weather just getting to the base of the mountain, the locals managed to supply them with a regular postal service in both directions.

Was there a red postbox at the summit?

MartinB said:

Hanson, too, was a great miscalculation.

How so?

Has anyone yet been murdered in Antarctica?

The only non-explorer to have died on the Antarctic continent was Rodney Marks, an Adelaide-born astrophysicist who was stationed at the south pole during the long southern winter. The exact circumstances of his death in 2000 remain unknown, but it is known that he died of methanol poisoning. Five months passed between his death and his autopsy in New Zealand, due to the lack of transport to and from the base during the dark months.

• Has anyone yet been murdered in Antarctica?

Lawrence Oates

The Rev Dodgson said:

Talking about amateurish British explorers, I’m reading about the attempts on Everest in the early 1920’s.

One amusing aspect is that although they made all sorts of heavy weather just getting to the base of the mountain, the locals managed to supply them with a regular postal service in both directions.

The other 8000m peaks in the area are almost as amusing to read about early attempts, from solo to mass expeditions.

Bubblecar said:

Has anyone yet been murdered in Antarctica?

Not that anyone has announced.

I suppose it is possible Rodney Marks was murdered. And if various dead explorers (such as Hanson) had been murdered by their colleagues, who’d know now?

But maybe not.

Mysterious.

The cause of the fatal methanol poisoning has never been determined, and the Marks family has given up hope of learning what happened. Paul Marks, Rodney’s father, is quoted as saying “… And I don’t think we are going to try to find out any more in regards to how Rodney died. I’d see that as a fruitless exercise.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodney_Marks#Investigations_into_death

The only civilian settlement on the Antarctic continent is Esperanza base. It has over 50 winter inhabitants and even has a little school for the kids.

I strongly suspect it mainly exists to aid Argentina’s territorial claims.

MMMBop, Incredible, Boomerang. Need I go on?

MartinB said:

MMMBop, Incredible, Boomerang. Need I go on?

I’ll just pretend that did not happen

dv said:

The only civilian settlement on the Antarctic continent is Esperanza base. It has over 50 winter inhabitants and even has a little school for the kids.

I strongly suspect it mainly exists to aid Argentina’s territorial claims.

I strongly suspect that you are correct. :)

I dont know if Hitler marching into Russia was a miscalculation, he was very nearly right and kicking in the door the whole crumbling edifice might well have come crashing down. Of course miscalculations led to the eventual defeat but there was nothing inevitable about it. A few different decisions and the map of Europe might have been very different today.

>I dont know if Hitler marching into Russia was a miscalculation

History says: yes.

AwesomeO said:

I dont know if Hitler marching into Russia was a miscalculation, he was very nearly right and kicking in the door the whole crumbling edifice might well have come crashing down. Of course miscalculations led to the eventual defeat but there was nothing inevitable about it. A few different decisions and the map of Europe might have been very different today.

hitler made terrible decisions always through, he was better bullying unwarmed civilians than he ever was running wars

guderian had to fool high command as to his where abouts because they didn’t understand the concept of blitzkrieg. whilst hitler and the his high command were thinking about what to do next guderian had already moved on and taken another objective

the whole concept of blitzkrieg was to give total command to someone in the field, not a desk jockey in berlin issuing edicts

unarmed civilians

Bubblecar said:

>I dont know if Hitler marching into Russia was a miscalculation

History says: yes.

Then again, Stalin may have miscalculated in liquidating all his top generals a few years before

Neophyte said:

Bubblecar said:

>I dont know if Hitler marching into Russia was a miscalculation

History says: yes.

Then again, Stalin may have miscalculated in liquidating all his top generals a few years before

Nah, they were a bunch of pricks to a man.

stalin was a bigger fool than hitler, he too could only bully unarmed civilians.

stalin killed more of his own people than hitler.

the germans would have been better off invading no one and concentrating on rebuilding their economy. the problem was the millions of returned servicemen with no jobs , injured and forgotten. the rich people who started the war were ok the poor struggled on and became the storm troopers.

Hitler had no real idea of what he was facing. The Abwehr reports on Soviet military strength were hopelessly inaccurate. The whole eastern campaign was distorted by laughable Nazi anti-Slav racism, by which they convinced themselves that puny German forces could overcome a vast region that was rapidly shaping up to be a global superpower.

• they convinced themselves that puny German forces could overcome a vast region that was rapidly shaping up to be a global superpower.

In the same vein, pearl harbour was a miscalculation for the Japanese…

What about the ANZACs landing at Gallipoli?

