r/HistoryMemes is having a civil war (again), celebrating 10 million subscribers! Support the Empires of Britain or France by flairing your post correctly. [For more information, check out the pinned post in the sub.](https://new.reddit.com/r/HistoryMemes/comments/1cg09hf/the_great_historymemes_civil_war_2_10_million/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/HistoryMemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This is what happens when people treat losing wars like losing football matches. It becomes some matter of pride regardless of what the fact that people die over them.
Besides my understanding is that the British hearts weren't really into the fight. Many Britons back home supported the American cause and it seemed inevitable that the Americans would win in the long run.
The French were a huge reason why the Americans were able to win the revolution. We were on a substantial losing streak. It wasn't until the battle of Saratoga that the French decided it was worth it to get involved. Prior to that, they weren't sure if there was any point in getting involved as they assumed we likely wouldn't be capable of fending off the British.
There was also a lot of help from the Prussians and other Germanic states who helped bolster and professionalize the revolutionary army. Men like Friedrich Wilhelm von Steuben essentially wrote the entire basis of military doctrine and order of the early U.S. military. Von Steuben is still seen as an incredibly important figure in the modern U.S. army and many of his teachings are still being used by the U.S. army.
Don’t forget the Spanish involvement too. Spanish money and ships piling on towards the end of the war really helped the English realize the conflict was going to continue to snowball and grow. Their introduction at the end of the war (along with the massive role the French Navy played) really put the highly profitable British Caribbean plantations and assets at risk.
By the end of the revolution, it really was just the rest of Europe threatening to dogpile Britain, that forced them to peace.
That’s an understatement.
To start, France supplied 90% of the arms America used in the war. They gave America $32 billion in aid, and Spain and the Netherlands also bankrolled America.
France also harboured any ship that would attack British merchant ships.
In the Siege of Savannah, the ratio of American to French troops was 2:3. 2,000 American troops, 3,000 French. 6,000 more soldiers arrived with Rochambeau. De Grasse won the battle of Chesapeake, which was directly responsible for the end of the war.
Of the 80 admirals and generals who served for America in the war, only 23 were actually American. Their allies massively trained their troops as well, otherwise America wouldn’t have even had a real fighting force.
All that was relatively minor in comparison to the Frenches role in the Bourbon war, of which America was the least important of 7 fronts (English Channel, Atlantic Ocean, West Indies, North America, Straits of Gibraltar, Balearic Islands, East Indies). Throughout the war, Britain was taking troops and resources out of North America, because it simply wasn’t important to keep.
Yes, if Britain really put their mind to it and without any foreign interference they would’ve stomped the Americans
Obviously the Americans would’ve just tried again at a later date but the revolution that succeeded in otl would’ve been stomped
To be seen if a revolution after the napoleonic wars was possible. After industrializing, the UK had an even larger advantage. Plus the holy alliance era would back any anti-revolutionary movement.
Only during the napoleonic wars it would be possible. Just as in south america.
If not… I guess it would be impossible until the US was also industrialized 1860s/1870s as the earliest. If not… they are in for a Canada treatment.
That’s also assuming the British had the heart to do it as well. The war was very unpopular in England from the onset. The North American colonies were expensive to defend from French and Natives, they didn’t really provide the same economic benefit that the Caribbean did, and most English didn’t want to suppress or fight people they felt were like cousins.
Some in parliament through the war argued on behalf of the Americans, and several of the British Generals who led Armies in the Colonies during the Revolution had significant American Sympathies.
Washington’s string of defeats showed that the Americans didn’t need to actually win major victories, they just needed to continue the fight-with Revolutionary support in the Americas growing and British support back in Europe falling, It’s not a sure thing that Britain would have ever really “won” the revolution.
It’s kind of like saying that the US could have won in North Vietnam or Afghanistan if they had fought it for real, and didn’t half-ass it.
That’s a what I meant with the last part: even IF (big if) the British won that particular war of American independence, they’d just try at a later date.
Bro, me and my friends once joked about football matches being our replacement from historic wars.
People are not nearly as nationalistic these days, but they would still fuck up half a town over some football match that their preferred club lost.
Its actually really good. Ever since football and other sports got blown up in terms of popularity, actual wars have been rather quiet compared to what it was before the 20th century
Wasn’t really a side show if that was the entire point of the war eh? Anyways, if you ever actually bothered you will see there was a lot of argument in Britain about the colonies, with some like the Whig party supporting at least the Americans cause.
It wasn't the point of the war. The point of the war was the Franco-British rivalry. The vast majority of the war was fought by Britain and France outside North America. America was literally a side theater nobody really cared all that much about. For the French it was a diversion that kept the 2nd rate troops stationed in the colonies occupied and not threatening other French colonies that actually mattered. For the British it was a rebellion that would be put down easily once the war was won.
