Top Ten Diplomatic Blunders in History

Think the Oval Office imbroglio with Zelensky, Vance and Trump was bad?  We have at least ten worse diplomatic blunders.   

Transcript

Top Ten Diplomatic Blunders in History: 

March 2025 

“Tact is the knack of making a point without making an enemy.”

Isaac Newton

“Don’t hit at all if it is honorably possible to avoid hitting, but never hit soft!”

Teddy Roosevelt

A diplomat who says “yes” means “maybe,” a diplomat who says “maybe” means “no,” and a diplomat who says “no” is no diplomat.”

Charles Maurice de Talleyrand

In a conference with reporters, then Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice warned against overestimating diplomacy’s role in international affairs, arguing that diplomacy is inextricably tied to underlying power dynamics and is not a particularly useful tool at the wrong historical moment or in the wrong strategic environment. “You aren’t going to be successful as a diplomat,” she declared, “if you don’t understand the strategic context in which you are actually negotiating.” For Rice, diplomacy is not just “dealmaking.”

Huh. 

This podcast will not include fictional Blunders – If Hector had handed his brother over to Menelaus, he would have avoided the Trojan War.  But without that bit of fratricide, we would not have Agamemnon, Achilles, Ajax, Priam, Odysseus, phrases such as beware of Greeks bearing gifts, and some of the most beautiful poetry of the ancient world.  So, good that Paris and Hector completely blundered, one sleeping with a leader’s wife and the other not handing the jerk over.  

Nor will I include the famous or the funny (well, juvenilely amusing) but irrelevant. One example involves a queasy in a room with 135 diplomats. Know that? George Bush Sr. does. In 1992, the former US President became violently ill at a dinner hosted by Japanese Prime Minister Kiichi Miyazawa, ultimately throwing up in the lap of Mr. Miyazawa himself and then losing consciousness. That night not only lives in infamy as one of the biggest public meltdowns ever but also inspired the Japanese word “Bushu-suru,” a.k.a “to do the Bush thing.” But no, my list contains things of much more serious content as this did not really affect Japanese American relations.  

This very week, we were treated to a diplomatic blunder in front of the press and the world, no less.  At the end of a relatively cordial meeting between President Donald Trump, Ukrainian President Volodymir Zelensky, and Vice President JD Vance, the meeting turned acrimonious.  Vance began by suggesting that Zelensky had not tried diplomacy with Ukraine.  Zelensky correctly and pointedly noted that diplomacy had notoriously failed with Putin.  Then, each man made several increasingly vociferous points to their arguments, upon which Trump loudly interjected to say that Zelensky was essentially being unreasonable and risking World War III. At one point, Zelensky implied that Vance’s lack of going to Ukraine made him unaware of the actual situation. It ended with Vance incorrectly citing a lack of gratitude on Zelensky’s part.  The Ukrainian President has repeatedly thanked the American Congress, two presidents, including Trump, and the American people.  

But here’s the thing.  Zelensky would have won if this were a think tank argument, college debate, or a Twitter imbroglio.  He had the facts on his side.  But, as we shall see, that is not how the world often works.  You can be right factually and wrong optically, which happened this week.  Zelensky, who Trump had needled about not wearing a suit (he wears a uniform in solidarity with his soldiers), had forgotten this principle.  He was not there to win an argument; he was there for aid, and antagonizing his hosts was the exact wrong way to go about that.  The smart diplomacy?  Be quiet, be respectful, and do any arguing behind closed doors, especially with the TV-obsessed President Trump.  Ukraine is not in a position to do otherwise.  

Number one: Diplomacy after the Murder of Franz Ferdinand 

One of the points I make on the murder of Franz Ferdinand was given the division of Europe along the lines of the Triple Alliance and the Triple Entente, is that if not for the murder of the Archduke, it might have been something else that launched a series of cascading events leading to world war.  Yet we know it was this incident.  What gets less press is that between his death on June 28 and the actual first declaration of war on August 1, the powers had a month to patch things up to understand the other’s positions.  The diplomatic entreaties failed largely because all the powers involved were either eager or thought their chances of victory were highly positive.  

There are few moral wars in history.  World War II was one.  The Ukrainian resistance of today is another.  But most wars involve misunderstandings of the other’s intentions or overconfidence in one’s ability to emerge victorious.  The case of an overall victory followed by general prosperity is rare.  Even though the United States helped the Allies win in WWI, that conflict was followed by economic troubles at home and the inception of the Spanish flu.  

