Did any war backfire more than the ACW?

If Russia started the Russo-Japanese war, thinking they could beat easily 'inferior asian scum', well.. that count. Albeit postwar settlement could have been harder.
AFAIK, Japan attacked first.
However, all the Russian policy conducive to that war can be said to have been a spectacular failure.
 
The Ottaman Empire's entry into WWI.

They went in to gain a pan-Turkic empire in Asia,

They came out losing their entire Empire and were occupied until the 20's.



Or the Second Punic War. Carthage goes in to crush Rome and revive her own empire, ends up getting reduced to a rump state.
 
Bush's invasion of Iraq, as long as it had any sense at all aside of the "grand theft" part, was meant to make the country a democracy friendly to America. Currently Iraq can be described as a dictatorship friendly to Iran.
It's not catastrophic as ACW maybe, but probably qualifies as a stunning case of a war backfiring quite horribly after having been won.
And the worst part is that it was quite easily foreseeable. Ok, so it was Union victory in the ACW after all.
 
Doesn't World War II count?
Not in this sense. For it to count as much in the way I mean it would mean that the Jews would have to rule Germany. That would be the exact opposite of what they wanted.

Many say it was the Holocaust that eventually enabled the creation of Israel. For those who wanted to erradicate the Jews being responsible for having them get their own state for the first time in millennia... that's backfiring. ;)
 
The Hundred Years War. Far from securing the Plantagent territories in France, it wound up costing them everything except Calais.

Not a whole war maybe, but Athens's attack on Sicily in the Peloponnesian War.

The Second Crusade in Outremer deserves at least dishonorable mention.
 
the dutch 80 yr war also qualifies, spain was sure they could keep those heretics down. at the end of the 80 yr war they didn't win and the netherlands (united provinces) was on the map as a major world power.
 
Khmelnistky uprising of cossacs against PLC in 1648 qualifies; they intended to gain authonomy and better rights within the PLC and ended up being divided between PLC, Russia and Ottomans, opressed more than ever and having cossack power crushed.
 
I think we need to draw a distinction between "lost" and "backfired". Or at least be clear where we're drawing the line.

I mean, one could say the last of the Roman-Persian wars "backfired", but beyond the fact that obviously the final result was not what was intended, does that count, or was that merely a defeat that happened to be irrecoverable?
 
I think we need to draw a distinction between "lost" and "backfired". Or at least be clear where we're drawing the line.

Perhaps it's when a party engages a war towards an expansive goal and after they lose, not only do they not achieve their goal but they also get in a situation far far worse than status quo ante bellum.
 

Pangur

Donor
Iraq attacking Kuwait They got smashed , cost Iraq a fortune and put it on the road for the US invasion in 2003
 
Many say it was the Holocaust that eventually enabled the creation of Israel. For those who wanted to erradicate the Jews being responsible for having them get their own state for the first time in millennia... that's backfiring. ;)

Point taken, I doubt very much Israel would exist without WWII. Most Jews weren't big backers of it before then.
 
Many say it was the Holocaust that eventually enabled the creation of Israel. For those who wanted to erradicate the Jews being responsible for having them get their own state for the first time in millennia... that's backfiring. ;)

Those who say that generally neglect that Israel owes its origins to the Mandate of Palestine and the formation of Haganah in the 1920s and 1930s, with the Holocaust providing legitimacy for a terrorist campaign that was going to happen regardless. Israel will still exist without a Holocaust, it will, however, be seen more like present-day Iran by the world than a moral answer to a grave crisis. Admittedly trying in Israel's origins to Lord Balfour would make it more Jewish-Rhodesia with the Palestinians the Matabele and Shona, but that's the reality that existed, not the one people wanted to exist.
 
Point taken, I doubt very much Israel would exist without WWII. Most Jews weren't big backers of it before then.

I don't. The founders of Israel wanted a state the whole time, regardless of what they said, and were willing to do things like blowing up the King David Hotel and exploiting Hajj Amin Husseini's stupidity to get it. The factors that led to it, such as the Arab Revolt, would still exist, as would the Zionist demand for a Jewish state. The crucial element is that without a Holocaust the Israeli state's founders are never seen as anything but terrorists and Israel gets seen as a seedy state from the start. Without Treblinka and Sobibor to justify it in a masterful example of correlation, blowing up the King David Hotel or something equivalent will end very poorly for the Haganah and Irgun.
 
