Someone told me that NEVER in the past 500 years has an aggressor...

[ClassWarrior]

...won a war. Never. Battles, yes. Wars, no.

I haven't looked it up, but he's better read on the subject than me, so I trust him.

Any war historians out there?

NGU.

[rzemanfl]

1. History is written by the winners of wars. Do you think that they

are going to call themselves aggressors? If Hitler had won World War II the history books would say it began when the Poles attacked a German radio station.

[Junkdrawer]

35. bingo. n/t

[rzemanfl]

56. I knew that Master's Degree in History would come in handy

sometime.

[smartvoter]

41. Yep. Just like "Victors' Justice." nt

[Marie26]

68. That's brilliant

You're right. In the Hizbollah history books, this war started when the aggressor Israel began bombing innocent Lebanese civilians. In Israeli, it began when the aggressor Hizbollah invaded & captured Israeli soldiers.

[ThomCat]

91. Actually, in the Hisbollah history books

It will probably say this was instigated by the Israel's raids over the border to kidnap and assassinate people continuously over the past 6 years. The bombing wasn't the start, just the latest phase.

[ComerPerro]

83. That's exactly right

[tabasco]

98. History is written by a lot of people. Not just the winners.

That's the historian's job, to find all the history, and attempt to discern the truth.

For example, we know a lot more about the Roamns than the writings of Josephus and Tacitus.

A statement that "history is written by the winners" is a copout, especially for a student of history.

[Tom Joad]

2. Israel has always won. The United States didn't really lose in Vietnam

It was able to bomb the country back to the stone age, after all. Aggression works, if you are the stronger one.

[napi21]

13. It depends on your interpretation of winning.

The US did NOT win the Vietnam war, we declared the war was over and left!

I've been thinking about that statement of "aggressors never won a war" since I first saw it posted here.

i believe it's a very difiult statement to prove. Would you say we won in Somalia? What about fighting Milosevick? Lots of undefined suppositions. what is a war v/s a battle?

[The_Warmth]

38. America did win in Vietnam.

Look at the state of Vietnam pre and post-war. The country is destroyed, we killed off the water buffalo, destroyed the infrastructure, etc. Now imagine living in SA, pondering separating yourself from the United States Hegemony. You see, you could 'win' the war, but what you've won is shredded country and society. That's why we won, and everybody listens to us now.

[jpkenny]

51. Spin Viet Nam any way you want to. It still communist and we left

after the death of 58,000 US soldiers.

[The_Warmth]

53. If you're saying we didn't win, don't act like we lost.

The numbers for Vietnamese killed, military and civilian, run from 3.2-5.5 MILLION. Just from 'unexploded ordinance' alone, 40,000 people have been killed since the end of the war. So there may be no clear winner, but to me the loser seems clear.

[Zhade]

62. I'd say the loser was the U.S.

We were driven out, and those who support what we did there and believe we should have stayed lost - part of their soul.

[B Calm]

64. We didn't win in Korea either. It's still a divided country!

[Zhade]

65. IIRC, we're still technically at war with them?

Or did we finally come to a resolution with regards to that?

[exlrrp]

86. It started out a divided country

But youre right, we didn't win there

[LanternWaste]

114. However, the U.N./U.S. did achieve its stated goals

The goal in the Korean conflict was not to reunite the two countries, but to preserve the independence of South Korea from the North Korean (and later Chinese) invasion. So I think it's fair to say the U.N./U.S did win as it achieved its stated goals.

[B Calm]

115. Is that why we still have soldiers there?

[LanternWaste]

122. Deploying soldiers to protect national interests is not admission of loss

The U.S. also has soldiers stationed in Germany and Japan-- yet I think it's fair to say the Allies won the Second World War.

Deploying soldiers to protect national interests is neither new nor an admission of loss.

[Phrogman]

118. The winners were the people that sold the US government bombs and bullets

for all those fucking years.

