I have been thinking what have been the bigest backstabs in hitsory. The one glaring example that comes to mind is when Hitler's Germany attacked Stalin's USSR just before Stalin was going to do the same to Germany! They had a non-agression pact in force at the time. Can anyone think of any others?

once upon a time, there was a Iran-Iraq war :) Kuwait was on Iraq's side, and after the war, Iraq annexed Kuwait as thanx :)

other then that, I'm not too sure. in modern times, I dont think many nations have been stabbed, but in the past, probably alot.

You quite forget MAy 1999 when after PM Atal Behari Vajpayee boards the peace bus to Lahore, the Pakis reply by sending 700-800 regulars and terrorists into the Kargil Sector to try and control the crucial Jammu Road. What bigger backstab is there than that :mad: :mad:

Originally posted by Magnus
I have been thinking what have been the bigest backstabs in hitsory. The one glaring example that comes to mind is when Hitler's Germany attacked Stalin's USSR just before Stalin was going to do the same to Germany! They had a non-agression pact in force at the time. Can anyone think of any others?

Stalin did the same thing to Japan -- they had a non-agression pact as well, but when the Hiroshima bomb was dropped, Japan was trying to get Russia to broker a peace deal, and Russia ignored the diplomats and instead attacked.

Bummer.

Personally, I feel sorry for all the diplomats, because as former diplomats have write:

"One side will ask for 18 of something, the other will offer 6, and it takes 17 god damn hours for anyone to so much as propose a number of 12, and then another 8 days to agree on 12."

Originally posted by History_Buff
Personally, I feel sorry for all the diplomats, because as former diplomats have write:

"One side will ask for 18 of something, the other will offer 6, and it takes 17 god damn hours for anyone to so much as propose a number of 12, and then another 8 days to agree on 12." In more ancient times, diplomats were also liable to get killed when confronting brutal foreign despots and the like. Esp when they're delivering a message that the receipient really didn't like hearing. ;)

Or have their caps nailed to their heads as the governor of a Persian province did to Mongol emissaries.:hammer:

Of course, he paid for that. The Mongols caught him and poured molten lead in his ears and mouth:flamedevi:

Originally posted by allhailIndia
Or have their caps nailed to their heads as the governor of a Persian province did to Mongol emissaries.:hammer:

Of course, he paid for that. The Mongols caught him and poured molten lead in his ears and mouth:flamedevi: That's the last Sultan of Khorezm, which controlled Central Asia till Persia (I think). Genghis Khan sent some emmisaries to make contact; the Sultan beheaded them and sent their heads back as an insult. It enraged Genghis Khan so much, that he sent out the Mongol Horde against Central Asia first. Thereby sparing Song China for a couple of decades.

Why could Magnus be thinking of "diplomacy" and "backstabs"? :D

;)

1980's: United States funds mujahadeen, Bin Laden
2001: Bin Laden's network hijacks four commercial airliners and flies them into national landmarks, killing 2,800+

We are talking of diplomacy , not underhand dealing...... never mind:rolleyes:

Originally posted by Pellaken
once upon a time, there was a Iran-Iraq war :) Kuwait was on Iraq's side, and after the war, Iraq annexed Kuwait as thanx :)

other then that, I'm not too sure. in modern times, I dont think many nations have been stabbed, but in the past, probably alot.

But Saddam was given the green light by the US Ambassador to Iraq.(you know it is true) So Saddam has got to be the most backstabbed of all backstabbers.

Originally posted by allhailIndia
We are talking of diplomacy , not underhand dealing...... never mind:rolleyes:

So I guess Clyde's behavior in India is ruled out then? Because he'd have been my favorite otherwise.

Close second: Italy's decision to bail on the Central Powers in 1914.

Originally posted by cephyn


Stalin did the same thing to Japan -- they had a non-agression pact as well, but when the Hiroshima bomb was dropped, Japan was trying to get Russia to broker a peace deal, and Russia ignored the diplomats and instead attacked.

Bummer.

Can you imagine how that meeting must have played out?

Originally posted by dannyevilcat


Can you imagine how that meeting must have played out?

Having played Civ2 and Civ3, that's no new experience:mwaha::D

Originally posted by allhailIndia


Having played Civ2 and Civ3, that's no new experience:mwaha::D

:lol:

But if it were like Civ3, Japan and Russia would have been allies when the declaration of war came! ;)

Originally posted by Richard III


So I guess Clyde's behavior in India is ruled out then? Because he'd have been my favorite otherwise.

Close second: Italy's decision to bail on the Central Powers in 1914.

Actually, that turned out to be a good thing for the Central Powers. Italy was just as pathetic in WWI as it was in WWII. After Italy entered the war on the side of the Allies in 1915, they attempted to invade Austria-Hungary. It didn't work out so well, and the invasion was repelled, with the line stabilizing at the Isonzo river inside Italy! It stalemated there until 1917 when Germany transferred a few units to the Italian front. The battle of Caporetto was an absolute disaster for the Italians, forcing them to give up the entire province of Venezia in a hasty retreat. They were only able to recover after the Central Powers offensive ran out of steam (they outran their supply lines). After this, Italy was out of the war. They were still technically at war, but they had no further ability to mount an offensive. They lost huge stocks of war material in that retreat, supplies that the Central Powers put to good use.

In effect, Italy being on the side of the Allies was a net bonus for the Central Powers. How embarrassing.

WWII seems to have quite a few betrayals! What about Chiang Kai-Chek? Not technically a betrayal, but the US did abandon him after the war, despite his help.

Some incidents between the US government and the Indians were pretty bad. The Iraq situation springs to mind. American and German companies helped Saddam's engineers make chemical weapons during his war with Iraq. After the war Saddam invades Kuwait and menaces America and its allies. Both sides feel betrayed.

