Worst Political Blunders and Bravest Political Sacrifices

[cotwell]

Anything specific from our two latest blunderers?

For Nicolas II, how about dismissing Alexei Polivanov (the Tsarina hated him) as war minister? He was turning the Russian army's supply and training problems around. You have to wonder how different the world might look if Nicolas had stood up to her, even just that one time.

EDIT: maybe marrying Alexandra?

 

[cotwell]

The Fourth Crusade. You don't have to be a Byzantinophile to know it was one of the biggest disasters in Western history. Not only did it horribly backfire later on with Turkish conquest but the fact that it was supposed to be a Crusade really makes it a huge pile of dirt in history books. Huge part of the blame goes to Byzantines themselves of course but the bloody Crusaders were the last people I'd expect to do something like that.

This is one of my favorites too!

 

[cotwell]

I'll add one: how about whoever (probably Grey and Haldane, with Asquith's tacit approval) let Henry Wilson be in charge of the British staff talks with the French in the run-up to WWI. (Without informing the rest of the cabinet.) Wilson got infected with the Bergsonian "spirit" of the French general staff and bought all their crap about the offensive and elan, , etc. Then he managed to convince the British general staff (although not Kitchener) that the Germans weren't really building up behind Liege, and even if they were strong on their right wing, it wouldn't matter because the French would just cut them all off from their base.

 

[Yakman]

For Nicolas II, how about dismissing Alexei Polivanov (the Tsarina hated him) as war minister? He was turning the Russian army's supply and training problems around. You have to wonder how different the world might look if Nicolas had stood up to her, even just that one time.

EDIT: maybe marrying Alexandra?

Nicolas II lost his crown and his life because his armies were actually doing better and not worse during the war.

Once the war was declared, the Romanovs were done for.

 

[Allenby]

I'll add one: how about whoever (probably Grey and Haldane, with Asquith's tacit approval) let Henry Wilson be in charge of the British staff talks with the French in the run-up to WWI. (Without informing the rest of the cabinet.) Wilson got infected with the Bergsonian "spirit" of the French general staff and bought all their crap about the offensive and elan, , etc. Then he managed to convince the British general staff (although not Kitchener) that the Germans weren't really building up behind Liege, and even if they were strong on their right wing, it wouldn't matter because the French would just cut them all off from their base.

I think a key events you are referring to is the renowned meeting of the Committee of Imperial Defence in 1911 when the Cabinet was treated to presentations by two Wilsons, one from the Army and another from the Navy.

Admiral Wilson, gruff and ineloquent as he was, gave a presentation that vaguely laid out plans for close naval blockade together. 'Shambling and ill-thought out' as Sir Hew Strachan put it. In contrast, General Wilson, as consummate a politician as he was a soldier, spoke convincingly about the need for the BEF to be sent to France in the event of war.

The Navy's supporters were apparently not there and the influence of Churchill and Lloyd George was decisive. That made the deployment of the BEF to the continent an orthodoxy.

Not that it had to be adhered to doggedly. The decision to send the BEF to operate on the French flank was really made the day after war was declared in August 1914 by an ad hoc committee consisting of much of the Cabinet and a panoply of army officers including French, Haig, Murray-Wolfe, Kitchener and even, if memory serves me right, Lord Roberts. Field Marshal French wanted to place the BEF on the Scheldt to attack the German flank. Churchill squashed him - figuratively. General Wilson didn't actually speak, but he got his way.

So the decision was ultimately arrived at in an amateurish, muddling sort of way. Very Asquithian, really.

 

[Calad]

I guess this is still on process but Putin managed to trash all post-Soviet diplomacy for annexing part of Ukraine or whole country. This is on every way a bad deal since Russia has colony-level economy: mainly trade is oil and gas. If EU and US put up serious sanctions Russian economy will fall on its knees, put this is only speculation.

 

[Plank of Wood]

"Kirk?"
"Yes, Charles?"
"I know I didn't do that well in the last one, but I bet another Civil War is just what I need to end this blasted Parliamentry nonsense"
"Great idea, Charles, I'll be right along with you"
"Good show"

 

[Yakman]

I guess this is still on process but Putin managed to trash all post-Soviet diplomacy for annexing part of Ukraine or whole country. This is on every way a bad deal since Russia has colony-level economy: mainly trade is oil and gas. If EU and US put up serious sanctions Russian economy will fall on its knees, put this is only speculation.

it is a bit silly that he'd spent $60B on the Sochi Olympics, built up a ton of international good will, and then *poof* he wiped it all out a week later.

 

[Calad]

it is a bit silly that he'd spent $60B on the Sochi Olympics, built up a ton of international good will, and then *poof* he wiped it all out a week later.

And soccer game is coming. Was it in 2018? I expect huge boycot.

 

[DarthJF]

Tokugawa Yoshinobu surrendering to Meiji government pretty much without a fight and sparing Japan from a civil war is pretty high on the political sacrifices list.

As for political blunders. The rule of Peter III of Russia is a text book example of how to get replaced in a coup and assasinated.

 

[Yakman]

it's certainly possible.

 

[Furion Matsuya]

Does letting Rasputin anywhere near the Romanovs count considering his massive influence apparently contributed significantly towards their eventual downfall ?

 

[Calad]

Does letting Rasputin anywhere near the Romanovs count considering his massive influence apparently contributed significantly towards their eventual downfall ?