[Spider Jerusalem]

59. That's a STUPID thing to say.

Total failure to achieve any strategic objectives is not in any way a victory. If you win tactically and lose strategically, you've lost.

[LanternWaste]

101. The U.S. did not accomplish its stated goal= Lose

The U.S. did not accomplish its stated goal which was to preserve the South VN govt., ergo- we lost.

Or, going one further and taking the Clausewitz definition of winning a war: "Preventing the opposition in its inherent ability to wage war." Well, as soon as we pulled out, VN began fighting against both Cambodia and the PRC-- so I think we can say that we didn't prevent VN from waging war. Looking at the VN army these days (10th largest in thew world), I think Clausewitz would say that the U.S. pretty much bungled that war, too.

[Shipwack]

102. Interpretation, and goals...

A favorite writer of mine who studies history and the military (Jerry Pournelle?) says that we didn't lose in Vietnam. Our goal at the beginning of the conflict was to train up the South Vietnamese to better withstand Northern aggression, not to keep them from ever falling. Considering that it took a force several times their size aided by the Chinese to defeat them, we accomplished our mission.

I'm not necessarily agreeing with his facts on Vietnam, just throwing it out into the ring. I stopped reading Pournelle's blog a couple of years ago because he has the "battered wife syndrome" that many true conservatives seem to have about Bush. "Yes, he's not acting like a conservative, and he's hurting our country, but I know the Democrats would be worse!" :eyes:

[jpkenny]

50. In truth, Israel has never won, they just killed more people and destroyed

more property. They haven't had a peaceful existence in their history. They will only "win" when they can live at peace with their neighbors and stop confiscating land and water.

[cool user name]

58. Excellent post ... n/t

[Little Star]

84. I really wonder what would happen if

Israel actually did stop confiscating land and water. They would also need to abide by Res. (242?). If they are really interested in Peace maybe they should try doing those things. If they id and then were attacked the rest of the world would rise up in support of them, I think. Continuing to be aggressive and occupying land only makes them wrong in the eyes of all but our govt and Britains'. They need a time out in the corner, imho. Most of the world is not blind.

[Jacobin]

92. ????

Uhm, yes we did.

Talk to someone was there.

[Oak2004]

123. The US lost to an insurgency

In asymmetrical warfare, the goal of the weaker party is not to win battles, but to bleed the stronger party so much it gives up and goes home. In such wars it is not uncommon for the stronger side to win every battle, or nearly every battle, and at least nominally hold all or nearly all the important territory, yet lose the war. The logic of insurgencies confuse people who think in terms of conventional warfare, but it's a real war strategy, and great powers really do lose such wars by being bloodied so much they pick up and go home.

By your definition of "not lose", the British did not lose the American War of Independence. The Americans had, really, only two major victories: Saratoga and Yorktown (and Yorktown was, as much, a French victory). The British won very nearly every other battle, held New York almost from the very first day, and after years of war left the colonies in a desperate economic depression. But the British were driven nearly to bankruptcy, saw no way to win, cut their losses, and left, and the colonists claimed their independence. Replace "British" with "American" and "American colonists" with "Vietnamese Communists", change the geography and the technology, and you've got a pretty good description of Vietnam.

Vietnam was an insurgency, not a conventional war, and the logic of insurgencies apply. The US in Vietnam unmistakably, inarguably, lost to an insurgency, and we're about to lose to another insurgency.

[Exultant Democracy]

3. Spanish American for one,

and the the war the spanish waged on the Americas (Inca, Mayan and what not) when they got there in the first place. Maybe your friend meant last 50 years, and even then it requires that you buy into some American Propaganda and not call a few of our nasty bombings and invasions wars. (People getting bombed don't care if it is an official war so neither do I.)

[ChristianLibrul]

9. Not Spanish American war

The Span-Am War was in 1898. But the Spanish defeated the Incas with disease, not swords.