Number two: Munich Agreement and Appeasement that led to a second World War 

Trump and his supporters continuously say that we need to work with Putin to avoid WWIII. That will entail giving him several pieces of the Ukraine.  And without security guarantees, there is no prevention of future aggressions. These people do not seem to know that such an appeasement led to a World War.  

After Hitler had invaded Austria, on the pretext of uniting German-speaking peoples in early 1938, he demanded the Sudetenland, a primarily German part of Czechoslovakia. The Munich Agreement, which was negotiated between Britain, France, and Germany but NOT Czechoslovakia, gave Germany control of the Sudetenland. The agreement was signed in Munich, Germany, on September 30, 1938.  The primary impetus was that Britain and France were unwilling to risk a German invasion of Czechoslovakia, which could lead to a larger war. Neville Chamberlain, Prime Minister of Great Britain, believed the agreement would prevent another war and soon declared, to much acclaim, that there would be “Peace in our time.” 

Within months, Hitler violated the agreement in March 1939 by occupying the rest of Czechoslovakia. In September 1939, Germany invaded Poland, which led to Britain entering World War II. 

A few notes.  Chamberlain was not quite the hapless idiot as he seems in this episode.  He was a patriot who had served Britain in a number of capacities.  I note that intelligent, experienced men can make mistakes when they see the world as it ought to be, or they wish it to be, rather than how it actually exists.  Also, Britain was just 20 years removed from the most devastating war in its history in which the flower of British manhood, the best of the nation, was exterminated on the fields along the Somme in less than three months.  That they would find a Churchill was not just a necessity but rather a miracle.  However, despite the war weariness of both France and Britain, as the great Reagan said, peace comes from a position of strength.  Chamberlain proves it does not come from weakness or appeasement of monstrous dictators.  Sad that the GOP has lost this message. 

Number three: Khwarazmians kill the Mongol envoys (Kwa Raz Me An) 

In the early 13th century, Genghis Khan sought to establish peaceful trade relations with the neighboring Khwarazmian (kwəˈrazmēən) Empire, a powerful Muslim state that spanned much of present-day Iran, Uzbekistan, and Turkmenistan. It was easily the most powerful state in the Middle East and Central Asia, and it knew so. Shah Ala ad-Din Muhammad II ruled the Khwarazmian Empire.

In 1218, Genghis Khan sent a caravan of Muslim merchants to the Khwarazmian city of Otrar to engage in trade. But the governor of Otrar, Ghiyas ad-Din, accused the members of the caravan of being spies and ordered their arrest. Despite the protestations of their innocence, the governor had the entire caravan executed, except one survivor who managed to escape and bring news of the massacre back to Genghis Khan.

Outraged by the unjust treatment of his merchants, Genghis Khan sent a diplomatic mission to the Shah to seek redress for the incident. He demanded that the governor of Otrar be punished for his actions and that reparations be made for the loss of life and property. However, the Shah not only refused to comply with Genghis Khan’s demands but also added further insult by beheading the chief envoy of the diplomatic mission and sending the head back to the Mongols.

It was a pivotal decision. The Mongols invaded the Khwarazmian Empire in 1219. Within two years, the Mongols obliterated the empire through a brutal and decisive campaign, sacking once-beautiful cities such as Samarkand and Bukhara. The campaign likely killed over a million people, many of whom were women and children. It also brought the Mongols into the Middle East, leading to Bagdad’s sacking and the library’s burning.  Thousands of medieval books were lost forever.  This was not just about wholly underestimating your opponent’s power; it is overestimating your own. Also, a man as powerful as the Shah should have sent emissaries to China to see what sort of a man this Khan was.  That might have given him pause as well.  Of all the Kings, Generals, Presidents, and Emperors who have walked this Earth, Genghis was the one you never F-with. 

Number four: Treaty of Versailles 

The Versailles Treaty forced Germany to give up territory to Belgium, Czechoslovakia, and Poland, return Alsace and Lorraine to France, and cede all its overseas colonies in China, the Pacific, and Africa to the Allied nations. In addition, it had to drastically reduce its armed forces and accept the demilitarization and Allied occupation of the region around the Rhine River. Most importantly, Article 231 of the Treaty placed all blame for inciting the war squarely on Germany and forced it to pay several billion in reparations to the Allied nations.

Now did the reparations so cripple Germany as to raise up an Adolph Hitler?  There are mixed views on this, but what is not in dispute is the concept of reparations, coupled with the blame put on Germany, created great animosity.  Many Germans believe Russia’s mobilization against ally Austria began the war—a concept with much merit. 