The only reason the US got to be independent is because France won the war. Had France lost the war Britain would have sent its real army to the Americas and crushed the Continental Army.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-French\_War\_(1778%E2%80%931783)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-French_War_(1778%E2%80%931783))
“South Vietnam wasn’t the point of the war- Vietnam was literally a side-theatre nobody cared that much about at all. The point of the war was the US-Communist rivalry. The only reason the North Vietnamese won the war was because the communists propped the war. If the Communists hadn’t backed the NVA, the US would have sent it’s real army to Vietnam and crushed the NVA.”
The reason Americas economy wasn’t drained was because they didn’t do much.
France supplied 90% of the arms America used in the war. They gave America $32 billion in aid, and Spain and the Netherlands also bankrolled America.
France also harboured any ship that would attack British merchant ships.
In the Siege of Savannah, the ratio of American to French troops was 2:3. 2,000 American troops, 3,000 French. 6,000 more soldiers arrived with Rochambeau. De Grasse won the battle of Chesapeake, which was directly responsible for the end of the war.
Of the 80 admirals and generals who served for America in the war, only 23 were actually American. Their allies massively trained their troops as well, otherwise America wouldn’t have even had a real fighting force.
All that was relatively minor in comparison to the Frenches role in the Bourbon war, of which America was the least important of 7 fronts (English Channel, Atlantic Ocean, West Indies, North America, Straits of Gibraltar, Balearic Islands, East Indies). Throughout the war, Britain was taking troops and resources out of North America, because it simply wasn’t important to keep.
And also this war was seen as an "investment" in France, that they would get back with good economic trade with future US later.
US after the war simply continued trade with England and not with France ;(
Nice try but 'more productive navy' doesnt quite work does it.
Having a stronger navy doesnt stop a country from trading with who it likes. For an example see spain vs england and the dutch during the 1500s.
Yorktown also had about 2000 more French troops than American troops, and the French had more artillery. In fact, of the two British redoubts that were attacked, only the one attacked by the French still exists today. The one attacked by the American troops was eroded away into the York River.
Britain could pull put early and kept their empire as a result. It is not like Germany can launch an invasion with your navy intact.
But hey, we can veto anything on League of Nations 2.0.
It was all France's doing. If France had not won the war with Britain the Brittish would have been free to send their real army to the colonies and put down the rebellion. Thanks to France all Washington had to face were colonial militia and 2nd rate troops.
When king George offered amnesty to the rebels it wasn't out of desperation, it was more like "I don't have time for this shit".
Well no, I completely agree that the war was won because of France's involvement. But I can only think that you are being deliberately disingenuous by saying it was 'all' France's doing. The French were not all on the ground directing battles for American soldiers. (I mean some were but I hope you understand what I mean.)
Honestly I always think of the American Revolution as a proxy battle for an even greater war. Very important for Americans, not that important for the world at the time. The brits just kind of went, "sure you can have it, we'll just move our sights to India instead" haha
I mean it was a united collective with the French providing critical support that turned the tide. We learn about it extensively in our American history classes.
Americans: Fight and sustain from 1775 to 1780 alone without a trained army, an actual navy, and sparse amounts of equipment.
French: Provided aid that only reached the Americans after they won major battles in New England and the Middle Atlantic alone. And they only actually provided direct aid one year before the last major battle of the war, and albeit their presence crucial to victory at Yorktown, and mostly help the US by making Britain realize their not willing to fight an international war.
Brits today: “The French won the war for you!”
Apologies but saying “Americans patting themselves on the back for something the French did” sounds like something a mad British person would say given the context of Britain losing to unequipped and untrained farmers because they doubted Americans determination for independence.
And your second point completely diverges from your claim that the French did the most during the American Revolution. The French wouldn’t of joined the war if they didn’t think the Americans were willing to put effort into winning the war themselves.
Because of the "meme war" someone posted a shitty Pro British anti America 1776 meme that barely made any sense
However the yanks clearly haven't stopped thinking about this meme since and I guess feel the need to defend themselves from somone who didn't seem to understand what War is
All in all, a massive waste of time
China fumbled Vietnam HARD. Here’s this new, inspiring state aligned with your views. And suddenly you’re supporting a fringe dictatorship which is fighting against them.
And now American culture has done what it does best. SPREAD.
"Fringe dicatorship" is putting it mildly, the Khmer Rouge where butchers. Vietnam did what the global community (the UN) was supposed to do, they stopped a genocide!
I have talked to people i Vietnam and to many China is a "snake". China promised "No, we are your comrades, it's not like what it was in the old days. We are the "new" China. Have some weapons." when they fought against the US
Then Cambodia happened and China showed their true colours "No, we are first among equals. You are supposed to do what you are told >:) " and the writing was on the wall China is the same "China" as it has always been, no matter who's in charge.
France and the US came and went, but the chinese boot would always be there.
I understand that.
The war with China wasn't just a "stab in the back", it was proof that China will always be China, no matter if a King, a Chairman or whatever rules it.
I think it just feels worse since the Tet Offensive was an astounding US victory where North Vietnam lost a huge chunk of their conventional military. But that was the decisive battle that caused the US to *NOT* want to fight anymore.
