What's the stupidest thing a nation has ever done?

[TightEnd]

Michael Bloomberg thinks that Brexit is history’s biggest blunder

this article suggests some worse alternatives

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/shortcuts/2017/oct/25/whats-the-stupidest-thing-a-nation-has-ever-done?CMP=share_btn_tw

I'dnever heard of a few of these (and where is Pearl Harbour?!)

[tikay]

Electing Mr Trump must be a contender.

[EvilPie]

Who the f**k is Michael Bloomberg? The fact that if you google him you have to get as far as 'Michael Bl' suggests he's not that important.

When you find him it turns out he's worth about $50B and is the 10th richest person on the planet. So yes, not important just loaded.

Like it says in the article it is 'hard for Bloomberg to imagine why people might vote against a system that worked perfectly well for billionaire captains of industry'.

Anyway that wasn't the question of the thread but I fancied a mini rant.....

Stupidest thing a nation has ever done? With the benefit of hindsight there are plenty of contenders and without doubt brexit may yet prove to be one of them. I think we have another potential contender if things go ahead with Hinkley point C. Does anybody actually want it?

[ripple11]

Michael Bloomberg thinks that Brexit is history’s biggest blunder

this article suggests some worse alternatives

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/shortcuts/2017/oct/25/whats-the-stupidest-thing-a-nation-has-ever-done?CMP=share_btn_tw

I'dnever heard of a few of these (and where is Pearl Harbour?!)

Maybe...maybe not.

We might be 2-0 down, but we've not got to half time, how can you tell we are going to lose by a record score?

Like last night....we might do a West Ham 

[roshambo]

Electing Mr Trump must be a contender.

Why?

Always interested to see why people think is a poor / good choice, he is probably the most polarizing politician we've seen in a long time.

[Sheriff Fatman]

Electing Mr Trump must be a contender.

This was the obvious one that sprang to mind for me.

However, it's a near impossible question to answer, as the single incident is generally a reflection of a generation or longer of history that led to it occurring.

Take the other obvious example - Germany allowing Hitler and the Nazi party to rise to power.  This is something that built up over years and reflected the perceived unfairness of the WWI reparation payments, hyper-inflation, and a good deal of opportunism at the appropriate time to gradually increase a hold on power.  Also, the horrific consequences of this happening are only something that history is able to determine with the benefit of hindsight, so the perception now is very different to how it would have felt at the time.

Who knows, history may determine in 30 years time that Trump was one of the greatest Presidents the US had.  I severely doubt it, obviously, but the impact of anything significant he does won't be fully realised for years down the line (unless he manages to jointly nuke us all in a war with North Korea).

For example, I'm surprised how gentle the criticism has been regarding Cameron's legacy as PM.  In 30 years time, regardless of where you sit on Brexit, it's surely obvious that this wasn't something you should have taken a punt on to fix an internal party problem and he surely only did so under the arrogant assumption that there was no way it would actually happen when it came to being voted on.  Surely that's how history will ultimately remember him.

[AndrewT]

For example, I'm surprised how gentle the criticism has been regarding Cameron's legacy as PM.  In 30 years time, regardless of where you sit on Brexit, it's surely obvious that this wasn't something you should have taken a punt on to fix an internal party problem and he surely only did so under the arrogant assumption that there was no way it would actually happen when it came to being voted on.  Surely that's how history will ultimately remember him.

Yeah, Cameron's premiership will be remembered by one phrase - Brexit. Same as Eden (Suez), Callaghan (Three-day week) and Blair (Iraq, which is a bit unfair as he was in the job ten years and did introduce the minimum wage but history can be cruel).

[rfgqqabc]

I don't really want to get into the Hitler debate, particularly from a defensive point of view, but from the perspective of many people in Germany during the 1930's Hitler did a pretty reasonable job in areas such as the economy. I'm sure there is plenty of debate surrounding this, but if my memory serves me correctly, he did a pretty good job of getting the economy stimulated from a pretty perilous position. Also, from the perspective of how Hitler and the Nazis came to power is a little bit unfortunate. I certainly remember discussions about Hindenberg and how unfortunately timed his death was.

I think the Nazi era answer has to be the attack on the Soviets. This truly was a baffling decision, they didn't even have adequate clothing! 

"On December 20, 1941, Joseph Goebbels, the Minister of Propaganda, broadcast an appeal for warm clothing to send to the troops, saying: "Those at home will not deserve a single peaceful hour if even one soldier is exposed to the rigours of winter without adequate clothing." Yet two years of clothes rationing meant that there was little to give."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/britain-at-war/5907564/Second-World-War-Frozen-to-death-by-the-Fuhrer.html

I feel like these ones are up there although I'm not sure either quite match the "nation" or "stupidest" part of the qn.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sale_of_UK_gold_reserves,_1999–2002

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

[DropTheHammer]

USA - Prohibition?

UK - Toppling Saddam?

