# Winning a war



## SaritaMija

I just finished a book called "The Man in the High Castle" by Phillip K. Dick. The book is about how America would be if the Allies had lost World War II.

Right now, I am studying in Spain (originally from the US) and the woman I live with asked me what the book was about. Since my Spanish is limited, I simply told her that it is about how the world would be if the US hadn't won _a_ war. She then asked if the United States won _every_ war? I quickly replied "no," and clarified my statement, but it got me thinking.

I can't think of a single war that the United States has lost. I don't know if this is a result of poor schooling or bias in the school systems, but I am college educated and can't think of any. My question is, do you think there is a lot of bias in school  systems and/or a lack of political/historical emphasis? Also, is this prevalent in other countries as well?


----------



## badgrammar

Well, how about Vietnam, for starters?


----------



## Talant

Yes there is at least one: Vietnam. Also I think that once the Canadians got the better of you (of course a long time ago).

But it's true that you haven't lost many.

Bye


----------



## SaritaMija

Vietnam was technically never declared as a war.


----------



## badgrammar

That sounds really strange...  There was a draft, and it's always called a war, atleast colloquially.  I better check on that...

I checked, and it certainly seems to have been considered a war.


----------



## SaritaMija

Either way, I wasn't asking IF the US has won a war, I was asking about school systems in the US and abroad.


----------



## SaritaMija

Also, I never learned about the Vietnam war in school.


----------



## ireney

Neither was the Greco-Turkish war of 1919-1922 but we still lost


----------



## elpoderoso

SaritaMija said:


> Vietnam was technically never declared as a war.


Lots of bombs, tanks, guns, helicopters, and thousands dead. Does a technicality count?


----------



## badgrammar

Sorry if I misinterpreted your statements, but I felt it important to clarify that what you said to your friend was incorrect.

Is there bias in schools?  I was born in '68 and we never learned anything about Vienam in school.  Perhaps, I thought, I went to school so soon after the conflict that it had not made its way from current events into the history books. 

I tend to think there is great variety in the way U.S. history is taught in the states, and individual school districts use different materials, and may present, or fail to present, facts in a different ways.  There has certainly been a historical lack of adequate teaching of what happened to native Americans when Europeans showed and and "founded" America.  

But that, too, depends on where you go to school, school policy, even your teacher.  

As has recently been seen in the debate over teaching darwinism, much of what is taught in schools is subject to local differences and the imposition of certain ideas.


----------



## Joca

SaritaMija said:


> I just finished a book called "The Man in the High Castle" by Phillip K. Dick. The book is about how America would be if the Allies had lost World War II.
> 
> Right now, I am studying in Spain (originally from the US) and the woman I live with asked me what the book was about. Since my Spanish is limited, I simply told her that it is about how the world would be if the US hadn't won _a_ war. She then asked if the United States won _every_ war? I quickly replied "no," and clarified my statement, but it got me thinking.
> 
> I can't think of a single war that the United States has lost. I don't know if this is a result of poor schooling or bias in the school systems, but I am college educated and can't think of any. My question is, do you think there is a lot of bias in school systems and/or a lack of political/historical emphasis? Also, is this prevalent in other countries as well?


 
Hi

It is difficult to answer your question: I have been away from school for so long. But yes, I should think there is a lot of bias in any school system anywhere on earth. Don't they say that history is written by the winners? Even if your country hasn't won a certain war, while they teach about it in the local schools, they will try to present a positive side to the war, they will try to make the defeat look better, as if it were a half victory: "we may not have won the war, but now we are in a better situation than the other country..." etc
Every country needs its own heroes, so there's bound to be a lot of myth in History classes. Actually, most historically recognized heroes were very ordinary men, maybe even charlatans. The real hero is mostly unknown, incognito, silent. 
Anyway, from reading the History books of my daughter, I get the feeling that things are improving these days. They are making an effort to be honest and tell what probably happened, with sugar-coating it.

JC


----------



## .   1

History is written by the victors and all governments are the same ensuring that they peddle only the stories of the heroic past not the awful blunders.