Yes. The best idea is to allow mad monk tutor you, your children and your wife. Nicholas II is one of the worst ruler ever: he was the most powerful autocrat and richest man and lost everything.

 

[Furion Matsuya]

Yes. The best idea is to allow mad monk tutor you, your children and your wife. Nicholas II is one of the worst ruler ever: he was the most powerful autocrat and richest man and lost everything.

Not trying to defend him but I think the reason he was a bad ruler was because he was never taught to be one and had terrible advisors if I'm not mistaken

 

[Calad]

Not trying to defend him but I think the reason he was a bad ruler was because he was never taught to be one and had terrible advisors if I'm not mistaken

Well yeah. He was uneducated because his father died too early but history is not fair. Had he had some sense he would have guessed that Russia had lost every war against Europeans and Japan in short period of time it was a bad idea to defend Serbia and lay huge claims on Balkans. Im not sure of this but because he sucked so much he had to have a weak personality as well.

 

[Lord Finnish]

Nicholas II never wanted to be emperor so he didn't have a lot of motivation to be good at it.

 

[Culise]

Well yeah. He was uneducated because his father died too early but history is not fair. Had he had some sense he would have guessed that Russia had lost every war against Europeans and Japan in short period of time it was a bad idea to defend Serbia and lay huge claims on Balkans. Im not sure of this but because he sucked so much he had to have a weak personality as well.

To be fair, and leaving aside more general concepts of pan-Slavicism entirely, I do not believe he had much choice in the defense of Serbia by 1914. In 1908, Russia *did* back down from defending Serbia when they protested Austria-Hungary's "revision" of the Treaty of Berlin, and as a consequence Austria-Hungary ate Bosnia, converting its legal occupation into a full annexation right over the protests of Serbia and Russia. Domestically, the Foreign Minister Izvolsky had to be thrown to the wolves afterwards (a convenient target, since he really was responsible for the disaster), and Russian opinion was hardened against Vienna. It was not a humiliation that could be accepted twice in Russia, though the exact opposite assumption (specifically, that Russia would cave exactly as it had the previous time) unfortunately became a critical factor in Austro-Hungarian and German planning. A strong enough ruler (or more precisely, one with a strong power base that he could rely on not offending by such a decision) might have been able to weather a second such crisis; a weak enough nation might have been able to plead its weakness as excuse. Russia, unfortunately, was in a situation where it was militarily strong enough, at least to outward appearances, to challenge Austria-Hungary and Germany in 1914 as it couldn't in 1908, and Nicholas II was not a strong enough ruler to preempt such a strong nationalist push in his senior leadership even if he wished to, not when he relied on those very people to make his power felt. Timidity in a second such crisis would have been certainly figuratively, and perhaps even literally, a death sentence for Nicky. His mediocrity was definitely a key factor in how things got to such a dire state and how they turned out, but his perceived "lack of sense" was indeed rooted in a certain logic, albeit one that we now know by hindsight to have missed certain key assumptions (that is, the fragility of state control and the effectiveness of the expanded and improved military).

 

[NapoleonComple]

Reading that it always makes me wonder how some monarchs didn't end up becoming republicans. It sounds like a truly horrible job sometimes.

 

[Drakken]

Does letting Rasputin anywhere near the Romanovs count considering his massive influence apparently contributed significantly towards their eventual downfall ?

No one could do anything about it because it was known Alexandra had a fascination for Christian mystics, even before Rasputin, and whatever early in the marriage what Alexandra said Nicholas abided by it. The secret police had investigated and spied on her former mystic favourites in the past, but Nicholas made it clear that it was to remain their private sphere and it had to be respected. That said, these earlier favourites' influence were nowhere as destructive as Rastputin's.

The sheer, constant mental anguish of the couple over Alexei's illness must always be kept in mind to understand why Rasputin could last so long. Don't kid yourself, had it been only Nicholas' way Rasputin would have been removed into a log cabin in Siberian Arctic, never to be heard again, long before he could do any damage. He couldn't act on it, because Alexandra would defend his 'friend' by a twisted blackmailing argument, through Nicholas' concern for Alexei's health; if Rasputin goes it was certain Alexei would die because no one would be able to save him. Alexandra blamed herself for Alexei's hemophilia, which pushed her in the arms of any mystic who could give her religious reassurance that God would never allow such an innocent as Alexei to die. What made Rasputin so dangerous is that such a rake and morally corrupt individual (which, ironically, made him even more of a saintly figure in her eyes) literally held a leash over Alexandra by holding's Alexei's life on the line, so much that she she blinded herself on his character and would make her stick to her guns for him time and time again. She really did believe that he was the only one who could save Alexei from a horrible death, that he was a conduit from God. He exploited her vulnerability and her fascination with Orthodox Christianity mysticism to place himself as a pivotal role in her personal court from a position of near-total inviolability.

 

[Drakken]

Nicholas II never wanted to be emperor so he didn't have a lot of motivation to be good at it.

Nicholas had only one policy : to preserve autocracy by any means necessary, like his father. However in Nicholas' case this includied by no means at all, or by too little means too late. Alexander III overestimating his own longetivity and holding his son and heir in such contempt for so long would be a critical political blunder by itself.

I wouldn't blame him for that reactionary policy; after all the last time a Czar attempted significant social reform he was thanked for all his effort and hard work by being literally torn into pieces by an anarchist bomb device. Why bother with reforms, then?