Bubblecar said:

Hitler had no real idea of what he was facing. The Abwehr reports on Soviet military strength were hopelessly inaccurate. The whole eastern campaign was distorted by laughable Nazi anti-Slav racism, by which they convinced themselves that puny German forces could overcome a vast region that was rapidly shaping up to be a global superpower.

right, he let his opinions get in the way of first hand fact

the anti slav thing was really about having reason to take over huge swathes of eastern Europe, they didn’t really want western Europe, they paid more attention to the east as it was their ideological opposite (communism)

I was watching a “world at war” thing ages ago where general Paulus had examined a Russian tank that had been knocked out during the intitial invasion of the east and discovered to his horror the tank was better than the germans and had declared that if the Russians ever built them in great numbers Germany was doomed

Divine Angel said:

What about the ANZACs landing at Gallipoli?

Close run thing in my opinion, they might have got away it it without an inspired and inspirational young Turkish Capt Ataturk who had an appreciation of the land and blocked any advance and lodgment

Divine Angel said:

What about the ANZACs landing at Gallipoli?

never ventured any more than 1 km

lost 30,000 men for nothing

packed up and went home

stupid idea, bad intelligence, an example of what not to do in war

Australia uses this fucked up military campaign as one of its greatest examples of the aussie way

Australia hasn’t won many campaigns and hasn’t won a campaign since perhaps Malaysia in the 50s

wookiemeister said:

Divine Angel said:

What about the ANZACs landing at Gallipoli?

never ventured any more than 1 km

lost 30,000 men for nothing

packed up and went home

stupid idea, bad intelligence, an example of what not to do in war

Australia uses this fucked up military campaign as one of its greatest examples of the aussie way

Australia hasn’t won many campaigns and hasn’t won a campaign since perhaps Malaysia in the 50s

wookiemeister said:

wookiemeister said:

Divine Angel said:

What about the ANZACs landing at Gallipoli?

never ventured any more than 1 km

lost 30,000 men for nothing

packed up and went home

stupid idea, bad intelligence, an example of what not to do in war

Australia uses this fucked up military campaign as one of its greatest examples of the aussie way

Australia hasn’t won many campaigns and hasn’t won a campaign since perhaps Malaysia in the 50s

can you see why Australia is actually very bad at winning wars?

we’ve been brainwashed by recruitment adverts of grim looking men carrying guns for the greater glory of serving the father land rather than examining the facts on hand

its this overriding conviction of ones military capability that led the Nazis into the mire of the eastern front

Australia is no different

I remember reading about the pelopenessian war and Athens sending some huge armada to invade some other country with every man and his dog pouring over maps of what they were going to conquer.

of course they sailed off and few ever made it back, the management of Athens had known for quite some time that the armada was destroyed but kept quite. by chance some fellah arrived on a boat at piraeus and decided to have his hair cut. in the course of discussion between the barber and this gent the armada was discussed and the fellah passed comment about how the entire armada was lost. the barber ran out into the street and told everyone what he had just been told , the gent was arrested but was later released when the management came clean and admitted that the whole thing was fucked.

quiet

wookiemeister said:

quiet

too quiet…

stumpy_seahorse said:

wookiemeister said:

quiet

too quiet…

too many rabbits

wookiemeister said:

stumpy_seahorse said:

wookiemeister said:

quiet

too quiet…

too many rabbits

<.<
>.>

Here’s a forgotten miscalculation… New Coke

Divine Angel said:

Here’s a forgotten miscalculation… New Coke

hitler would have shot new coke

wookiemeister said:

the germans would have been better off invading no one and concentrating on rebuilding their economy. the problem was the millions of returned servicemen with no jobs , injured and forgotten. the rich people who started the war were ok the poor struggled on and became the storm troopers.

They were broke and had high unemployment and like the Alan Bond’s of this world who had to keep borrowing, or in Hitler’s case taking over other countries.

PermeateFree said:

wookiemeister said:

the germans would have been better off invading no one and concentrating on rebuilding their economy. the problem was the millions of returned servicemen with no jobs , injured and forgotten. the rich people who started the war were ok the poor struggled on and became the storm troopers.

They were broke and had high unemployment and like the Alan Bond’s of this world who had to keep borrowing, or in Hitler’s case taking over other countries.

perhaps they should have developed the super weapons and THEN tried taking over the world?

wookiemeister said:

PermeateFree said:

wookiemeister said:

the germans would have been better off invading no one and concentrating on rebuilding their economy. the problem was the millions of returned servicemen with no jobs , injured and forgotten. the rich people who started the war were ok the poor struggled on and became the storm troopers.