[Exultant Democracy]

29. Most wars have been won and lost because of disease (and bad weather)

in fact WW2 was the first war where people killed more people then sickness. None the less I am pretty sure that your friend meant the last 50 years. For the most part the last 500 years has been one win after another for invading european forces with Guns shooting at people without guns.

[exlrrp]

87. Also the Mexican War

We were clearly the aggressors here, fabricating the reasons for going to war (sound familiar?)
We won bigtime, including all of California and Texas as we know them now.

[lutefisk]

4. That's why Cheney, Inc. states this war will never end

If it ends, they lose. If it keeps going, keeps chewing up bodies and resources, they haven't lost, yet. These war criminals have set set in place a sort of poison pill- future administrations (assuming there are any) may be unable to stop the process of destruction set in motion by Cheney, Feith, Perle, and the rest of their vile club.

[RagAss]

16. Agreed....but as you suggest, there are no future administrations

[Fountain79]

5. Who was the agressor in the Mexican-American War? n/t

[EFerrari]

8. You have to ask?

:)

[rockymountaindem]

12. Depends on who you ask

Some say that Mexico started it by claiming that the Nueces river was the boundary with the US, not the Rio Grande. Others say that the US started it by ignoring whatever clause of the treaty of Guadelupe-Hidalgo supposedly gave Mexico the lands south of the Nueces.

[rockymountaindem]

6. Let me think of a few off the top of my head

The French and Indian War
The American Revolution (we started it, and we finished it)
The War of 1812 is kind of a gray area
The Opium Wars, I & II (Britain vs. China)
The Russo-Japanese War
The Spanish Civil War
The Continuation War (1941-1945, Finland vs. the USSR)
According to the Arabs, all Israel's victories over the Arab states would fall into this category

There are probably others I can't recall right now.

[EFerrari]

11. If we're still here, doesn't that mean Britain lost 1812?

lol

Great list!

[Posteritatis]

15. Nah, the US did

They declared war at least partly with the intent of annexing the Canadas, failed and got their capital sacked in the process. That doesn't strike me as terribly victorious. ;)

[EFerrari]

22. You're right! I got mixed up with all that Dolly Madison

rescuing artwork and stuff. lol

[rockymountaindem]

23. Thanks

I just did a big term paper on the War of 1812 for a class on Canadian history. Here's the skinny:

The US declared war on Britain first. That is not in doubt. However, there are still arguments over whether or not Britain's interferance with US commerce since 1807 constituted an act of war, which would make Britain the aggressor (personally I think that when the Royal Navy fired on USS Chesapeake in Maryland in 1807, *that* was surely an act of war). So, whether or not Britain or the US was the agressor is an object of contention.

Secondly, we have to discuss war aims. Did Britain want to retake the USA? Not at the beginning, but later on it became part of British strategy to retake at least part of their former American colonies. Did the US really want to take over Canada, and did our failure to do so constitute defeat for the US? Again, a big subject of debate.

However, if you take the position that regardless of past disagreements, the US started the war in 1812 (the British and Canadian position), and that the US won the war by defending its territory (the US position), then the agressor won in that conflict.

[MrBenchley]

7. Which is why we live in the Iroquois confederation....

Quick, what war between an indigenous people and an invading horde ended badly for the indigenous people?

For that matter, who can forget how easily Ethiopia trounced Mussolini's aggressors?

[GeorgeGist]

10. Native 'Americans'...

might take issue with that claim.

[ClassWarrior]

21. That's probably one of the more poigant examples cited here.

I'll bring that one up to him the next time I see him.

Thanks.

NGU.

[Raydawg1234]

57. but where I live, native Americans have casinos

and they are raking in the dough, so in the long run they kinda won

[Zhade]

63. Well, the wealthy leaders of some tribes rake it in.

Alas, a lot of that money doesn't reach the rest of the tribe.

It's kind of a sore point for me.