What we do know are two things.  The United States, the most powerful state in the world at that time (and still today), did not sign the Treaty, and the concept of the Treaty was a strong impetus for Hitler’s ascent.  As he himself stated in 1923, “So long as this Treaty stands, there can be no resurrection of the German people; no social reform of any kind is possible!  The Treaty was made in order to bring 20 million Germans to their deaths and to ruin the German nation.” 

Number Five: Romans renege on a deal with Atilla 

This does not refer to a later deal in which the Western Empire was able to bribe Atilla so that Rome would not be sacked. Instead, an agreement was made many years earlier with the Eastern Roman Empire.  Shortly after starting his reign, Atilla negotiated a peace treaty with the Eastern Roman Empire in which the Romans paid him gold in exchange for peace.  Eventually, the Romans reneged on the deal, and in 441, Attila and his army stormed their way through the Balkans and the Danubian frontier. Since I know my listeners come here for incite and wisdom found in no other place, this and the one about Genghis illustrate the point.  Try not to anger rulers capable of savagery and with larger or better armies.   But Atilla was never able to conquer Constantinople, and the Eastern Romans lasted another 1,000 years, so the second pearl of knowledge – if you anger bigger armies, have really big walls.  

Number Six: Suez Crisis – Do not pick a fight without asking Big Brother if it is okay.

Up until the First World War, no continent in the history of Earth had so dominated the globe as Europe.  With the exception of the United States, from China in the East to Africa in the South to the Caribbean in the West, Europe stood tall.  Two nations, Britain and France, were the leaders.  Yet, starting with France’s defeat in the Franco-Prussian War to the decimation of its people in both World Wars, France had begun a fateful descent.  Britain itself left the flower of a generation dead on the battlefield of the Somme and only escaped WWII with Germany’s invasion of the Soviet Union and the US intervention after Pearl Harbor.  The move from great power status to second their nation for both was completed in 1956.

On July 26, 1956, Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser announced the nationalization of the Suez Canal Company. This joint British-French enterprise had owned and operated the Suez Canal since its construction in 1869. Nasser’s announcement came about following months of mounting political tensions between Egypt, Britain, and France. Although Nasser offered full economic compensation for the Company, the British and French Governments, long suspicious of Nasser’s opposition to the continuation of their political influence in the region, were outraged by the nationalization. The Egyptian leader, in turn, resented what he saw as European efforts to perpetuate their colonial domination. Egypt was a British province for nearly 100 years.  

Meanwhile, back in the US, the Eisenhower administration, worried by the prospect of the outbreak of hostilities between its NATO allies and an emergent, influential Middle Eastern power (and the possible intervention of the Soviet Union in such a conflict), attempted to broker a diplomatic settlement of the British-French-Egyptian dispute. 

The British and French held secret military consultations with Israel, who regarded Nasser as a threat to its security, resulting in the creation of a joint plan to invade Egypt and overthrow its President. In keeping with these plans, Israeli forces attacked across Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula on October 29, 1956, advancing to within 10 miles of the Suez Canal. Under the pretext of protecting the Canal from the two belligerents, Britain and France landed their own troops a few days later.

In response, the Eisenhower administration, concerned about dissociating the United States from European colonialism—especially in light of its strident condemnation of the Soviet intervention in Hungary the same week—as well as the possibility that the Soviets would intervene to assist Nasser, pressured Britain and France to accept a United Nations ceasefire on November 6.  Washington’s public censure of two of its most important allies temporarily soured relations with London and Paris and helped contribute to the resignation of British Prime Minister Anthony Eden in January 1957. Concurrently, US worries about the continued viability of European (particularly British) political and military power in the Middle East in the aftermath of the Suez Crisis prompted the creation of the Eisenhower Doctrine, which gave the administration increased power to aid countries in the region. 

Number Seven: Iraq War Intelligence failure – not WMD

After 9/11, there was a bit of a fever concerning the Middle East and their ability to harm us.  After the lightning-fast success of American forces in Afghanistan, toppling the Taliban regime in a matter of weeks in 2002, the Bush Administration turned to Iraq the following year.  Bush’s father, as President, had famously thrown the Iraqi army out of Kuwait but left the strongman ruler, Saddam Hussein, in power.  

The justification for taking the Taliban out of power (temporarily, as it turned out) was they harbored the terrorists who organized 9/11.  Makes sense.  But the justification for Iraq was different.  There were no direct links between Hussein and Osama Bin Laden, the terrorist mastermind, or his Al Queda operation.  So Bush needed a different Casus Belli, and what was settled on was that Saddam was producing Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD).  So the invasion was proactive to prevent another 9/11, or so went the thinking.  The actual invasion of Iraq went with near perfection.  250,000 American troops destroyed the million-man Iraqi army in days, and Saddam fell from power.  George W Bush even flew onto an aircraft carrier in a form-fitting jumpsuit behind a giant banner noting Mission Accomplished.  