They were broke and had high unemployment and like the Alan Bond’s of this world who had to keep borrowing, or in Hitler’s case taking over other countries.

perhaps they should have developed the super weapons and THEN tried taking over the world?

Did not have the time or money.

PermeateFree said:

wookiemeister said:

PermeateFree said:

They were broke and had high unemployment and like the Alan Bond’s of this world who had to keep borrowing, or in Hitler’s case taking over other countries.

perhaps they should have developed the super weapons and THEN tried taking over the world?

Did not have the time or money.

mentos and diet coke at 20 paces then…

PermeateFree said:

They were broke and had high unemployment and like the Alan Bond’s of this world who had to keep borrowing, or in Hitler’s case taking over other countries.

There was no economic reason to go to war. By 1939 the German economy had almost recovered fully from the Great Depression. They were also helped by the cancellation of the reparation payments from WW1 in the early 1930s.

Modern assessments indicate the reparations required by Germany under the ToV were not all that harsh, were easily affordable and did not significantly affect the German economy, but were a source of humiliation.

dv said:

Modern assessments indicate the reparations required by Germany under the ToV were not all that harsh, were easily affordable and did not significantly affect the German economy, but were a source of humiliation.

I call shenanigns. Even at the time they were considered harsh, Britain wanted to go a bit easier precisely to prevent blowback but France wasnt having a bar of it. Though there was humiliation it was due more to the german people and military believing they were winning until they were stabbed in te back by the generals…as it was considered.

Witty Rejoinder said:

There was no economic reason to go to war. By 1939 the German economy had almost recovered fully from the Great Depression. They were also helped by the cancellation of the reparation payments from WW1 in the early 1930s.

Note that by 1939, they’d already had a year of expanding their territory. The Nazis had been in power for six years and by that stage war was ideologically inevitable.

And it was not just the huge amounts of money it was the loss of territories and the restrictions on rearming.

AwesomeO said:

dv said:

Modern assessments indicate the reparations required by Germany under the ToV were not all that harsh, were easily affordable and did not significantly affect the German economy, but were a source of humiliation.

I call shenanigns. Even at the time they were considered harsh, Britain wanted to go a bit easier precisely to prevent blowback but France wasnt having a bar of it. Though there was humiliation it was due more to the german people and military believing they were winning until they were stabbed in te back by the generals…as it was considered.

“Even at the time they were considered harsh”

And they were made out to be harsh to placate the citizens of the victorious countries.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_history_of_germany

“British economist John Maynard Keynes denounced the 1919 Treaty of Versailles as ruinous to German and global prosperity. In his book The Economic Consequences of the Peace. Keynes said the Treaty was a “Carthaginian peace”, a misguided attempt to destroy Germany on behalf of French revanchism, rather than to follow the fairer principles for a lasting peace set out in President Woodrow Wilson’s Fourteen Points, which Germany had accepted at the armistice. Keynes argued the sums being asked of Germany in reparations were many times more than it was possible for Germany to pay, and that these would produce drastic instability. French economist Étienne Mantoux disputed that analysis in The Carthaginian Peace, or the Economic Consequences of Mr. Keynes (1946). More recently economists have argued that the restriction of Germany to a small army in the 1920s saved it so much money it could afford the reparations payments.

In reality, the total German Reparation payments actually made were far smaller than anyone expected. The total came to 20 billion German gold marks, worth about $5 billion US dollars or £1 billion British pounds. German reparations payments ended in 1931.”

Over the course of 14 years, a billion British pounds was not much compared to the scale of the German economy.

AwesomeO said:

And it was not just the huge amounts of money it was the loss of territories and the restrictions on rearming.

Probably the restriction on rearming did them a favour.

But yes the loss of territories was humiliating. Still, you can’t get away scot free.

dv said:

But yes the loss of territories was humiliating. Still, you can’t get away scot free.

…. unless you’re Scottish……

Witty Rejoinder said:

PermeateFree said:

They were broke and had high unemployment and like the Alan Bond’s of this world who had to keep borrowing, or in Hitler’s case taking over other countries.

There was no economic reason to go to war. By 1939 the German economy had almost recovered fully from the Great Depression. They were also helped by the cancellation of the reparation payments from WW1 in the early 1930s.

According to this, financially they were in very deep sh*t.