[blonndee]

74. Me too. Poverty is rampant, at least in New Mexico. n/t

[Raydawg1234]

119. Not where I live............

The Mashantucket Pequots who own Foxwoods Casino, all rake in the money, every last one of them. Even the young people, I see them with their limos and Hummers out at the bar.

[halobeam]

69. you think they'd rather have the casino's? I'm not sure

they look at this as a win. Just askin'

[Posteritatis]

14. That's an extraordinary claim

and requires either extraordinary proof or a hell of a lot of sophistry ("Oh, the Spanish-Mayan conflict wasn't a real war" or "the situation was reversed 200 years later so that doesn't count," etc). Frankly, I simply disbelieve.

Though, for the most part, you can assume just about any statement involving "the past 500 years" and "never" should be false.

[Bucky]

17. Soviet Union vs Poland(1939); US vs Mexico(1846); Chile vs Bolivia(1879)

British conquest of South Africa & India; Belgian conquest of Congo; Chinese conquest of Tibet; American conquest of American Indian nations; German defeat of France in 1871; Vietnam overrunning Cambodia in the 1970s, the Ottomans' successful suppression of numerous uprisings from 1600 to 1900...
There's others.

[Posteritatis]

60. Poland vs Soviet Union (1919-21)...

Sorta, anyway.

(Just had to throw out something truly arcane by modern-history-knowledge standards. ;) )

[Bucky]

117. Fine then. Lithuania vs Poland (1923)

top that, smartypants!

[Gabi Hayes]

18. object lesson: never believe anything you haven't verified to your

own satisfaction

I don't know what sort of "history" your friend reads

[ClassWarrior]

25. That's why I'm asking the question here. You have problem with that?

NGU.

[Gabi Hayes]

34. no....what's your problem?

lighten up, Francis

you asked a question, didn't like the answer, and apparently have that thin-skin disease

no offense intended.

time to grow a few new layers, maybe?

[ClassWarrior]

39. Yes, it was because I "didn't like the answer," not because...

...you talked down to me. Thanks for explaining that to me. I guess I should delete post #21 then, huh?

Time to grow a new attitude, maybe?

NGU.

[Fountain79]

19. Yeah I'd say your friend...

is smoking something...

[ClassWarrior]

24. I ask a question, and you ridicule someone you don't even know?

Mighty Progressive of you.

NGU.

[Fountain79]

27. That's cause I am a smart-ass....

and it was joke.

[Posteritatis]

45. Ridiculing ridiculous claims is alright, IMO. (n/t)

[ClassWarrior]

48. I didn't claim. I asked. I was hoping adults would answer.

NGU.

[Fountain79]

52. Again...it was a joke...

a sense of humor goes a long way.

[ClassWarrior]

54. Thanks. I can appreciate that.

NGU.

[ChristianLibrul]

20. What he should have said was...

...that no invader has defeated a strong resistance, at least in modern times. The US Cavalry defeated the Indian tribes mostly because the Indians were starving towards the end. During WWII, Russian, French, Italian, Greek, Yugoslavian, Filipino, even Chinese guerillas were still holding out against their invaders when the war ended. The people always help those who resist an invader.

[Benhurst]

26. 1066, the Norman hordes took over Britain. They are still there

the last time I checked.

[k_jerome]

28. I believe the OP stated the last 500 years. nt.

[Benhurst]

33. You're right. But we must never forge the plight of the Anglo-Saxons.

[bleever]

66. .

:rofl:

[ClassWarrior]

30. So that explains Eddie Izzard.

B-)

NGU.

[EFerrari]

31. Colonialism doesn't work in the long run, does it?

It's brutal and expensive and finally, the invaders get their remotes handed to them.

And as far as Hawaii and the native peoples of this continent, the verdict is still out as far as I'm concerned. I mean, I'm still waiting. :shrug:

[AngryAmish]

40. Britain made out like bandits with India

They were there an awfully long time.

[EFerrari]

43. Depends on what you mean by "long".

And there is India now, with problems of course, but more or less steady now that they shook off the interference.

