I’m having trouble with “collective”. Most things mentioned were - one way or another - mass human sacrifice imposed by a social or legal authority/hierarchy, with the consequence of not conforming equating with the worst outcome of complying.
Military desertion from the front line being the obv. example. That’s not “collective” is it.
Needs an example where the leaders also accepted the consequences - something more akin to Jonestown, perhaps.
Re; the Aztecs - note that it says “sacrifices were consequently ‘nearly always… friends of the [Royal] House’- meaning warriors from allied states” not from the Aztecs themselves. Which tells me that it was a way of making sure your allies stayed your “allies” rather than your “Rebellion” - cull their warriors and remind them who is top dog all in one memorable ceremony.
The Xhosa cattle-killing movement makes sense if you consider the overall situation - the disease was likely introduced by the White settlers who were encroaching continually on Xhosa territory, they’d lost a series of wars, they couldn’t move away because of the burgeoning Zulu empire to their North - basically, they were in a hopeless situation, and some scholars think that the cattle killing was a deliberate attempt by some leaders (the prophet girls’ uncles) to force the tribes into such a position of desperation that they’d fall on the settlers.
Personally, my vote goes to the Chinese Sparrow War of 1958. I know within the broader context of the Cultural revolution it makes a kind of sense, but seriously? No-one thought that one out? And 30 million deaths later…
I don’t think this is correct. If it were then every incorrect argument would be also logically unsound. IIRC what makes the logic proper is that IF the premises are correct then the conclusion is correct.
Your example (and the Nazi example) are ones of sound logic, but incorrect premises.
I would disagree. The death camps made perfect sense from the Nazi perspective. They could not send all the Jews out of Europe (which was their preferred idea) and when the killings started en mass in 1942, there was no realistic prospect of doing that. The other options were to house, clothe and feed many millions of people and their descendants or release them. Neither was palatable. Nations have been making similar decisions througout history and probably will continue to do so (hell Germany did so only two generations earlier in Africa). What the Holocaust did was unprecedented due to its large scale not due to its nature.
[QUOTE=Alessan]
Antisemitism was the alpha and omega of Nazi belief; everything else was secondary
[/QUOTE]
Explain the Roma then? Or the Slavs? The Nazis thought that they were “Jews” somehow too apparently.
“As long as we are poisoning the rats, we might as well kill the mice and voles.”
Ferdinand and Isabella kicked Moslems out with the Jews in 1492. Actually I think it was the other way around; Jews had the Golden Age in Spain, and were kicked out because they got along well with Moslems.
Never mind. 
I’d vote for either the Chinese Boxer rebellion or the American Indian ghost dancers, or both. I always thought the two movements bore at least a superficial similarity, and odd that they were taking place at around the same time.
Verdun is an interesting choice for the most insane collective human event.
It may have had a certain grim logic for the Germans at the outset, but when they fell into the trap of endlessly feeding their own troops into the meat grinder they suffered about as much as the French.
It’s hard though to single out any one WWI battle like this, given the other, arguably equally senseless slaughters that went on and on without any hope of a decisive result (i.e. Battle of the Somme, Second Battle of the Aisne).
Are we judging this by horrificness or silliness, because I was going to suggest the Dutch tulip mania. Nobody really got hurt very much, but oh my was it silly!
Silliness is fine. You could make a case for the housing bubble being an extraordinarily insane event (unless you were a bank, in which case it made perfect sense). In fact, all speculative bubbles seem to involve a certain level of ridiculous assumption-making.
Which would be sillier-the pet rock craze or the beanie baby craze?
The Dancing Plague of 1518 is, in my opinion, the most insane collective event in human history.
Fortunately the “safety dance” was invented roughly 500 years later (but it still not as safe as they say).
Justin Bieber
That strikes me as using human sacrifice as either a population control method or a status symbol act.
Adopting communism as an economic system. And country after country ending up adopting it! 100 years later we’re still suffering the after-effects. Think of all millions upon millions of people who’ve starved to death or died from war or other causes as a result of Karl Marx. Unfathomable. And he was well-meaning, too.
Were the Aztek sacrifices used for cannibalistic purposes? I thought I read “somewhere” (Jared Diamond?) that due to a paucity of domestic animals the Azteks were desperately short of animal protein.
Which is fucking nuts!
Honorable Mentions:
Elvis
Hands Across America
iProducts
Operation Ramadan
It made sense from the Nazi point of view. If you accept the view that the Jews were the enemy and less than human. There are very few, if any, truly insane, irrational, events in human history. The Children’s Crusade was rather odd though.
They didn’t eat the murdered individuals. Sometimes they wore the hide of the skinned victims for a few weeks, until they were rotting away. But they didn’t eat them.