Uh, no. 

In a piece by Robert Kelly, a UN inspector who was on the job in Iraq prior to the invasion did not see WMD.  But he was overruled.

The case for invading Iraq in March 2003 was built on three basic premises: that Iraq had WMD, that it was developing more of them, and that it was failing to comply with its disarmament obligations under a series of United Nations Security Council resolutions. All of these premises were based on scraps of unreliable information. None of them was true.

The Iraq Survey Group (ISG)—the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) mission to find and disable those putative WMD programs—once the US-led multinational coalition had toppled Iraqi President Saddam Hussein’s Ba’athist regime and turned Iraq into an occupied state.  The ISG found no WMD in Iraq, and returning to Congress to testify on January 28, 2004, David Kay, mission lead for the ISG, later admitted ‘we were almost all wrong.’ He blamed a lack of human agents inside Iraq in the months before the war and analysts being under pressure to draw conclusions based on inadequate intelligence. But there was plenty more information that they ignored.

I was in Iraq in those final months before the 2003 invasion … By early 2003, we knew at a very high level of confidence that there was no nuclear weapons effort of any kind in Iraq, and we were regularly passing this information back to the UN Security Council. We were not wrong.” 

The US then found itself in a quagmire of sectarian battles and anti-American animus.  Talk about the devil one knows? The true winner of the invasion was Iran, which saw its Shia counterparts establish their own government.  

Number Eight: Molotov Ribbentrop– blunder on the part of Stalin

The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was a non-aggression agreement between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, signed in 1939. It was to last ten years.  The pact was named after the two foreign ministers who signed it, Joachim von Ribbentrop of Germany and Vyacheslav Molotov of the Soviet Union. 

The pact initially enabled two things: the carving up of Poland between the two powers, which instigated World War II, and protecting Hitler’s Germany from a backdoor attack from the Soviets while he dealt with France and Britain in the West. Hitler understood that the two-front war in World War I ultimately did Germany in. Had the nation been able to focus all the Kaiser’s forces in the West, they probably could have overwhelmed the French and British.  

Once Hitler had successfully conquered France (and Norway, Holland, and Belgium) and felt he had neutralized the British, he turned to the foe he had wanted to destroy all along—Soviet Russia.  In July 1941, he invaded Stalin’s domain.  As it turned out, this worked out for Stalin, but in 1941 and early 1942, he was nearly destroyed because he believed in the pact. 

Sykes-Picot Agreement 

Number Nine: The Sykes-Picot Agreement

This agreement was a 1916 secret treaty between the United Kingdom and France, with assent from Russia and Italy, to define their mutually agreed spheres of influence and control in an eventual partition of the Ottoman Empire.

Andrew Thomas, a professor of Middle Eastern Studies, wrote for the conversation, “Signed in secret at the height of the First World War, Sykes-Picot was an agreement between France and Great Britain, approved by Russia. It would have lasting consequences for the region. It is frequently cited as the epitome of European colonial betrayal and the genesis of most conflict in the Middle East.

Under the agreement:

• France was allocated what is now Syria, Lebanon, and southern Turkey
• Britain claimed most of modern-day Iraq, southern Palestine, and Kuwait
• Russia took control of Armenia.

The collapse of the Ottoman Empire always caused regional upheaval, but colonial jockeying for territory had lasting consequences. Several regional conflicts were exacerbated during this period, which also directly led to the creation of the state of Israel and the Arab-Israeli conflict.

This led to the displacement of Palestinians and the Palestinian-Israeli conflict that still rages today.

Zionists and Arab nationalists viewed Palestine as having been originally promised to them by the British through the Balfour Declaration and McMahon-Hussein correspondence, respectively. But in Sykes-Picot, the British had no intention of promising Palestine to anyone but themselves.

Number Ten: Montezuma meets with the Spaniards

Montezuma met with the Spaniards on November 8, 1519, in the Aztec capital city of Tenochtitlan. There, he welcomed Spanish conquistador Hernán Cortés with great ceremony, marking a pivotal moment in the Spanish conquest of Mexico; however, despite the seemingly peaceful encounter, Cortés would eventually take Montezuma prisoner and use him to control the Aztec empire before his death in the ensuing conflict. 

So, since this makes a mockery of a host of diplomatic exercises next week, in a rare bout of optimism, I will lay out 10 areas where diplomacy was a big success!