I nominate the U.S. war in Vietnam. It is one of the greatest historical blunders of United States foreign and military policy. Even though the U.S. had been increasingly involved in Vietnam since the mid 1950s it was Lyndon Johnson, Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, and other military advisors that escalated U.S. actions in Vietnam to a full occupation of South Vietnam. The war ended with the defeat of U.S. efforts to prevent all of Vietnam from falling into Communist rule. The cost was great to U.S. international prestige and its economy. It resulted in over 58,000 American military casualties and eroded citizens' trust in the U.S. government. The Vietnam war tarnished the legacy of President Johnson who otherwise had made a great impact through his Great Society policies and the signing of ground breaking civil rights legislation.
Those are all great stories for great follies and disasters. Here are some others
1)Sicilian Expedition (415-413) was an unnecessary and extremely risky invasion by Athens. The entire Athenian expedition was wiped out (killed or captured).
2) The Persian invasion of Greece. Thermopylae was a defeat that set the stage for strategic victory by the Greeks. The Battle of Salamis resulted in a decisive naval victory for the outnumbered Greeks under Themistocles; the following year a Greek army routed what remained of Xerxes's Persian Army. Eventually, of course, the Greeks under Alexander the Great would destroy the Persian Empire.
3)
The Battle of the Teutoburg Wald took place in AD 9, when confederation of Germanic tribes under the leadership of the traitor Arminius destroyed three Roman legions and their auxiliaries, under Publius Quinctilius Varus. The was one of the greatest defeats in the history of the Roman Empire and ended any chance for the Romanization of the Germanic peoples eventually leading to a division between Latin France and Germany.
4) The Invincible Spanish Armada was an enormous 130-ship fleet sent by Phillip II of Spain in 1588 to conquer England. The Spanish were unfamiliar with the channel and North Sea weather conditions and overconfident that they could land their troops in England. If the Spanish had instead invaded Ireland as a steppingstone to an Invasion of England, they might have had some chance of success. The defeat of the Spanish and almost destruction of its fleet meant that England, Holland, and France would colonize North America (previously claimed by Spain). It also guaranteed that the dominant religion in England would be Protestantism.
Brands correctly writes "Second, the negative consequences of the bad decision have to have been suffered by the decision makers. Stalin's collectivization campaign destroyed the kulaks but didn't destroy his regime. It was a great crime but not a mistake." A parallel example was Robert Mugabe's idiotic land reform policies when Southern Rhodesia became Zimbabwe. He confiscated the productive white-owned farms and split them up into mini-plots for his supporters. This made him a hero in Africa and especially inside Zimbabwe but led to hunger for many of his people. Land reform has been shown to be idiotic wherever it's been tried. A 100-acre farm is much more efficient than, say, ten 10-acre farms.
I wonder though, if the Supreme Court would have ruled in favor of Dred Scott, would that have hastened Southern secession? It seems to me that either way, enslavement was such an entrenched part of Southern society and its economy that conflict was inevitable. Additionally, enslavement was enshrined in the Constitution through the 3/5 clause as well as it being commonly understood that when the Constitution referred to property rights that enslaved persons were included in what was considered property. For these reasons, I am not convinced that, without the Dred Scott decision, Southern succession and the U.S. Civil War would not have happened.
I disagree. Laing aside the dubious legal underpinnings of the original decision. I predict when the dust settles, most states will legislate abortion for the first trimester, which is in line with most other countries. There may be a few outliers on either side, but in time I predict even they will move toward the center. I don't think any decision that adheres to the Constitution and saves lives rather than takes them can be considered a colossal mistake.
Actually, you can edit your own posts and replies. Just click on the three dots at the bottom of your post or reply (which are immediately to the right of "collapse") and select Edit comment.
Well, this is a good prompt but this particular post is about the past and what specific decisions made by specific people, nations, or institutions that turned out to be their undoing. We could speculate about the consequences of the Dobbs decision going into the future, however, we will never know until we get there- whenever that will be.
Great examples all, in the comments! Keep them coming.