I quote Australia's most decorated soldier from the War To End All Wars.
Charlie Mance, may he rest in peace;

*A man that wants war is not right in the head. Nobody won the First World War. Both sides were flat out. We were glad to finish it.*

.,,
There are no winners in war only losers


----------



## invictaspirit

The history taught in UK schools is pretty subtle (unless you are talking about the Empire). History books tend (now) to be highly objective and I don't detect much national bias. Generally, through a mixture of school, the media and general popular perception, most Brits feel:

*World War One*
A terrible, costly and hideous mistake. No-one was really 'right'. Germany and her allies were more 'wrong' than we were, but that, in general, everyone was wrong. We tend to learn WW1 was a costly, brutal, disgusting, nationalistic resettling of European frontiers and power. We tend to think of our WW1 dead as poor, young victims and not heroes. We often blame our own leaders and generals as idiots: cruel men who hearded the nation's youth to death. We romanticise the brotherly notion of Brits and Germans playing football in no man's land. We regard the Germans as sort of brother-enemies.  It's very often portrayed, joked about and actually confirmed by personal accounts, that most British soldiers were more fond of the enemy Germans who were shooting at them than they were of the allied French (military and local civilians), who we were supposed to be protecting and co-operating with.

*World War Two*
Completely different attitude. Here, Britain is a valiant, strong, brave little nation holding out against the Nazis. The feeling is that the Nazis were uniquely and especially evil, and that a mixture of our being an island and being our exceptionally angry and indignant at what Hitler had done allowed us to hold out against them. The Battle of Britain (the repelling of a German invasion of the UK by the Royal Air Force) is seen in an almost religiously sacred way. The message tends to be one of brave defence against evil until our glorious Soviet and American allies waded in to help. Interestingly, the UK pays much more attention to the Russian/Soviet involvement than the USA does. I have had around five furious arguments with Americans about this.  At school we were taught that the USSR was an ally, a brave and clever one, and that the Allies could not have won without them. I seriously doubt many Americans were taught that and some may, even now, post disagreement to this on this thread. Downplaying the USSR's involvement in WW2 is pretty common there, but unheard of in the UK. The US involvement in WW2 is *never* seen negatively or with jealousy here as some people see it on the Continent. It is always seen as a great thing. I have had conversations with some other Europeans that seem to suggest that they are embarrassed and angry to have been liberated by Anglo-Saxons.  The only thing that wrankles us about America is when they tell us in 2007 that 'they saved us in WW2'. Get a timeline, folks. By the time the US entered the war in Europe, the UK had permanently repelled a Nazi invasion of our country, assumed air superiority over Northern Europe and destroyed the Afrikakorps from Egypt to Morocco. What the hell kept ya?  

*The Empire*
Since the late 1960s Brits have been taught that the British Empire was an almost wholly bad thing. I would almost equate this with the way the Germans are taught about Hitler. For several decades education and the media in the UK have portrayed the Empire as an almost totally evil, rapacious mistake. This is now in the process of being re-balanced and revised, following the publication of two highly influential and seemingly intelligent books about the Empire here, and the modest revision in places like Ireland and India of opinions. In my humble opinion, between 1948 and about 1999 Britain swung between notions of totally glorious imperialism to self-flagelating masochism and is probably only now getting the picture about right: the Empire was, as all are, generally an immoral construct, but that it did have a positive influence as well.

Having said all of that, I do notice wildly different interpretations of more ancient events. You will never get a Spaniard and a Briton to agree on the circumstances of the destruction of the Spanish Navy in the Channel and the consequent rise of England as a great power in the reign of Elizabeth I. We are taught entirely different accounts. In ours, England took its rightful place as a major European power by bravely destroying the invading and aggressive Spanish navy off our coasts and permanently ensured that Spain feared and respected us. The Spansh version involves the Spanish Navy having a bad day at sea, running into a storm, and merely deciding not to fight the English and to go home.


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

The war of 1812?


----------



## invictaspirit

Pedro y La Torre said:


> The war of 1812?


 
That was a tie.


----------



## EmilyD

The Civil War (?War Between the States).  !!

I'm guessing that it is presented quite distinctly in various regions of the U.S.
_
Nomi_


----------



## winklepicker

invictaspirit said:


> What the hell kept ya?


 
Too busy selling us their lousy Liberty ships. We just finished paying for them.  

Great post Invicta. A very sound review of the wars/empire and attitudes to them.