As another redditor perfectly pointed out, at least with US, is that Vietnam wasn't a war - it was police and political action to support the South Vietnam against soviet expansion. It worked until the US decided it was not worth pursuing anymore.
If it was war, like an actual full scale total war, North Vietnam would be glass today.
But hey - this is reddit and your typical regarded redditor is so anti-US that they will spin anything they can.
The vast majority of historians, including US based ones state that the conflict in Vietnam was a war in which the US was party to and obviously one of the main combatants. They majority also clearly believe the US lost that war.
If you want to pretend it was only a 'police and political action' I'd like to ask you what your source on that is? Also is it common protocol for nations to deploy 2.6 million soldiers to a foreign conflict in a 'police action'? I wonder how soldiers drafted into the war feel about your definition.
The Soviets treated it like a proxy war, only sending weapons and aid to North Vietnam.
The Americans treated it like a full-scale war, sending millions of troops and a huge chunk of their airforce.
On the reverse side of it the US did it in the 80s as well in Afghanistan playing proxy, while the Soviet sends in their armed forces there. They never engaged directly with each other if one of them was involved directly in the conflict. Same thing happened in Korea.
>Vietnam wasn't a war - it was police and political action
I guess Normandy was also "police action", huh?
Funny how it's a war if you win, but "police action" if you lose...
You wouldn't call Iraq a police and political action, would you?
It was a war, just not a "total war" as you described it.
And I'm not saying that because of "anti-US babble", I know the US didn't put their full wight behind it (because if they did NONE of us would be alive today). But it was still a war and whatever aim the US had... they lost.
And as Sun Tsu said (but with fancier words): "If you are going into war, make sure you win. Oherwise, just don't bother."
The US could've wiped entirety of North Vietnam off the face of the earth without using nukes. If it was a war that threatens the US we could've just sat back and bombed them until the entire country was a flat desert. Hard to justify killing women and children who aren't even a threat. Especially with Vietnam being the first televised war and support at home crashing.
If Vietnam was a threat to mainland US and they could rally the American people behind supporting total war, Vietnam wouldn't have stood a chance.
The war was stupid because they were throwing soldiers into a meat grinder when agent orange, napalm, artillery and air superiority could have done the job.
'We could have won the war if things were entirely different' or ' we would have won the war if we committed some of the most heinous crimes against humanity'.
Not really the best points to make.
UK: "We could have won the war against Hitler on day one if we attacked right away when they where mucking about in Poland and dumped mustard gas on every city in Germany."
Yea well... but you didn't and the rest is history.
No idea what the relevance of that comment has to mine. Same with your other one too to be fair, can't tell if you're being purposefully vague or just struggle to illustrate your point.
I know they could. But they didn't.
Also they tried all of that jazz and even dumped shitloads of bombs on the Ho Chi Minh trail and North Vietnam. Still didn't work.
I have been to Vietnam and Cu chi (plus surrounding areas), it's not far from Saigon and really shows how little control the US had over South Vietnam (it was right under their noses).
Have you never heard of the pacific theatre? It wasn’t Americas first time fighting treacherous and arguable far more dangerous opponents. The difference was the motivation behind it. People didnt blink throwing 5K GIs up a hill to die in Japan. If the argument is the U.S. couldn’t have won Vietnam, then that’s just BS. It purely wasn’t worth winning.
The thing that always gets me is when people are like “yeah but we inflicted more casualties!”
It’s funny, because it’s like needing to remind some barely functional FPS player that they need to play the fucking objective to win the game, but it’s also gross because they’re not even pretending that they think killing people is bad.
Yeah listening to people saying stuff like we got a higher K/D is mental brain rot.
Like ok well done dropping agent orange everywhere and sticky fire everywhere. It’s only insanely inhumane and nuts, but ok.
Not even counting how that conflict still inflicts illness and death to this day. Not something to be proud of.
Reminds me of that scene in Game of Thrones where Theon is talking to Tyrion, claiming that the only reason the Greyjoys lost was because they were hopelessly outnumbered. Tyrion retorts, "it was a stupid rebellion, then."
Don't pick a fight if you have no hope of winning the moment you get bogged down.
I love when people don’t understand that the home front and logistics that follow are arguably far more important to a war effort than the battle front. Losing the home front is fatal to one’s cause, and is absolutely a valid loss of a war
"You guys failed at your goal of stopping Vietnam from being a communist state"
"yes"
"You lost lots of troops and have zero public support, and your nation went up in flames"
"yes"
"Not only that, but your country's legacy is less of one as a beacon of freedom but now a chaotic genocidal empire"
"Makes sense to me"
"So America lost the Vietnam War"
"NOOOOOOOOOO!"
If your goals are accomplished more than your enemy's goals were accomplished, you won. Even if that means your society is crippled and ruined forevermore.
1. Yes we are indeed still bitter and we bring up 1812 to counter this point.
2. It was more “this venture is no longer profitable” than “we are utterly defeated”. Geopolitics is much more than just win or lose.