I nominate the U.S. war in Vietnam. It is one of the greatest historical blunders of United States foreign and military policy. Even though the U.S. had been increasingly involved in Vietnam since the mid 1950s it was Lyndon Johnson, Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, and other military advisors that escalated U.S. actions in Vietnam to a full occupation of South Vietnam. The war ended with the defeat of U.S. efforts to prevent all of Vietnam from falling into Communist rule. The cost was great to U.S. international prestige and its economy. It resulted in over 58,000 American military casualties and eroded citizens' trust in the U.S. government. The Vietnam war tarnished the legacy of President Johnson who otherwise had made a great impact through his Great Society policies and the signing of ground breaking civil rights legislation.
Those are all great stories for great follies and disasters. Here are some others
1)Sicilian Expedition (415-413) was an unnecessary and extremely risky invasion by Athens. The entire Athenian expedition was wiped out (killed or captured).
2) The Persian invasion of Greece. Thermopylae was a defeat that set the stage for strategic victory by the Greeks. The Battle of Salamis resulted in a decisive naval victory for the outnumbered Greeks under Themistocles; the following year a Greek army routed what remained of Xerxes's Persian Army. Eventually, of course, the Greeks under Alexander the Great would destroy the Persian Empire.
3)
The Battle of the Teutoburg Wald took place in AD 9, when confederation of Germanic tribes under the leadership of the traitor Arminius destroyed three Roman legions and their auxiliaries, under Publius Quinctilius Varus. The was one of the greatest defeats in the history of the Roman Empire and ended any chance for the Romanization of the Germanic peoples eventually leading to a division between Latin France and Germany.
4) The Invincible Spanish Armada was an enormous 130-ship fleet sent by Phillip II of Spain in 1588 to conquer England. The Spanish were unfamiliar with the channel and North Sea weather conditions and overconfident that they could land their troops in England. If the Spanish had instead invaded Ireland as a steppingstone to an Invasion of England, they might have had some chance of success. The defeat of the Spanish and almost destruction of its fleet meant that England, Holland, and France would colonize North America (previously claimed by Spain). It also guaranteed that the dominant religion in England would be Protestantism.
Brands correctly writes "Second, the negative consequences of the bad decision have to have been suffered by the decision makers. Stalin's collectivization campaign destroyed the kulaks but didn't destroy his regime. It was a great crime but not a mistake." A parallel example was Robert Mugabe's idiotic land reform policies when Southern Rhodesia became Zimbabwe. He confiscated the productive white-owned farms and split them up into mini-plots for his supporters. This made him a hero in Africa and especially inside Zimbabwe but led to hunger for many of his people. Land reform has been shown to be idiotic wherever it's been tried. A 100-acre farm is much more efficient than, say, ten 10-acre farms.
This is a great example I think.
I wonder though, if the Supreme Court would have ruled in favor of Dred Scott, would that have hastened Southern secession? It seems to me that either way, enslavement was such an entrenched part of Southern society and its economy that conflict was inevitable. Additionally, enslavement was enshrined in the Constitution through the 3/5 clause as well as it being commonly understood that when the Constitution referred to property rights that enslaved persons were included in what was considered property. For these reasons, I am not convinced that, without the Dred Scott decision, Southern succession and the U.S. Civil War would not have happened.
Great and quick stories. I want to nominate George Custer.
I think overturning Roe v Wade will turn out to be one of these very bad decisions.
I disagree. Laing aside the dubious legal underpinnings of the original decision. I predict when the dust settles, most states will legislate abortion for the first trimester, which is in line with most other countries. There may be a few outliers on either side, but in time I predict even they will move toward the center. I don't think any decision that adheres to the Constitution and saves lives rather than takes them can be considered a colossal mistake.
*Laying (oh for an edit button...)
Actually, you can edit your own posts and replies. Just click on the three dots at the bottom of your post or reply (which are immediately to the right of "collapse") and select Edit comment.
Well, this is a good prompt but this particular post is about the past and what specific decisions made by specific people, nations, or institutions that turned out to be their undoing. We could speculate about the consequences of the Dobbs decision going into the future, however, we will never know until we get there- whenever that will be.