Your country's most shameful moments

Jan 2017
1,293
Durham
#11
In modern times:

The rift and chaos that ensued between the trade unions and the government. The trade unions held the government and its elected officials to ransom. In turn, the government and media colluded to spread a series of lies regarding the trade unions and utilised the police as an army to turn up at trade union protests and crack skulls. 'Might not sound like much but the country was deeply divided and violence was used on both sides in an attempt to win their respective arguments, and the government acted like some totalitarian regime. A low point I would say.

The other would be the build up to the invasion of Iraq. Knowing fine well that certain important documents were forgeries and using them to build a case, while seemingly not caring that millions of people were about to be displaced and much worse.
 
Likes: Druid
Feb 2019
797
Serbia
#12
The 1990s Wars.

Creating Yugoslavia instead of taking territory after WWI.

Settler colonialism in Kosovo.

The tendency to turn glorify defeats and scapegoat allies for failures. I can't stand the complaints that the Entente ''betrayed'' us in WWI because they hesitated in the evacuation of Albania or that the Austrians were evil oppressors that always tortured and never did anything good.
 
Likes: Futurist
Jan 2017
1,293
Durham
#13
Eh ... the Iraq War is debatable, I suppose. I mean, it was good for the Iraqis and probably less bloody for them than the alternative was, but at the same time the cost in lives and money to the US wasn't exactly minuscule. IMHO, a better time to remove Saddam was in 1991. Still, better late than never, I suppose.
Saddam may have been the devil for all I know, but I do think that's their business to resolve amongst themselves, and when he was removed all hell brook loose with various factions vying for power. Iraq was a more stable nation under Saddam. And, the United States profited from that invasion. As did some other countries, so please don't take that as some sort of dig at the United States. Companies such as Bechtel and Halliburton raped the resources of the place, promising to rebuild the place but soon claiming the money had ran out and so turned for home with billions of pounds of contracts in their pockets while leaving Iraqi infrastructure in ruins.

It's an erroneous Western assessment to believe that you can turn up in places, remove the state and democracy will rise from the ashes. More often than not, such countries simply become destabilised and more destructive forces than the former state turn up in attempt to fill the power vacuum.
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
20,960
SoCal
#15
Saddam may have been the devil for all I know, but I do think that's their business to resolve amongst themselves,
They tried doing that (probably in large part due to US encouragement) back in 1991 and failed, though.

and when he was removed all hell brook loose with various factions vying for power. Iraq was a more stable nation under Saddam.
Afghanistan also had stability under the Taliban; that doesn't automatically make the Taliban worthy of supporting, though.

And, the United States profited from that invasion. As did some other countries, so please don't take that as some sort of dig at the United States. Companies such as Bechtel and Halliburton raped the resources of the place, promising to rebuild the place but soon claiming the money had ran out and so turned for home with billions of pounds of contracts in their pockets while leaving Iraqi infrastructure in ruins.
Yeah, some US companies certainly benefited from Saddam's overthrow. For the US government and the American people, though, the price tag was very high.

It's an erroneous Western assessment to believe that you can turn up in places, remove the state and democracy will rise from the ashes. More often than not, such countries simply become destabilised and more destructive forces than the former state turn up in attempt to fill the power vacuum.
Eh ... Iraq does appear to be a successful democracy right now, but Yes, bringing democracy to countries that don't have a long history of it isn't guaranteed to go over well. Ex.: Libya.
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
20,960
SoCal
#16
I don't see this as really a shameful moment. It was more of a stupid moment, but shameful...no, not really.
Back then, the trend was more towards larger states. That's why there was a movement to get the Eastern Slavs into one country, the Western Slavs (minus the Poles) into another country, and the Southern Slavs (minus the Bulgarians) into yet another country.
 

Maki

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
3,386
Republika Srpska
#18
Back then, the trend was more towards larger states. That's why there was a movement to get the Eastern Slavs into one country, the Western Slavs (minus the Poles) into another country, and the Southern Slavs (minus the Bulgarians) into yet another country.
Yes, but the architects of Yugoslavia seemingly ignored warning signs, for example that the relations between Serbs and Croats in Croatia were less than ideal and that there existed tension between the two.
 
Likes: Futurist

Similar History Discussions