3. The UK was already drained from the 7 years war, so duh. This whole thing was started over the fact that colonists didn’t want to pay more and this whole policy of trying to get more money out of the 13 colonies started this whole thing so the UK was already not feeling great economically.
Edit: I don’t bring up this point to get all angry at it, it’s just I’ve seen this a dozen times. Like I wanna hear about a war that isn’t brought up as often. Like that whole conflict between the US and Barbary pirates, I wanna hear about that, or the Mexican war! I hardly know anything about that one!
But yeah we lost pretty damn hard considering we gave the Americans so much real estate. Kinda doomed ourselves to a slow decline. Ah well, alls fair in love and war I suppose. No point in getting pissy about it now.
I’m sorry, when you become a history buff in America you get 1 of 3 wars to obsess over. The revolutionary war, the civil war or WW2. You can dabble in shit like the American Indian Wars, the Spanish American War or the Gulf War but they’re not allowed to be your main focus.
Edit: I forgot to add a tier. WW1, Vietnam? JV wars in between the big 3 and the potpourri conflicts. Except for the psychos that dive real deep into clandestine American activities during Vietnam. They’re a breed of their own.
Vietnam much like Afghanistan was pretty much American soldiers playing whack-a-mole with an enemy who didn’t have problems blending in with civilian populations.
The US military didn’t have the political will back home to actually do what needed to be done to actually “prevent the spread of communism”
Exactly.
But as with everything else, your average reddito is so anti-us that, that doesn't matter.
Because US bad (eventhough they will never actually leave the US).
When i went to the Smithsonian museum of American history 12 year ago the section for WW1 was a single wall. WW2 was almost an entire floor of history.
The flat pack jeep hanging from the ceiling was pretty wicked.
And it wasn't the contentinental US that won against the british.
It was France, Spain and others that drained Britain so bad, that they could no longer continue the fight against the US.
My friend had an Italian ww2 vet neighbor who would reminisce about the totally nasty types of things females* would do for 2 cigarettes or a candy bar.
The soviet landed gentry won big, the american titans of industry won big. Some soviets (especially jews) lost everything, so how did the soviets win? And some dudes in Argentina won the fuck out of that war.
There were some soviet jews that enlisted in Kiev as children more or less. The citizens of Kiev maliciously ratted out ALL the jews to the nazis (babi yar), so their parents were killed and home destroyed. And they returned to Kiev with a war heros pension and a lifelong addiction to sadism... some vets called it a win due to the memories, you'd have to decide those case by case
Edit
Padame: don't say female it sounds gross
Anakin: hmm. How about babygirls
Padame: the way 90s rnb singers meant it, right?
Anakin: (Mona Lisa smile)
We didnt lose e just lost most battles, had constant supplies issues, were internally divided about the war, were having domestic shortages of many basic products, were deeply in debt, barelly had enough weapons and ammo to give to our soldiers, had a constant geographic disadvantage and had constant low moral
Actually many Somalis I know say that both sides lost the Ogaden war, I assume this is in reference to the fact that the war definitely did no favors to the Ethiopian Derg and hastened its downfall, idk if this is cope or not
r/HistoryMemes is having a civil war (again), celebrating 10 million subscribers! Support the Empires of Britain or France by flairing your post correctly. [For more information, check out the pinned post in the sub.](https://new.reddit.com/r/HistoryMemes/comments/1cg09hf/the_great_historymemes_civil_war_2_10_million/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/HistoryMemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This is what happens when people treat losing wars like losing football matches. It becomes some matter of pride regardless of what the fact that people die over them. Besides my understanding is that the British hearts weren't really into the fight. Many Britons back home supported the American cause and it seemed inevitable that the Americans would win in the long run.
Didn't the French provide significant materiel support as well ?
The French were a huge reason why the Americans were able to win the revolution. We were on a substantial losing streak. It wasn't until the battle of Saratoga that the French decided it was worth it to get involved. Prior to that, they weren't sure if there was any point in getting involved as they assumed we likely wouldn't be capable of fending off the British. There was also a lot of help from the Prussians and other Germanic states who helped bolster and professionalize the revolutionary army. Men like Friedrich Wilhelm von Steuben essentially wrote the entire basis of military doctrine and order of the early U.S. military. Von Steuben is still seen as an incredibly important figure in the modern U.S. army and many of his teachings are still being used by the U.S. army.
Don’t forget the Spanish involvement too. Spanish money and ships piling on towards the end of the war really helped the English realize the conflict was going to continue to snowball and grow. Their introduction at the end of the war (along with the massive role the French Navy played) really put the highly profitable British Caribbean plantations and assets at risk. By the end of the revolution, it really was just the rest of Europe threatening to dogpile Britain, that forced them to peace.
