Why does America keep losing wars?

[douseiai]

Nah mate. Hollywood has worked on you to.

The USA joined in the war many years after it had started. The conflict in Europe was over. Japan was still fighting, the USA dropped the A bomb on them, Hiroshima first, then Nagasaki... Japan surrendered shortly afterwards.

America didn't win the war in any sense. The Allied Forces won the war.

People say that it was the US involvement in Europe which ended it.. but remember, you were only able to fight in Europe because we gave you RAF Lakenheath and RAF Mildenhall on a 99year lease amongst others.

We were all a team, all the allied forces, each gave a very important input into the war effort. Without either component, we would have ALL lost.




Hmmm... almost right.

WW2 wasnt about japan though. That was just ONE theater of conflict.. there were many many others throughtout the globe. Whilst you did good in the pacific theater..... that was not the war.

It was on minor fighting zone.

your taking what i said and spinning it.... our war with japan was part of us in WW2... keep in mind i did say allies... america won agaisnt japan by itself england didnt come... and russia defended itself thats it... we nuked them they surrendered which = US won...
then we came to help finish off the germans.... help i said we beat germany with the allies keep in mind as you quoted me and now i will do the same "our war with japan was won and then with our allies the war against germany was one.... " see how i word it? i say with our allies... or as you may want to say the allied forces...

and yes japan was a theater of conflict but for us thats what the war was... we didn't have germany attacking us so at first we didn't give a fuck... your thinking on a global perspective thats fine... to the US WW2 was us vs japan then allies vs germany... most do not distinguish them as seperate wars... which is unfortuatly a sad thing... america won the war in the pacific we have always called it WW2 because we went from there straight to germany and joined the fighting.... as i said "in WW2 we wanted japan to stop" which is very correct if japan had never attacked us we could have gone to germany earlier... stop trivializing actions on the other side of the globe... we had a war we won then we came and helped you win... so lets all shut the fuck up and be happy we are alive?

 

[SpankThePony]

I just get this feeling that if America didnt start as many wars it wouldnt lose as many.

 

[winterknight]

Anyone who thinks that the Asian portion of WWII was entirely between Japan and the US needs to go read This article on Wikipedia and everything that links to it. The US may have been responsible for the fighting in actual Japanese territory, but most of the war on the Asian mainland was fought by British and Commonwealth forces.

I mean, seriously -- have you people never seen Bridge on the River Kwai?

Oh, and "The Russians never did more than defend themselves" -- Bullshit. From the German point of view WWII was fought - and lost - on the Russian front. Once the Red Army started moving west, they didn't stop until they reached Berlin.

If Stalingrad had fallen, the war may well have gone the other way.

 

[winterknight]

Oh, and Dou -- You've got your timeine of who surrendered when the wrong way around. The war in Europe ended on May 6, three months before the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima.

 

[eddielee]

America can only win wars that the American people support. I'm talking about Patriotism. If we are involved in a war defending our Country, the people support it. When it's a war that the American people believe is justified, we have no problem winning.

The current war in Iraq is a prime example of an unjustified war that doesn't stir Patriotic feelings in a majority of American people.

 

[douseiai]

Oh, and Dou -- You've got your timeine of who surrendered when the wrong way around. The war in Europe ended on May 6, three months before the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima.

oh... i honestly didn't know that... *shrug* ok... and while yes you were involved in the asian theatre if i read this right... you even helped in the final battle by attacking okinawa... now that i know that i know it... ok then thats fine... i will be sure to keep note of this thank you... i just ask that you don't come off as trivializing our efforts through the ordeals... i realize a lot of americans come off as being furverant defenders of the US' war efforts... if i could apologize on their behalf i would... the US government tends to believe themselves superior to all... as any government does

i still stand by my point of the allies won... so england won... america won... and canada too

i am now leaving this topic i should not defend any point that i do not have fully backed i apologize... i am no historian nor do i even enjoy the topic... i'm just gonna go away now bubye

 

[james1200]

America can only win wars that the American people support. I'm talking about Patriotism. If we are involved in a war defending our Country, the people support it. When it's a war that the American people believe is justified, we have no problem winning.