----------



## Outsider

SaritaMija said:


> I can't think of a single war that the United States has lost. I don't know if this is a result of poor schooling or bias in the school systems, but I am college educated and can't think of any. My question is, do you think there is a lot of bias in school  systems and/or a lack of political/historical emphasis? Also, is this prevalent in other countries as well?


Since you are spending some time in Spain, and all, you might research the Spanish-American War. (No, the U.S. didn't lose that one, either.)


----------



## übermönch

The concept of winning or losing a war is largely abscent in German educational system, however there are bias is lower grades, such as selfexplainary ones, that the nazis & commies are evil, wars are evil, while freedom, human rights, social democracy & free market is good. The nationalism is present, however, only in regard to the federal republic, not to the other Germanies that existed throughout time which are all defined to be evil.


----------



## invictaspirit

SaritaMija said:


> Vietnam was technically never declared as a war.


 
Wars that are lost are often never technically declared as wars.    It's handy, you have to admit.  

Iraq won't be a war, either.  I'll bet ya.


----------



## .   1

We have the 'Police Action' euphamism down here.  Apparently Korea didn't qualify as a war because it was not an unqualified success.
Apparently one wins a war and manages a police action.  One also never loses a war; it is always a noble stalemate.

.,,


----------



## winklepicker

übermönch said:


> The nationalism is present, however, only in regard to the federal republic, not to the other Germanies that existed throughout time which are all defined to be evil.


 
What a great concept, übermönch. This is not limited to Germany, but is part of human nature I guess. Thanks for expressing it so beautifully.


----------



## Bonjules

SaritaMija said:


> every[/i] war? I quickly replied "no," and clarified my statement, but it got me thinking.
> 
> I can't think of a single war that the United States has lost. I don't know if this is a result of poor schooling or bias in the school systems, but I am college educated and can't think of any. My question is, do you think there is a lot of bias in school systems and/or a lack of political/historical emphasis? Also, is this prevalent in other countries as well?


 
Sure there is a lot of bias in any country as far as teaching it's own history goes.
One shouldn't focus on whether war has been 'declared'; it is largely a question of political convenience, constitutional requirement(and could be an obstacle for this reason) - there are various reasons for avoiding it, as there are great reasons for doing it (imagine Churchill in WWII, rousing the people with it)
The interesting historical question is how the nature of war has changed, therefore the perception of what is 'winning' has changed and even more what it means to be 'losing'. Vietnam is a good case in point.


----------



## TRG

Most Americans would probably say that Viet Nam was a war that was lost. It's difficult to make the case that it wasn't, but there are a couple of points to consider. First, the war in Viet Name was not lost on the battlefield, but in the hearts and minds of American citizens who decided that it was a battle not worth fighting. At least this seems to be the consensus in retrospect. Second, the Viet Nam war must be viewed in the context of what it was, which was a major battle in the the "Cold War". However misguided and dishonest the thinking may have been, at that time the U.S. was guided by the principle of thwarting the advance of global communism. People actually believed in the Domino Theory. So while you can say without much argument that the war in Viet Nam was lost, the ultimate objective of winning the Cold War succeeded. (Least some be tempted to debate this point, I will say that if you are in a war and your opponent commits suicide, then you can still say you won .)


----------



## Etcetera

SaritaMija said:


> My question is, do you think there is a lot of bias in school  systems and/or a lack of political/historical emphasis? Also, is this prevalent in other countries as well?


When I was at school, we studied Russian history in detail, so we knew which wars Russia has won and which it has lost. We lost Russian-Japanese War (1904-1905), for one. And Crimean War as well. At school, we were told that it was due to serious military mistakes on our side. 
At the University, I had a semester course of Russian history, and here the criticism was even more harsh - we aren't children any more, so we can learn more details. 
So, I don't think that school programs are too biased here; on the contrary, when I read articles and books which are published nowadays, it sometimes seems to me that there;s a lot of unnecessary criticism. It's silly to claim that a country hasn't lost any war in its history, but it's even more silly to try not to pay much attention to wars it has won.