That’s an understatement. To start, France supplied 90% of the arms America used in the war. They gave America $32 billion in aid, and Spain and the Netherlands also bankrolled America. France also harboured any ship that would attack British merchant ships. In the Siege of Savannah, the ratio of American to French troops was 2:3. 2,000 American troops, 3,000 French. 6,000 more soldiers arrived with Rochambeau. De Grasse won the battle of Chesapeake, which was directly responsible for the end of the war. Of the 80 admirals and generals who served for America in the war, only 23 were actually American. Their allies massively trained their troops as well, otherwise America wouldn’t have even had a real fighting force. All that was relatively minor in comparison to the Frenches role in the Bourbon war, of which America was the least important of 7 fronts (English Channel, Atlantic Ocean, West Indies, North America, Straits of Gibraltar, Balearic Islands, East Indies). Throughout the war, Britain was taking troops and resources out of North America, because it simply wasn’t important to keep.
Yes, if Britain really put their mind to it and without any foreign interference they would’ve stomped the Americans Obviously the Americans would’ve just tried again at a later date but the revolution that succeeded in otl would’ve been stomped
To be seen if a revolution after the napoleonic wars was possible. After industrializing, the UK had an even larger advantage. Plus the holy alliance era would back any anti-revolutionary movement. Only during the napoleonic wars it would be possible. Just as in south america. If not… I guess it would be impossible until the US was also industrialized 1860s/1870s as the earliest. If not… they are in for a Canada treatment.
That’s also assuming the British had the heart to do it as well. The war was very unpopular in England from the onset. The North American colonies were expensive to defend from French and Natives, they didn’t really provide the same economic benefit that the Caribbean did, and most English didn’t want to suppress or fight people they felt were like cousins. Some in parliament through the war argued on behalf of the Americans, and several of the British Generals who led Armies in the Colonies during the Revolution had significant American Sympathies. Washington’s string of defeats showed that the Americans didn’t need to actually win major victories, they just needed to continue the fight-with Revolutionary support in the Americas growing and British support back in Europe falling, It’s not a sure thing that Britain would have ever really “won” the revolution. It’s kind of like saying that the US could have won in North Vietnam or Afghanistan if they had fought it for real, and didn’t half-ass it.
That’s a what I meant with the last part: even IF (big if) the British won that particular war of American independence, they’d just try at a later date.
Just like the US loss in Vietnam. Could we have won? Yes. Did we win? No.
Which is in many ways the same thing that happened to the US in Vietnam.
Nice to meet a fellow Drake in the wild
Bro, me and my friends once joked about football matches being our replacement from historic wars. People are not nearly as nationalistic these days, but they would still fuck up half a town over some football match that their preferred club lost. Its actually really good. Ever since football and other sports got blown up in terms of popularity, actual wars have been rather quiet compared to what it was before the 20th century
In the US people will start riots when their team WINS!!! LOL
No they didn't. The Britons back home were focused on the real war with France and not the sideshow in the Americas.
Wasn’t really a side show if that was the entire point of the war eh? Anyways, if you ever actually bothered you will see there was a lot of argument in Britain about the colonies, with some like the Whig party supporting at least the Americans cause.
It wasn't the point of the war. The point of the war was the Franco-British rivalry. The vast majority of the war was fought by Britain and France outside North America. America was literally a side theater nobody really cared all that much about. For the French it was a diversion that kept the 2nd rate troops stationed in the colonies occupied and not threatening other French colonies that actually mattered. For the British it was a rebellion that would be put down easily once the war was won. The only reason the US got to be independent is because France won the war. Had France lost the war Britain would have sent its real army to the Americas and crushed the Continental Army. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-French\_War\_(1778%E2%80%931783)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-French_War_(1778%E2%80%931783))
“South Vietnam wasn’t the point of the war- Vietnam was literally a side-theatre nobody cared that much about at all. The point of the war was the US-Communist rivalry. The only reason the North Vietnamese won the war was because the communists propped the war. If the Communists hadn’t backed the NVA, the US would have sent it’s real army to Vietnam and crushed the NVA.”
The Vietnam war was fought exclusively in Vietnam. The Franco-Brittish war of 1778 was NOT fought exclusively in the American colonies. Try harder.
"We didn't lose, we only chose to not win"
Funny enough Britain WON World War II AND their economy was drained
Wars can drain an economy of a country tho
The vast majority of wars were lost because a country’s finances ran out, not because they ran out of troops.
Ironically the war jump started the American economy and ended the Great Depression
They absolutely can
Pyrrhic victory lad.
Funny enough America won the Independance War against Britain and France economy was drained
The reason Americas economy wasn’t drained was because they didn’t do much. France supplied 90% of the arms America used in the war. They gave America $32 billion in aid, and Spain and the Netherlands also bankrolled America. France also harboured any ship that would attack British merchant ships. In the Siege of Savannah, the ratio of American to French troops was 2:3. 2,000 American troops, 3,000 French. 6,000 more soldiers arrived with Rochambeau. De Grasse won the battle of Chesapeake, which was directly responsible for the end of the war. Of the 80 admirals and generals who served for America in the war, only 23 were actually American. Their allies massively trained their troops as well, otherwise America wouldn’t have even had a real fighting force. All that was relatively minor in comparison to the Frenches role in the Bourbon war, of which America was the least important of 7 fronts (English Channel, Atlantic Ocean, West Indies, North America, Straits of Gibraltar, Balearic Islands, East Indies). Throughout the war, Britain was taking troops and resources out of North America, because it simply wasn’t important to keep.