The current war in Iraq is a prime example of an unjustified war that doesn't stir Patriotic feelings in a majority of American people.

absolutely right eddielee!!! i had such feelings of love for my country after 9/11 and the actions of bush and his ilk have all but destroyed it...not just because they started an unjustified war, but because it's shown me what a large portion of the population here is like...easily duped, unwilling to admit a mistake or not even caring that iraq was a mistake. the hubris and evil in parts of the U.S. is unbelievable.

 

[dunno260]

Well, it depends on what we are trying to do. When we try to defeat an ideology that is rooted in a country, we have had a quite a tough time of it. Iraq and Vietnam are your two main examples there, although we might get lucky on Iraq, though I wouldn't bet too much on it.

However, when the goal is much more specific, we beat the crap out of people. The first Gulf War, Korea pre-china (and had we stuck it out, we probably could have won it, though it would have likely gone nuclear), WW2 (though the Japan occupation afterwards was a rare abberation). A lot of the smaller engagements were mostly successes until we lost the will to stay with it.

Yeah, if it was an issue of training, equipment, technology, even numbers, then we would have won all our engagements in the 20th century. But its not. Once the conventional war ends, and the occupation begins, things change entirely. If a large enough number of people don't want you there, and the populace is at least ambivilant about it, then occupation is not going to go well. The Germans in World War II beat the crap out of larger militaries that were equiped fairly well (British and French) and then had a miserable occupation in all the countries it occupied.

Also, American History tends to grossly distort the military effort put into the pacific conflict. About 10% of American military resources were used to fight the Japanese with the other 90% going to the European theater. And I think we would have been drawn in without Pearl Harbor.

But yeah, its a lack of will. Iraq is a bad situation, but in terms of deaths on our side, its absurdly low compared to our other major conflicts.

 

[JSB_01]

Oh, and "The Russians never did more than defend themselves" -- Bullshit. From the German point of view WWII was fought - and lost - on the Russian front. Once the Red Army started moving west, they didn't stop until they reached Berlin.

Well, this may be off topic, but didn't the Russians attack Germany only after Hitler violated the Non-Aggresion Pact?

 

[khushibagh]

The US may have been responsible for the fighting in actual Japanese territory, but most of the war on the Asian mainland was fought by British and Commonwealth forces.

I mean, seriously -- have you people never seen Bridge on the River Kwai?

Yeah, they sure did a great job fighting their way out of a POW camp! The Brits folded like a cheap accordion before the initial Japanese offensive and retreated to India until the Americans subdued the Germans and nuked the Japanese. Then the Brits retook their colonial possessions which were being safeguarded from local independence movements by the Imperial Japanese Army. All this breast beating by the Brits and the French about how they defeated the Germans reminds me of a little kid saying Daddy and I shot a bear!

 

[dunno260]

Yeah, they sure did a great job fighting their way out of a POW camp! The Brits folded like a cheap accordion before the initial Japanese offensive and retreated to India until the Americans subdued the Germans and nuked the Japanese. Then the Brits retook their colonial possessions which were being safeguarded from local independence movements by the Imperial Japanese Army. All this breast beating by the Brits and the French about how they defeated the Germans reminds me of a little kid saying Daddy and I shot a bear!

Any troops would have had the same results as the British and Australians in Asia. Horribly outnumbered.

As for the European side of things, the Germans had the tactical advantage, but the British and French should have beaten the initial german invasion. They outnumbered them in almost every meaningful way. However, due to ineptness on the allies part, they were defeated. Had any counterattack been mounted that was serious (De Gaule was the only one too) they would have cut the german troops off and won. However, the head of the military was having a major crisis with advanced neurosyphillus. But the British couldn't have done much in France, it was the French's fault.

However, the Russians are the ones that beat the crap out of the germans. The British were fine once they had adjusted tactics to fight the Germans. The US had less to do with the defeat of the germans than the russians. That was where the real fighting took place on the european front.

