World leaders who had chances to quit while they were ahead but kept going then lost everything?

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

Who are some leaders this applies to. Napoleon Bonaparte comes to mind I would say.

[Zenobiyl]

Hitler
Phillipe Petain

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Hitler
Phillipe Petain

I would disagree with both: as soon as petain took office he had to accept he was the puppet of the occupiers, and the various attempts to turn Vichy into a refoundation of France come across as delusional; Hitler was always going to do what he did, and in fact his state relied on the continuous plunder of war.

[Blue3]

Hitler
Phillipe Petain

I would disagree with both: as soon as petain took office he had to accept he was the puppet of the occupiers, and the various attempts to turn Vichy into a refoundation of France come across as delusional; Hitler was always going to do what he did, and in fact his state relied on the continuous plunder of war.

For Hitler... should have taken a break before Poland, or at least after France, and not gone to war with the Soviets and made clear that Japan shouldn't attack the US. (Glad he made his mistakes so he was defeated, but just looking at it without the moral lens for a moment.) And maybe just do new, limited, campaigns over the years.

[Lumine]

Napoleon could have indeed taken the win and go home so many times it's almost absurd, but it just wasn't in his character. Could have kept his throne - if not his Empire - as late as 1813-1814 too.

The Bohemian Corporal could have also stopped - he could have, he clearly wasn't ever going to - right after Münich and - outrageously - gotten away with a lot. I'd say March 1939 too, but I think that's were he was perceived to have crossed the line in the mind of the Appeasement side of the equation.

Charles XII of Sweden's hubris comes to mind, could have halted before the Russian adventure or even after the early part of it and kept the Swedish Empire going. Still, he didn't lose everything.

Mussolini obviously would have kept his power and newly built colonial empire had he had the sense to remain neutral in 1940. It's almost fascinating to think of the Fascist regime lasting long enough to find oil in Libya.

There are exceptions in the sense of those thrown into very hostile contexts... but you'll find far more examples of hubris leading to disaster. Generally speaking, there's no shortage of men who got very far by being risky all or nothing gamblers and kept at it until they ran out of luck.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Hitler
Phillipe Petain

I would disagree with both: as soon as petain took office he had to accept he was the puppet of the occupiers, and the various attempts to turn Vichy into a refoundation of France come across as delusional; Hitler was always going to do what he did, and in fact his state relied on the continuous plunder of war.

For Hitler... should have taken a break before Poland, or at least after France, and not gone to war with the Soviets and made clear that Japan shouldn't attack the US. (Glad he made his mistakes so he was defeated, but just looking at it without the moral lens for a moment.) And maybe just do new, limited, campaigns over the years.

The difference is unlike Napoleon, Hitler's main enemy from the start was the USSR not the British. The Western Front was more to done to ensure the Nazis would not face a two front war when battling the USSR and from June 1941-June 1944 there was basically no 2nd front .

I would say for Napoleon invading Russia was a mistake given his main enemy was the UK