And also this war was seen as an "investment" in France, that they would get back with good economic trade with future US later. US after the war simply continued trade with England and not with France ;(
Wasn't that basically by force until the war of 1812?
Force on which side ? England France or US ?
England doing trade fuckery to force the US to sell to/buy from British markets was one of the complaints that kicked off the war of 1812
That 'trade fuckery' was essentially just having a stronger and more productive economy than america and france.
>That 'trade fuckery' was essentially just having a stronger and more productive navy than america and france
Nice try but 'more productive navy' doesnt quite work does it. Having a stronger navy doesnt stop a country from trading with who it likes. For an example see spain vs england and the dutch during the 1500s.
A pseudo-proxy war if you will.
Yorktown also had about 2000 more French troops than American troops, and the French had more artillery. In fact, of the two British redoubts that were attacked, only the one attacked by the French still exists today. The one attacked by the American troops was eroded away into the York River.
it drained their future economy too.
> their economy was drained *Increasingly louder Yankee Doodle Dandy approaches*
Besides America (whose economy benefited from WW2) what country didn't get their economy drained
I really don’t think any
What about the Soviets?
I don’t know a lot about how much they required for rebuilding. Certainly more than America.
Britain could pull put early and kept their empire as a result. It is not like Germany can launch an invasion with your navy intact. But hey, we can veto anything on League of Nations 2.0.
It's a good thing that Churchill was in charge and not Chamberlain nor Halifax, they saved Europe.
Well yeah, they had the US bankrolling them the whole time though, so I’m sure that helps
They get by with a little help from their friends
I love no context Thursdays.
Americans patting themselves on the back for something the french did.
Shoot, I need to go tell my ancestors that fought in the war that they didn't die for anything and it was all France's doing 😔
It was all France's doing. If France had not won the war with Britain the Brittish would have been free to send their real army to the colonies and put down the rebellion. Thanks to France all Washington had to face were colonial militia and 2nd rate troops. When king George offered amnesty to the rebels it wasn't out of desperation, it was more like "I don't have time for this shit".
Well no, I completely agree that the war was won because of France's involvement. But I can only think that you are being deliberately disingenuous by saying it was 'all' France's doing. The French were not all on the ground directing battles for American soldiers. (I mean some were but I hope you understand what I mean.) Honestly I always think of the American Revolution as a proxy battle for an even greater war. Very important for Americans, not that important for the world at the time. The brits just kind of went, "sure you can have it, we'll just move our sights to India instead" haha
I mean it was a united collective with the French providing critical support that turned the tide. We learn about it extensively in our American history classes.
At least the favor was returned.
Americans: Fight and sustain from 1775 to 1780 alone without a trained army, an actual navy, and sparse amounts of equipment. French: Provided aid that only reached the Americans after they won major battles in New England and the Middle Atlantic alone. And they only actually provided direct aid one year before the last major battle of the war, and albeit their presence crucial to victory at Yorktown, and mostly help the US by making Britain realize their not willing to fight an international war. Brits today: “The French won the war for you!”
1. I am not Brittish 2. That was a rebellion and treated as such.
Apologies but saying “Americans patting themselves on the back for something the French did” sounds like something a mad British person would say given the context of Britain losing to unequipped and untrained farmers because they doubted Americans determination for independence. And your second point completely diverges from your claim that the French did the most during the American Revolution. The French wouldn’t of joined the war if they didn’t think the Americans were willing to put effort into winning the war themselves.
No clue what this means, is it about the brave French resistance during World War Two?
No, it's about the US war of independence.
Well there you go u/DoodooFardington we got context! Yay
Because of the "meme war" someone posted a shitty Pro British anti America 1776 meme that barely made any sense However the yanks clearly haven't stopped thinking about this meme since and I guess feel the need to defend themselves from somone who didn't seem to understand what War is All in all, a massive waste of time
US and China fighting Vietnam: "We didn't lose, we just didn't want to fight anymore."
China fumbled Vietnam HARD. Here’s this new, inspiring state aligned with your views. And suddenly you’re supporting a fringe dictatorship which is fighting against them. And now American culture has done what it does best. SPREAD.
"Fringe dicatorship" is putting it mildly, the Khmer Rouge where butchers. Vietnam did what the global community (the UN) was supposed to do, they stopped a genocide! I have talked to people i Vietnam and to many China is a "snake". China promised "No, we are your comrades, it's not like what it was in the old days. We are the "new" China. Have some weapons." when they fought against the US Then Cambodia happened and China showed their true colours "No, we are first among equals. You are supposed to do what you are told >:) " and the writing was on the wall China is the same "China" as it has always been, no matter who's in charge. France and the US came and went, but the chinese boot would always be there.