[Posteritatis]

104. They held chunks of India for about three centuries, no?

If you start dealing in multiple lifetimes, I think you can safely say it was a long time.

[EFerrari]

109. Got me.

:)

[ChairmanAgnostic]

81. and can't forget their great victories elsewhere.

as Sir Monty Python said, "keeping China british".

And their colonial victory over the American Colonies.

[AngryAmish]

88. Would you consider holding Hong Kong a victory?

[ChairmanAgnostic]

93. wow. That's a toughie.

I personally know some Chinese familiies in Vancuver who think that brit rule by lease was better than the Chinese handpuppets'. Then again, Hong Kong has done more to open up China to the world than anything. Now that the brits have turned that great harbor island back to China, I don't know where to begin to answer your question.
What do you think?

[AngryAmish]

96. I would

They took it and held on to it per the lease. When the lease was over they left - especially when they didn't have the stomach to fight to keep it. They made it (and when I say they of course the local Chinese had as much or more than jusst the Brits) a world class city. It was a democracy.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

97. some say it still is.

but with an oriental flavor.

[iamjoy]

32. Israel - 1948

Or one could say the whole way it got its independence from Britian prior to that.
Once it got its independence, the Arab nations in the region were just so outraged at the idea of Jewish state, that they joined forces and attacked in an effort to push Israel into the sea.

Some Arabs and Muslims still have that goal, but probably not as many as Israel believes.

[Cha]

36. I read that bit of info on DU before

bush starting bombing Iraq and started his misbegotten war.

[cosmik debris]

37. Does Tibet count

I don't think China lost that one yet.

[ClassWarrior]

42. Another good point. Thanks.

NGU.

[CatWoman]

44. what does "NGU" mean?

:shrug:

[ClassWarrior]

46. Never Give Up.

My personal motto since 11/03/04.

NGU.

[Emit]

47. Never Give Up n/t

[NoPasaran]

49. A few more

Italy vs. Abyssinia, 1935

Serbia/Montenegro/Bulgaria/Greece vs. Ottoman Empire, 1912 (First Balkan War)

Prussia/Austria vs. Denmark, 1864

[anakie]

55. British invasion of Australia

beginning Jan 26th 1778. Invade and then legislate back in London the country was unihabitated - terra nullius.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terra_nullius

[w4rma]

61. China invaded Tibet and won. (nt)

[Jim Lane]

116. China is still occupying Tibet today...

and continuing the heavy repression of Tibetan culture and religion.

[bleever]

67. War on Drugs: dopey. War on Poverty: poorly executed.

I like a thread where someone asks a question in the interest of hearing different answers.

:thumbsup:

[bananarepublican]

71. Can anyone imagine Bush declaring a war on stupidity? n/t

[Freedom_Aflaim]

70. American Revolution

The rebels were certainly the aggressors.

[NoPasaran]

77. I would exclude

Revolutions, rebellions, wars of national liberation and the like from the whole arguement. Certainly from the standpoint of the colonists, that war was started by the aggressive actions of General Gage sending a column to Lexington and Concord to sieze munitions belonging to their militia and arrest patriot leaders.

[Freedom_Aflaim]

79. I don't see why.

A war is a war, especially to the participants.

I know that the American revolution being successful dilutes the theory, but I don't see any reason why it should be excluded. If the war is immoral, its immoral despite what it means to any arm chair general theories.



For that matter, even the American civil war might be considered in the same light. The Confederate states cedeed, not to participate in a war, but to sustain slavery. The Union was then the aggressor and won quite handily.

I suppose that revolutions, rebellions etc are quite a bit different today, in that their is generally a huge force disparity, but that wasnt true in the examples above.

[Rageneau]

72. How about the War Of Northern Aggression?

In which the United States invaded a self-sovereign nation and forced it to its knees?

Had Lincoln not "aggressed", there would have been no bloodshed.

I'm pretty sure the aggressor won that contest.