In 1934 Hjalmar Schacht, the Reich Minister of Economics, introduced the Mefo bills, allowing Germany to rearm without spending Reichmarks but instead pay industry with Reichmarks and Mefo bills (Government IOU’s) which they could trade with each other. Between 1933 and 1939, the total revenue was 62 billion marks, whereas expenditure (at times made up to 60% by rearmament costs) exceeded 101 billion, thus creating a huge deficit and national debt (reaching 38 billion mark in 1939) coinciding with the Kristallnacht and intensified persecutions of Jews and the outbreak of the war.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Nazi_Germany

PermeateFree said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

PermeateFree said:

They were broke and had high unemployment and like the Alan Bond’s of this world who had to keep borrowing, or in Hitler’s case taking over other countries.

There was no economic reason to go to war. By 1939 the German economy had almost recovered fully from the Great Depression. They were also helped by the cancellation of the reparation payments from WW1 in the early 1930s.

it was my assessment that blitzkrieg was the only kind of war Germany could fight

if the conflict dragged on more than a few weeks they would be slowly going backwards and would run out of money

According to this, financially they were in very deep sh*t.

In 1934 Hjalmar Schacht, the Reich Minister of Economics, introduced the Mefo bills, allowing Germany to rearm without spending Reichmarks but instead pay industry with Reichmarks and Mefo bills (Government IOU’s) which they could trade with each other. Between 1933 and 1939, the total revenue was 62 billion marks, whereas expenditure (at times made up to 60% by rearmament costs) exceeded 101 billion, thus creating a huge deficit and national debt (reaching 38 billion mark in 1939) coinciding with the Kristallnacht and intensified persecutions of Jews and the outbreak of the war.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Nazi_Germany

In 1934 Hjalmar Schacht, the Reich Minister of Economics, introduced the Mefo bills, allowing Germany to rearm without spending Reichmarks but instead pay industry with Reichmarks and Mefo bills (Government IOU’s) which they could trade with each other. Between 1933 and 1939, the total revenue was 62 billion marks, whereas expenditure (at times made up to 60% by rearmament costs) exceeded 101 billion, thus creating a huge deficit and national debt (reaching 38 billion mark in 1939) coinciding with the Kristallnacht and intensified persecutions of Jews and the outbreak of the war.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Nazi_Germany
—-

So basically, rearming was the problem.

dv said:

In 1934 Hjalmar Schacht, the Reich Minister of Economics, introduced the Mefo bills, allowing Germany to rearm without spending Reichmarks but instead pay industry with Reichmarks and Mefo bills (Government IOU’s) which they could trade with each other. Between 1933 and 1939, the total revenue was 62 billion marks, whereas expenditure (at times made up to 60% by rearmament costs) exceeded 101 billion, thus creating a huge deficit and national debt (reaching 38 billion mark in 1939) coinciding with the Kristallnacht and intensified persecutions of Jews and the outbreak of the war.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Nazi_Germany
—-

So basically, rearming was the problem.

Plus having a huge army. Had to use it to stop going under.

dv said:

So basically, rearming was the problem.

Rearming was the plan. German economic ills would be cured by plundering the countries they conquered.

Good evening forum type people

Miscalculated that.

Speedy said:

Luckily, the pilot was able to land the plane safely on the Gimli runway, giving the plane the nickname “Gimli Glider”.

Not sure why, but I thought this plane landed on a racetrack. Now that could have been even more fun.

The runway had been closed as an airport and converted into a drag strip.

“What you’ll get under us is tax cuts without new taxes”

Tony Abbott

Soso said:

“What you’ll get under us is tax cuts without new taxes”

Tony Abbott

I drew a cock and balls on my ballot paper at the last election. I should have drawn a tube of lube too.

Soso said:

“What you’ll get under us is tax cuts without new taxes”

Tony Abbott

A miscalculated Rhodes scholar

party_pants said:

Soso said:

“What you’ll get under us is tax cuts without new taxes”

Tony Abbott

I drew a cock and balls on my ballot paper at the last election. I should have drawn a tube of lube too.

Tony Abbott is an idiot business man

CrazyNeutrino said:

Great miscalculations: The French railway error and 10 others

The French railway error
1. The Mars Climate Orbiter
2. The Vasa warship
3. The “Gimli Glider”
4. The Hubble Space Telescope
5. Big Ben
6. Stonehenge model
7. The Laufenburg bridge
8. Scott’s diet
9. The Sochi biathlon track
10. The Millennium Bridge

OK, I’ll pay the “Gimli Glider” – metric to imperial conversion problem, the Hubble space telescope – failed to allow for the wear of the washer, Scott’s diet and the Millennium Bridge. Why not include the Tacoma Narrows Bridge in that collection?

But I don’t agree about the The Mars Climate Orbiter. That was just bad luck.