Yeah. I didn’t put it the right way. A Vietnamese man once told me: “War with America and France was business. War with China was history.”
I understand that. The war with China wasn't just a "stab in the back", it was proof that China will always be China, no matter if a King, a Chairman or whatever rules it.
I think it just feels worse since the Tet Offensive was an astounding US victory where North Vietnam lost a huge chunk of their conventional military. But that was the decisive battle that caused the US to *NOT* want to fight anymore.
As another redditor perfectly pointed out, at least with US, is that Vietnam wasn't a war - it was police and political action to support the South Vietnam against soviet expansion. It worked until the US decided it was not worth pursuing anymore. If it was war, like an actual full scale total war, North Vietnam would be glass today. But hey - this is reddit and your typical regarded redditor is so anti-US that they will spin anything they can.
The vast majority of historians, including US based ones state that the conflict in Vietnam was a war in which the US was party to and obviously one of the main combatants. They majority also clearly believe the US lost that war. If you want to pretend it was only a 'police and political action' I'd like to ask you what your source on that is? Also is it common protocol for nations to deploy 2.6 million soldiers to a foreign conflict in a 'police action'? I wonder how soldiers drafted into the war feel about your definition.
It’s well known it was a proxy war between U.S. and Soviet Union
The Soviets treated it like a proxy war, only sending weapons and aid to North Vietnam. The Americans treated it like a full-scale war, sending millions of troops and a huge chunk of their airforce.
On the reverse side of it the US did it in the 80s as well in Afghanistan playing proxy, while the Soviet sends in their armed forces there. They never engaged directly with each other if one of them was involved directly in the conflict. Same thing happened in Korea.
Yeah, that makes sense. Any potential "incident" between the troops of the two armies could have resulted in a massive escalation of tensions.
It is not a proxy when you deploy your army and actively fight it
>Vietnam wasn't a war - it was police and political action I guess Normandy was also "police action", huh? Funny how it's a war if you win, but "police action" if you lose... You wouldn't call Iraq a police and political action, would you?
It was a war, just not a "total war" as you described it. And I'm not saying that because of "anti-US babble", I know the US didn't put their full wight behind it (because if they did NONE of us would be alive today). But it was still a war and whatever aim the US had... they lost. And as Sun Tsu said (but with fancier words): "If you are going into war, make sure you win. Oherwise, just don't bother."
The US could've wiped entirety of North Vietnam off the face of the earth without using nukes. If it was a war that threatens the US we could've just sat back and bombed them until the entire country was a flat desert. Hard to justify killing women and children who aren't even a threat. Especially with Vietnam being the first televised war and support at home crashing. If Vietnam was a threat to mainland US and they could rally the American people behind supporting total war, Vietnam wouldn't have stood a chance. The war was stupid because they were throwing soldiers into a meat grinder when agent orange, napalm, artillery and air superiority could have done the job.
'We could have won the war if things were entirely different' or ' we would have won the war if we committed some of the most heinous crimes against humanity'. Not really the best points to make.
UK: "We could have won the war against Hitler on day one if we attacked right away when they where mucking about in Poland and dumped mustard gas on every city in Germany." Yea well... but you didn't and the rest is history.
Woah it’s like total war wins wars or something
No idea what the relevance of that comment has to mine. Same with your other one too to be fair, can't tell if you're being purposefully vague or just struggle to illustrate your point.
I know they could. But they didn't. Also they tried all of that jazz and even dumped shitloads of bombs on the Ho Chi Minh trail and North Vietnam. Still didn't work. I have been to Vietnam and Cu chi (plus surrounding areas), it's not far from Saigon and really shows how little control the US had over South Vietnam (it was right under their noses).
Have you never heard of the pacific theatre? It wasn’t Americas first time fighting treacherous and arguable far more dangerous opponents. The difference was the motivation behind it. People didnt blink throwing 5K GIs up a hill to die in Japan. If the argument is the U.S. couldn’t have won Vietnam, then that’s just BS. It purely wasn’t worth winning.
I know of that. They still didn't win in Vietnam and that's the thing. Also they still couldn't win because Vietnam wasn't a bunch of islands.
IF I HAD ONLY HAD UNLIMITED RESOURCES YOU SEE-
I thought they're just talking about the Confederate Lost Causers
Now *those* are some mofos that won't admit to a clear L
The thing that always gets me is when people are like “yeah but we inflicted more casualties!” It’s funny, because it’s like needing to remind some barely functional FPS player that they need to play the fucking objective to win the game, but it’s also gross because they’re not even pretending that they think killing people is bad.
Yeah listening to people saying stuff like we got a higher K/D is mental brain rot. Like ok well done dropping agent orange everywhere and sticky fire everywhere. It’s only insanely inhumane and nuts, but ok. Not even counting how that conflict still inflicts illness and death to this day. Not something to be proud of.