----------



## cuchuflete

When I was a student, decades ago, I was taught that the U.S. won the war of 1812.  Today, students are taught that neither side won it, but that it had some interesting consequences for all parties concerned.  
I was taught that the U.S. naval efforts against the Barbary pirates succeeded.  Today students are taught that the 'success' was partial, not absolute.
I was taught that the entire United States of America and the Confederate States of America jointly lost the Civil War.  Some lost more badly than others.  The lasting benefits of that war are two-- (1)abolition of slavery; (2)a country that eventually grew into the name "United". 
The Vietnam war was going on while I was a student.  I don't know how that subject is taught in schools today.
I think the U.S. lost in an exclusively military sense, that the South Vietnamese traded one form of totalitarianism for another, and that the war showed that neither the U.S. nor China nor the U.S.S.R. thought it
was of sufficient strategic importance to use nuclear weapons.  As George Kennan, who coined the 'domino theory', eventually retracted that theory, it's not clear to me how the war could have affected something which may not have existed beyond a flawed theoretical realm.  
The Korean War was taught to me as a stalemate at the end, following the earlier repulsion of the 'bad guys'.
I don't know how it's taught today.


----------



## Etcetera

It's absolutely the same down here!
Decades ago, pupils were taught many interesting things about Russian history. Almost no truth at all.* I wonder what will my sister's children be taught at school!

 * Yes, that was a quote. If you recognised it, feel free to ask for your prize!


----------



## Bonjules

TRG said:


> Most Americans would probably say that Viet Nam was a war that was lost. It's difficult to make the case that it wasn't.............. So while you can say without much argument that the war in Viet Nam was lost, the ultimate objective of winning the Cold War succeeded. (Least some be tempted to debate this point, I will say that if you are in a war and your opponent commits suicide, then you can still say you won )


Well, I'd say there are a few problems with what you are saying, if you allow me to point them out.
Aside from the larger problem of what 'winning' somethiing like the "Cold War" exactly means (SU would have collapsed anyway under its own weight, from its own inefficiency and undemocratic character, and probably much sooner at that, did we not have the policy of confrontation at all cost); this was certainly not the perspective of 'the enemy'. It is safe to assume that the average Vietnamese (a largely agricultural society)
couldn't care less about questions of ideology, communism etc. Many of the more 'objective'(whatever that means) historians seem to agree that for the vietnamese it was a continuation of what they already knew: Foreign invasion; the fourth or fifth in a long history of invasions.
That was much closer to their experience, their collective memory than some strange, unfamiliar ideology(that has little to do with that their leader - who many believe was a nationalist also before he was a 'communist'- sought help in that camp. You'd too, if there was no other alternative (actually he was not choosy: He had asked the U.S. for help against the French before anybody else, if you recall, he had great hopes that having been a colony themselves, the US would naturally support his anti-colonialist fight); he was rebuffed, as we know; a great opportunity for cooperation was lost. A victim of the need to press everything into the 'cold war' scheme..

You can say exactly about them what you said about 'your enemy committing suicide': Since the U.S. had lost
the will to use all means possible to 'win' (and for good reasons) as far as they were concerned, the enemy
'committed suicide', so they felt they won, the foreigners were gone.
That still begs the question: If one side clearly feels they are the 'winner' ( ?,with a country in ruins), does that mean there is automatically a corresponding 'loser'?
Psycholgically maybe - open to question in this case; still too painful,still too many disagreements about the premises and the justification in the first place.
The nature of war has changed: If most of the effects of 'losing' do not touch you (most of a people) personally and directly, if your physical space is not invaded or occupied, in short, if your life goes on pretty much as it did before - does that mean you 'lost' in the sense wars
used to be lost?


----------



## TRG

Bonjules said:


> Well, I'd say there are a few problems with what you are saying, if you allow me to point them out.


 
I did not see which problems you were referring to. Would you like to try again? My joking comment about suicide was about the collapse of the SU, not Viet Nam, but I suppose it has some applicabilty there too. To rephrase some of what I was saying, I am making the observation that in any war, whether it be of the shooting variety or the ideological variety, there are going to be tactical blunders and battles lost. To some degree the outcome must be considered in the context of the outcome of the overall struggle. I am willing to predict that someday the war in Iraq and the GWOT will fall under this same rubric, i.e., the Iraq war will be seen as an error/mistake/defeat whereas jihadism (I'm not sure what the correct term is) is likely to self-destruct.