The Burgundian Wars of Charles the Bold against the Old Swiss Confederacy would definately qualify. Charles not only failed to subdue the Swiss, he lost all decisive battles and according to the proverb in the Battle of Grandson his hat (after the battle, the city of Basel did indeed sell a resplendant princely hat of golden velvet embroidery set with pearls and gemstones for the amount of 47.000 Guilders to Jacob Fugger), in the Battle of Murten his boldness and in the Battle of Nancy his blood ("Karl der Kühne verlor in Grandson den Hut, in Murten den Mut und in Nancy das Blut"). After his death the french King Louis XI. reincorporated the Duchy of Burgundy as a royal domain back into the Kingdom of France and thus the dreams of Charles the Bold of Burgundy as a major player among the european powers were shattered for good.
 
I don't. The founders of Israel wanted a state the whole time, regardless of what they said, and were willing to do things like blowing up the King David Hotel and exploiting Hajj Amin Husseini's stupidity to get it. The factors that led to it, such as the Arab Revolt, would still exist, as would the Zionist demand for a Jewish state. The crucial element is that without a Holocaust the Israeli state's founders are never seen as anything but terrorists and Israel gets seen as a seedy state from the start. Without Treblinka and Sobibor to justify it in a masterful example of correlation, blowing up the King David Hotel or something equivalent will end very poorly for the Haganah and Irgun.

What the founders wanted and what they would get are two different things. They would get far less backing from other Jews not talking about everyone else.
 
Those who say that generally neglect that Israel owes its origins to the Mandate of Palestine and the formation of Haganah in the 1920s and 1930s, with the Holocaust providing legitimacy for a terrorist campaign that was going to happen regardless. Israel will still exist without a Holocaust, it will, however, be seen more like present-day Iran by the world than a moral answer to a grave crisis. Admittedly trying in Israel's origins to Lord Balfour would make it more Jewish-Rhodesia with the Palestinians the Matabele and Shona, but that's the reality that existed, not the one people wanted to exist.

OTL history of the establishment and survival of Israel is impressive enough. Could such a state with even less international support and with an aliyah with less of a momentum survive? It could but I wouldn't put my money on them...
 
What the founders wanted and what they would get are two different things. They would get far less backing from other Jews not talking about everyone else.

The Soviets would back them and call it a "war of national liberation" just to screw the West as Stalin did things IOTL. And in 1947 David Ben Gurion v. Hajj Amin Husseini and his contempoararies is pretty much going to lead to *an* Israel. An Israel that just happens to be isolated enough to be an Eastern Bloc customer with all the long-term disaster that entails.

OTL history of the establishment and survival of Israel is impressive enough. Could such a state with even less international support and with an aliyah with less of a momentum survive? It could but I wouldn't put my money on them...

Yes, as the Soviets will be their major sugar daddy.
 
I say that the Second World War backfired at least as much as the American Civil War, probably more so. The nazia managed to render elements of their own ideology that had formerly been mainstream completely unelectable, and became synanonimous with evil. Perhaps not a physical backfire (though germany didn't exactly come out of it well on that front) but a critical winning-the-hearts-and-minds failure of proportions not seen in well-written fiction.
 
Many say it was the Holocaust that eventually enabled the creation of Israel. For those who wanted to erradicate the Jews being responsible for having them get their own state for the first time in millennia... that's backfiring. ;)

I'm not sure you can count that as IIRC the Holocaust was not a war aim of the 3rd Rich, more WWII coursed the Holocaust too happen*. I think for WWII to meet the OP’s standards Poland would have to end up in invading/controlling Germany.

um the veitnam war? USA goes in to stop the spread of Communism and the whole country ends up red

 
I say that the Second World War backfired at least as much as the American Civil War, probably more so. The nazis managed to render elements of their own ideology that had formerly been mainstream completely unelectable, and became synonymous with evil.
Which elements are you thinking of? Eugenics? Ethnic nationalism in general?
 
Top