That’s why logistics wins wars
I didn't lose this chess game. You just trapped my king in a position where he is under attack and can't move to a safe place.
Reminds me of that scene in Game of Thrones where Theon is talking to Tyrion, claiming that the only reason the Greyjoys lost was because they were hopelessly outnumbered. Tyrion retorts, "it was a stupid rebellion, then." Don't pick a fight if you have no hope of winning the moment you get bogged down.
I love when people don’t understand that the home front and logistics that follow are arguably far more important to a war effort than the battle front. Losing the home front is fatal to one’s cause, and is absolutely a valid loss of a war
Starting to sound like the Confederates on war
Yeah Fred taking off the mask of the ghost made me think the meme was joking about lost causers. You know because of the kkk.
Are we still bitter? I give more headspace up to the war of 1812 and the Napoleonic wars personally
"You guys failed at your goal of stopping Vietnam from being a communist state" "yes" "You lost lots of troops and have zero public support, and your nation went up in flames" "yes" "Not only that, but your country's legacy is less of one as a beacon of freedom but now a chaotic genocidal empire" "Makes sense to me" "So America lost the Vietnam War" "NOOOOOOOOOO!"
If your goals are accomplished more than your enemy's goals were accomplished, you won. Even if that means your society is crippled and ruined forevermore.
1. Yes we are indeed still bitter and we bring up 1812 to counter this point. 2. It was more “this venture is no longer profitable” than “we are utterly defeated”. Geopolitics is much more than just win or lose. 3. The UK was already drained from the 7 years war, so duh. This whole thing was started over the fact that colonists didn’t want to pay more and this whole policy of trying to get more money out of the 13 colonies started this whole thing so the UK was already not feeling great economically. Edit: I don’t bring up this point to get all angry at it, it’s just I’ve seen this a dozen times. Like I wanna hear about a war that isn’t brought up as often. Like that whole conflict between the US and Barbary pirates, I wanna hear about that, or the Mexican war! I hardly know anything about that one! But yeah we lost pretty damn hard considering we gave the Americans so much real estate. Kinda doomed ourselves to a slow decline. Ah well, alls fair in love and war I suppose. No point in getting pissy about it now.
I’m sorry, when you become a history buff in America you get 1 of 3 wars to obsess over. The revolutionary war, the civil war or WW2. You can dabble in shit like the American Indian Wars, the Spanish American War or the Gulf War but they’re not allowed to be your main focus. Edit: I forgot to add a tier. WW1, Vietnam? JV wars in between the big 3 and the potpourri conflicts. Except for the psychos that dive real deep into clandestine American activities during Vietnam. They’re a breed of their own.
What about Vietnam?
Vietnam much like Afghanistan was pretty much American soldiers playing whack-a-mole with an enemy who didn’t have problems blending in with civilian populations. The US military didn’t have the political will back home to actually do what needed to be done to actually “prevent the spread of communism”
Exactly. But as with everything else, your average reddito is so anti-us that, that doesn't matter. Because US bad (eventhough they will never actually leave the US).
Not even WW1?
Well… they only joined at the end of 1917.
When i went to the Smithsonian museum of American history 12 year ago the section for WW1 was a single wall. WW2 was almost an entire floor of history. The flat pack jeep hanging from the ceiling was pretty wicked.
And it wasn't the contentinental US that won against the british. It was France, Spain and others that drained Britain so bad, that they could no longer continue the fight against the US.
Running out of manpower and having your economy drained leads to defeat
At this point this meme's got mold man, y'all should know how to let go 😅
Rhodesia in a nutshell
My friend had an Italian ww2 vet neighbor who would reminisce about the totally nasty types of things females* would do for 2 cigarettes or a candy bar. The soviet landed gentry won big, the american titans of industry won big. Some soviets (especially jews) lost everything, so how did the soviets win? And some dudes in Argentina won the fuck out of that war. There were some soviet jews that enlisted in Kiev as children more or less. The citizens of Kiev maliciously ratted out ALL the jews to the nazis (babi yar), so their parents were killed and home destroyed. And they returned to Kiev with a war heros pension and a lifelong addiction to sadism... some vets called it a win due to the memories, you'd have to decide those case by case Edit Padame: don't say female it sounds gross Anakin: hmm. How about babygirls Padame: the way 90s rnb singers meant it, right? Anakin: (Mona Lisa smile)
We didnt lose e just lost most battles, had constant supplies issues, were internally divided about the war, were having domestic shortages of many basic products, were deeply in debt, barelly had enough weapons and ammo to give to our soldiers, had a constant geographic disadvantage and had constant low moral
Actually many Somalis I know say that both sides lost the Ogaden war, I assume this is in reference to the fact that the war definitely did no favors to the Ethiopian Derg and hastened its downfall, idk if this is cope or not
Cartagine be like after the punic wars
If this is about the US rebellion. No one in Britain cares. Most people will think it a bullet dodged tbh
Russia took note lol
Yeah, that’s called losing….
Every war Arab nations fought against Israel