Originally posted by MajorGeneral2
WWII seems to have quite a few betrayals! What about Chiang Kai-Chek? Not technically a betrayal, but the US did abandon him after the war, despite his help. The US hardly abandoned Chiang after WW2. In fact, the US side actively supported Chiang during the immediate resumed Chinese Civil War, with logistical support and supplies/equipment. There're even 100000 or so Marines in China at sometime.

And diplomatically. Why did you think Chiang and Taiwan occupied a permanent seat on the UN Sec Council for about 30 years after WW2?

I was unaware of the marines, supplies, etc. Well, that changes things a bit. However, what were the marines doing there? Were they actually fighting? I'd think I would have heard about it if they were. Still, I may have to question some of my opinions of post-WW2 China.

Originally posted by MajorGeneral2
I was unaware of the marines, supplies, etc. Well, that changes things a bit. However, what were the marines doing there? Were they actually fighting? I'd think I would have heard about it if they were. Still, I may have to question some of my opinions of post-WW2 China. Not sure if they actually fought but the Marines were pulled out when the PLA began to steamroll south out of Manchuria. I think they're there to 'protect US interests'; other than that, not so sure. Remember vaguely reading it somewhere. :) They're probably only there for a little while.

The US supplied Chiang massively. And then the KMT troops deserted and joined the Reds en masse, along with their US equipment, aiding in the PLA advance. Subsequently, the PLA was very well-equipped with light and medium arms, fr captured Japanese and US supplies.

Doubt this qualifies as the biggest back stab. But it is certainly amusing in a dilplomatic light. The details as best as I can remember. The British at their 'Screw Over' best.

WW1 the British allied with France and some of the low countries vs Germany and Turkey (Ottoman Empire), essentially.

In steps Lawrence of Arabia, British Army intelligence officer. He works with the arabs who want a home land free of Tyranny etc; the usual stuff. Lawrence takes up their cause and initiates guerilla hit and run attacks. At trains, supplies the usual hit and run and bleed them slow tactics.

In promise for the help of the Arabs, they are promised then British occupied Palenstine. After the end of the war.

Obviously the British didn't dislcose the fact they had made a deal with the Jews to turn Palestine over to them in 1917.

At the close of the war, they renegged on their promise to the Jews and the Arabs.

To rub salt into the old wounds, in 1948 as we all know British hand over Palestine to the Jews becoming Israel. I can't help but think the Hagannah played a hand in that?
:eek:

Even when napoleon days Austria signed peace treaty and broke it and join British in an alliance, Russia did it also WW1 Italy join Allied Powers even if she is a Central Power member Some are match by money , concessions etc Their loyallty is equivalent of material things how they are idiot thinkingking of temporary advantage ot eternal or longlasting advantage like Italy thought joining Allies may bring some Austria Hungary territory but in the end of war they get is worthless piece of land Somehow they drag by the Nazis in WW2 becuase of their miserble conitions and hope to gain Again they betrayed Axis in 1943 by joining again on Allies Their inconstancy brings their defeat Italy switch side in WW1 and WW2 and now switching its policy i Nato or Euro Treachery is alway be a part of our life not only in world at large but in every detailed of our life Each of us has experience being backstabbed.
Not only history of the world but our own history too is the best lesson in dealing with traitors treachery is every where we must learn from the lessons of history

Its is sad about treachery

To rub salt into the old wounds, in 1948 as we all know British hand over Palestine to the Jews becoming Israel. I can't help but think the Hagannah played a hand in that?

Uhmmm, nope. The British didn't hand them anything, we were looking to get the hell out of there with as few losses as possible before the situation exploded into all-out war. In fact one could argue that the British did very little to support the Jews during that period, and in reality it was the UN who made the decision over the creation of palestine.

Actually, that turned out to be a good thing for the Central Powers. Italy was just as pathetic in WWI as it was in WWII. After Italy entered the war on the side of the Allies in 1915, they attempted to invade Austria-Hungary. It didn't work out so well, and the invasion was repelled, with the line stabilizing at the Isonzo river inside Italy! It stalemated there until 1917 when Germany transferred a few units to the Italian front. The battle of Caporetto was an absolute disaster for the Italians, forcing them to give up the entire province of Venezia in a hasty retreat. They were only able to recover after the Central Powers offensive ran out of steam (they outran their supply lines). After this, Italy was out of the war. They were still technically at war, but they had no further ability to mount an offensive. They lost huge stocks of war material in that retreat, supplies that the Central Powers put to good use.

In effect, Italy being on the side of the Allies was a net bonus for the Central Powers. How embarrassing.

Yeah, I know this is an old post.

Two things to consider. First off, the battles along the Alps were among the worst terrain for any offensive Italy wanted to make, so its hard to imagine them doing well. Second, I think Italy's support of the Allies was a help because it allowed France to concentrate their army north of Switzerland (would France have done so well if the trench lines extended to the mediterranean?

Well, there's a resurrected topic if ever I saw one.

My vote goes for the disastrous end of the "baqt" - literally "pact", or agreement to recognise each other's right to exist - between Makuria and Egypt. This remarkable treaty between a Muslim nation and a Christian one was the basis of largely peaceful relations between the two for six centuries, until in 1272 King David of Makuria launched possibly the most unwise military campaign in history against Aidhab, an Egyptian town on the Red Sea. The "baqt" had been crumbling ever since the Ayyubid dynasty took power in Egypt under Saladin in the 1170s, but King David's attack on Aidhab signalled the end of the baqt. It also saw the end of Makuria, and with it the triumph of Islam in the whole of what is now Sudan.