As for defeating the Japanese, most of the larger countries could have. We just had the logistical ability and the determination to do so. Of course, the attrocities we committed there are some of the worst of the war on any of the sides (our two major firebombings of tokyo and dresden were more destructive than the a bombs were).

 

[justsimon]

I just get this feeling that if America didnt start as many wars it wouldnt lose as many.

And I was just wondering how one goes about winning a war...

 

[frankfrank]

It's hard for the U.S. to win any war, when so much of the cost of the war is being stolen by the Halliburtons and Bechtels, profiteering CEO's and their ilk. For the amounts of money being spent, we are NOT getting "our money's worth" in actual warfare.

During World War II, I believe that extraordinary war profiteering was totally ILLEGAL, though to say that "we" won in WWII may or may not be entirely correct. HOWEVER, it would be very accurate to say that the U.S. involvements in both theaters of WWII were started with known objectives, and "we" generally were successful in accomplishing what was hoped for. WWII was, as far as I can tell, the last war (with the possible exception of Gulf War #1) entirely or mostly involving the US, which had a specific objective or goal.

Of course the stated objective of THIS utterly-fucked-up war changed every couple of weeks. Even, now, more than three years since George Bush DELIBERATELY spoke from a "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" backdrop (and DON'T let them make you believe the sign was accidental), this war cotinues to show more MISSION CREEP than possibly any war to be fought anywhere in modern history. As the stated objective of the war changes, the criteria of winning or losing change as well.

With this war, don't believe ANY hint of a timetable. Consider the embassy that's being built. I understand it's the size of 20 or 40 football fields, with thousands of employees, and surrounded by concrete walls 20 feet thick!!??? I don't think, with all that expense, that the U.S. intends to leave...EVER!!!

I still feel, though, that if the current war in Iraq had been fought with stated objectives and targets, with genuine sacrifices in support of the war effort, with valid reasons for the war, and without corrupt kleptomaniacs using so much of the funding for their own private agendas, the war would be won by now. However, it wouldn't be in Iraq, but instead in Saudi Arabia, perhaps, where 13/19 of the hijackers came from, and which was the source of much of the funding for the madrassahs (schools of anti-American hatred). Of course we couldn't fight a war against Bush's dear pals (and great oil source) the House of Saud, so a surrogate was needed, and Saddam just happened to fit the bill perfectly. Never mind that Saddam was "OUR guy" a few years earlier because he was fighting, um, that evil neighbor Iran.

If the U.S. would simply fight a war that's JUSTIFIED, financially responsible (instead of totally corrupt!), and with a commitment to achieving the goals quickly, the U.S. could still win its wars.

 

[unclaimedblessing]

The USA officially entered the war after Pearl Harbor.
At that time Americans wanted an isolationist policy and our politicians back then voted accordingly.
FDR was a great chum of Churchill and despite his countrymens wishes he (and we) started the Lend Lease Program to supply Britain with materials and food. Those convoys travelled the North Atlantic route and were subjected to unrestricted submarine warfare.
Britain was the last bastion of European freedom, the continental countries were either Axis occupied or neutral.
Britain suffered terribly under the Blitzkreig and I beleive if the US hadn't gotten into when we did the Germans would have completed their terrible rocket bombs and destroyed Britain.
However there are historical theorists who beleive the Russian winter defeated Hitler just as it dd Napoleon.
All this friction shames the brave soldiers of all the countries involved.
The DDay invaders were Americans, Canadians, British and free forces from most of the occupied counties.

 

[Rali_hates_Mondays]

What about the Cold War? Wasn't that an American victory? A victory of ideology? An economic victory?

 

[JackFTwist]

We won in Grenada...

yes, a mighty triumph that pissed me off for two reasons:

we had no business invading Grenada

the invasion happened days before my then-wife was going to Grenada on a peace and justice study trip. Had the invasion waited a few more days, we would have had great pictures!