[NoPasaran]

75. You mean the Slaveholders' Rebellion?

The one that started when the confederates fired on Fort Sumter?

[fishwax]

76. well, the south did fire the opening salvos

[JVS]

94. fuck those southern fucks

[Nevernose]

73. Terrorism, however, never won the day. Not once. (n/t)

n/t

[ChairmanAgnostic]

82. which is why Israel's tactics are doomed to failure.

killing farmers, shooting ambulances and destroying apartment buildings of civilians is not the way to win the minds and influence people.

[nadinbrzezinski]

78. Depends on your definition

has an agreesor won in the last 500 years?

I'd say yes, the American Fruit Company knew it could count on the Marines in the 1920s... gun boat diplomacy at its best was about enforcing Monroe and IT WORKED.

Agressors winning... look at the map of the ME... was set by what is considered an agressor by the Arabs, the West.. in 1919

So it truly depends on your perspective at times...

For the record the Gun Boat diplomacy was never seen as agresive war by the US

The summer of 1919 was purely the white man's burden.

Of cuorse there is this whole problem of Spanish Conquest of the New World and of course the expansion West by the US, including the 1848 war with Mexico

[ChairmanAgnostic]

80. hey, we took out that huge global threat of

grenada.

And don't forget our victorious invasion of Panama City.

And how could you ignore our brilliant success in Beirut?

[WinkyDink]

85. Does conquest count? Cortez vs. the Aztecs, 1519-1521.

[liberal N proud]

89. What about the decimation of the American Indians

The US government was an aggressor there and we know who won that one.

[krkaufman]

90. Euro-Americans certainly won the "war" over Native Americans.

(Not cheering; just stating a fact.)

And, if this case is any lesson, it takes vastly superior firepower and genocide to pull it off.

[Hubert Flottz]

95. The US Army invaded the Confederate States of America

and won that war. The federal armies invaded what is now West Virginia first and then they invaded northeastern Virginia. The federal armies were beaten in those first battles, but the Confederate armies were defeated in the end.

[Taxloss]

99. Franco-Prussian war, 1870.

We Brits won many colonial wars against people who objected to us stealing their countries. The Americans won the war with Spain. The separatists are the "aggressors" in most wars of independence, and often win. I think your friend hasn't really thought this through.

[cemaphonic]

106. Franco-Prussian War : France was the agressor.

Bismark went to some considerable trouble to provoke them of course, but the DOW and first territorial violation was by France.

I think this one supports the OP's claim, although many other examples disprove it, of course.

[Posteritatis]

121. It blurs the definition of "aggressor" some though

One side declared the war, but the other side sought it - so who's the aggressor?

[John Q. Citizen]

100. What about the Indian wars? The conquest of Mexico? The

Invasion of Panama?

The Occupation of Tibet?

I could go on and on, but I think you get my point.

[deaniac21]

103. I would say your friend needs to catch up on his reading.

[GumboYaYa]

105. Excuse me Mr./Mrs. America hater, but I think we kicked Grenada's ass

a few years back. There won't be any unheard of tiny island nations pushing the US around anymore. :)

[B Calm]

107. It wasn't a war. It was a police action..

[Clarkie1]

108. Wrong. U.S. won Mexican/Ameican war.

That just occurs to me off the top of my head...there are more examples.

Of course, the genocide against native peoples everywhere comes to mind as well.

[EFerrari]

110. If we're still here, did the US win?

:rofl:

[Clarkie1]

111. Yes.

That land and the resources are now part of the U.S., not Mexico.

[EFerrari]

113. This thread has made me think about what that really means.

:)

[hughee99]

112. At one time,

Germany and Italy were both a collection of smaller nation states. They were united by a series of treaties and sometimes wars where the aggressor in most cases was the winner.

[SaveElmer]

120. Some would argue...Mexican War, Spanish American War...

The American Revolution, and the War of 1812 were all won by aggressors...

Course you would get an argument on the other side as well...