[SuuPRlim]

Obviously in heinsight electing Hitler was a mistake - I'm sure if you'd have told everyone at the time he was going to start a global war and murder millions of people, then he almost certainly didn't get in. Horrible bastard ye, but a very talented politician without doubt.

USA - Prohibition?

Surely this is only about 5/10 as stupid as electing trump!! Was massively donk though made a handful of gangsters insanely rich instead of just taxing it, clowns

[redsimon]

For example, I'm surprised how gentle the criticism has been regarding Cameron's legacy as PM.  In 30 years time, regardless of where you sit on Brexit, it's surely obvious that this wasn't something you should have taken a punt on to fix an internal party problem and he surely only did so under the arrogant assumption that there was no way it would actually happen when it came to being voted on.  Surely that's how history will ultimately remember him.

Yeah, Cameron's premiership will be remembered by one phrase - Brexit. Same as Eden (Suez), Callaghan (Three-day week) and Blair (Iraq, which is a bit unfair as he was in the job ten years and did introduce the minimum wage but history can be cruel).

Three day week was under Heath. Callaghan was "Winter Of Discontent"

[Jon MW]

...

I think the Nazi era answer has to be the attack on the Soviets. This truly was a baffling decision, they didn't even have adequate clothing! 

"On December 20, 1941, Joseph Goebbels, the Minister of Propaganda, broadcast an appeal for warm clothing to send to the troops, saying: "Those at home will not deserve a single peaceful hour if even one soldier is exposed to the rigours of winter without adequate clothing." Yet two years of clothes rationing meant that there was little to give."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/britain-at-war/5907564/Second-World-War-Frozen-to-death-by-the-Fuhrer.html
...

They screwed it up, but it wasn't baffling. Germany wasn't producing enough food; as part of their of their alliance with Russia they were being sent food but it wasn't enough.

I think the plan was they'd conquer the fertile planes of the Ukraine; then defend the border while the Russian rump starved and got steadily easier to keep back. All the Russian agriculture would then go to feeding Germany. The broader strategy was sound, they just didn't have enough resources or planning to pull it off.

Read a book about Russian history recently

[rfgqqabc]

...

I think the Nazi era answer has to be the attack on the Soviets. This truly was a baffling decision, they didn't even have adequate clothing! 

"On December 20, 1941, Joseph Goebbels, the Minister of Propaganda, broadcast an appeal for warm clothing to send to the troops, saying: "Those at home will not deserve a single peaceful hour if even one soldier is exposed to the rigours of winter without adequate clothing." Yet two years of clothes rationing meant that there was little to give."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/britain-at-war/5907564/Second-World-War-Frozen-to-death-by-the-Fuhrer.html
...

They screwed it up, but it wasn't baffling. Germany wasn't producing enough food; as part of their of their alliance with Russia they were being sent food but it wasn't enough.

I think the plan was they'd conquer the fertile planes of the Ukraine; then defend the border while the Russian rump starved and got steadily easier to keep back. All the Russian agriculture would then go to feeding Germany. The broader strategy was sound, they just didn't have enough resources or planning to pull it off.

Read a book about Russian history recently

Lebensarum wasn't the same as the actual march into Stalingrad though, I believe they had taken the food production areas at this point. They had resources from the earlier parts of the war. Alsace Lorraine and other places with natural resources had already been taken and the post 1941 push was towards places like Stalingrad which would be prove the eventual downfall.

I'm back to feeling the Trump election is better suited to the title than perhaps some of the less nation specific incidents such as Brown and Gold or the Suez Crisis(fun one).

[MintTrav]

I don't really want to get into the Hitler debate, particularly from a defensive point of view, but from the perspective of many people in Germany during the 1930's Hitler did a pretty reasonable job in areas such as the economy. I'm sure there is plenty of debate surrounding this, but if my memory serves me correctly, he did a pretty good job of getting the economy stimulated from a pretty perilous position. Also, from the perspective of how Hitler and the Nazis came to power is a little bit unfortunate. I certainly remember discussions about Hindenberg and how unfortunately timed his death was.

I think the Nazi era answer has to be the attack on the Soviets. This truly was a baffling decision, they didn't even have adequate clothing! 

"On December 20, 1941, Joseph Goebbels, the Minister of Propaganda, broadcast an appeal for warm clothing to send to the troops, saying: "Those at home will not deserve a single peaceful hour if even one soldier is exposed to the rigours of winter without adequate clothing." Yet two years of clothes rationing meant that there was little to give."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/britain-at-war/5907564/Second-World-War-Frozen-to-death-by-the-Fuhrer.html

I feel like these ones are up there although I'm not sure either quite match the "nation" or "stupidest" part of the qn.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sale_of_UK_gold_reserves,_1999–2002

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

It might just be my suspicious nature, but I'm starting to have doubts about that first sentence............

[mikeymike]

winning the 1966 world cup -  we now believe every 4 years we are going to do it again