 

[JackFTwist]

Well, this may be off topic, but didn't the Russians attack Germany only after Hitler violated the Non-Aggresion Pact?

yes, yes indeed

 

[BoiIntrigue]

I'll just toss this one out there for discussion.

I don't feel that America is losing or wining wars... but rather war has been redefined over the past 50 years. We don't have individual states fighting against each other anymore. Instead of territorial battles, it's idealogical battles. Just like the cold war, the USSR didn't surrender to the US, but in the end the US "won" by simply continuing to exist.

 

[angedelune]

As much as I hate to say it, America has never LOST a war. We use our own service men/women to further the agenda at hand. We are moving closer and closer to a world dominated by ONE government. A world in which all powers are subject to American rule and influence. Most third world countries are already at our bidding, we set up puppet governments that we control at leisure, and we grow closer and closer to tying the economic fate of the world with our whim. America is NOT stupid, there is a bigger plan afoot. Watch Star Trek sometime, the "world federation" headquarters is based out of California, I think it's LA, that is what we as a nation are working towards. Then again, I hate to say it, but I also believe that 9-11 was orchestrated by our own to bring about the start as such.

 

[DiaryOfAMadman]

So far, no one here has pointed out what clearly defines the "winner" of a war. One reason that the U.S. appears to "not win" so many war's its involved in is because the U.S. does not occupy and claim the newly won territory as its own. In most places, while they may leave soldiers or a base they never make the loosing country another U.S. state, territory, possession, or anything like that. It's been that way since the start of the 20th century. I mean the last wars in wich the U.S. gained extensive territory were they Spanish-American and the Mexican-American wars.

Blaming the far superior U.S. for loosing to North Vietnam is a terrible argument to make. If your knowledgable about history you can see the clear similarities of North Vietnamese success in the war and the U.S.'s Revolution against England. In both of these wars a seemingly "greatly inferior" military was able to defeat the current military Superpower of its day. We can go more in depth about this if you want, but I'll just point out the basic and most obvious reason. Both wars were fought on both foreign and unfamiliar territory and terrain. The unfamiliar used in both of those wars (Vietnam & U.S. Revolution) were also unfamiliar to both of the Superpowers in those wars those being Jungle and Skirmish tactics. In Vietnam the U.S. was used to using tanks and heavy artillery and they were not able to properly utilize them in congested Jungle warfare. In the U.S. Revolution the English were accustomed to still fighting wars on open battlefields, why the U.S. would use snipers and attack in small groups (in the woods) as often as they could.

I'm am greatly disgusted by the current war in Iraq, however there have been a few recent U.S. Victories 1990-Present:

Afganistan: The offical Taliban Government was removed from power
Kosovo: Genocide was halted
Gulf War: Kuait was liberated and Iraqi troops forced back into Iraq

Now you can argue them all you want, but those were the mission objectives of each "conflict". You have to remember that most wars today are won by a coalition of nations, therefore each individual nation is considered a winner. Just as the the U.K., U.S., and U.S.S.R. can all claim victory in WWII.


When it comes to Hollywood re-writing history. Well your an idiot if you watch a "movie" and expect a history lesson. Movies are Entertainment plain and simple. If your watching a documentary, sure you can expect facts. If your watching a Hollywood Blockbuster then expect entertainment. They owe it to no one to stick to history, their only obligiation is to tell the best story they can, and we all know or at least should know this. I have a deep respect for what the movie "Saving Private Ryan" has accomplished as a Hollywood movie. It showed everyone today what the men of the WWII generation (our grandparents) lived through. Also in general it showed everyone that "War IS HELL" and the horrors that really exist on the battlefield, without holding anything back.

In conclusion, its a "slippery slope" when asking the question about who's loosing wars. First, you must define the meaning of "victory" for each individual war. Second, you must define the meaning of "loosing" for each war. Most importantly please sit down and gather the facts when regarding history. There are plenty sources of information on the net in wich you can research nearly every war ever fought. When you have or utilize all the information available on the topic, it makes for the best dicussions.