----------



## GOTO6502

Not confident about my lang skill
but i still want to make something clear.
2 cases exist : the force A that starts the war quits
1: when the process of the war was under its(A) controll. That is  , A was initiative on putting foward a cease-fire agreement.
2 : when that depended on the opposite side B. the situation was contrary.

and there are 2 reason for a contry to not be destroyed : 1 large area/population  2, history not long enough to record a warfare failure(dunno , maybe Mongolia case?Since it's recently seperated from China plus a peace environment . I'm ignorant , Spit on me  )  (Without any offensive meaning)


Conclusion, US has a relatively exellent inner&outer environment , excellent culture ,a mixture taste of races( Elite from the world).

I'm having too much wine and now a little drunk.    So please dont recognize me as a madman.


----------



## Bonjules

TRG said:


> I did not see which problems you were referring to. Would you like to try again? My joking comment about suicide.....


Maybe bad choice of words on my part, TRG and sorry also for the lengthy history lesson....
I thought we were talking about 'war' in the more or less traditional sense, notwithstanding it's changing character. The 'Cold War', although dubbed 'war' was not really a war, but a lengthy historical process.
My second point - and I understood perfectly well that you were talking about the SU- was that the same idea ('suicide' of the enemy)can be employed from the viewpoint of the Vietnamese, that's all. I think we have more agreement than disagreement.


----------



## TRG

Bonjules said:


> Maybe bad choice of words on my part, TRG and sorry also for the lengthy history lesson....
> I thought we were talking about 'war' in the more or less traditional sense, notwithstanding it's changing character. The 'Cold War', although dubbed 'war' was not really a war, but a lengthy historical process.
> My second point - and I understood perfectly well that you were talking about the SU- was that the same idea ('suicide' of the enemy)can be employed from the viewpoint of the Vietnamese, that's all. I think we have more agreement than disagreement.


 
True, the Cold War was not really war although there were times when it was actual war. I was thinking of it in terms of its global nature. WWII was also a rather global war but entirely of the shooting variety. I just wanted to make the point that some conflicts are of a fairly localized nature while some have a much broader context and have to be viewed somewhat differently in terms of what winning and losing mean.


----------



## Victoria32

SaritaMija said:


> Vietnam was technically never declared as a war.


And so I think you have answered your own question! It seems evident to me, from what you and badgrammar have said, that in your school systems, you are never taught about your country's own military disasters! 
Oh and by the by, America didn't win World War 2. It participated, too little and too late, - but that was all... 



TRG said:


> Most Americans would probably say that Viet Nam was a war that was lost. It's difficult to make the case that it wasn't, but there are a couple of points to consider. First, the war in Viet Nam was not lost on the battlefield, but in the hearts and minds of American citizens who decided that it was a battle not worth fighting. At least this seems to be the consensus in retrospect. Second, the Viet Nam war must be viewed in the context of what it was, which was a major battle in the the "Cold War". However misguided and dishonest the thinking may have been, at that time the U.S. was guided by the principle of thwarting the advance of global communism. People actually believed in the Domino Theory. So while you can say without much argument that the war in Viet Nam was lost, the ultimate objective of winning the Cold War succeeded. (Least some be tempted to debate this point, I will say that if you are in a war and your opponent commits suicide, then you can still say you won .)


Oh TRG, I can't believe that you people actually felt entitled to invade a country, overthrow its government, split it in half and declare its own citizens "foreign insurgents" that you claim you are liberating the country from. Hey wait - you have a habit of doing just that! (Iraq anyone)? 

Vicky


----------



## Sorcha

Etcetera said:


> It's absolutely the same down here!
> Decades ago, pupils were taught many interesting things about Russian history. Almost no truth at all.* I wonder what will my sister's children be taught at school!
> 
> * Yes, that was a quote. If you recognised it, feel free to ask for your prize!


 

I dont but im intrigued....tell me more!


----------



## invictaspirit

> Oh and by the by, America didn't win World War 2. It participated, too little and too late, - but that was all...


 
Sigh....

If you remove any one of the following factors, the Nazis would have won the Second World War:

1. Hitler's decision to invade the USSR, thus bringing the USSR into the war on the Allies' side
2. The United Kingdom's resistance to a German invasion, and the resulting British air superiority over north-western Europe and the maintenance of a free, anti-Nazi territory from which to launch bombing raids and eventual land invasion
3. The entry of the United States to the war, facilitating the land invasion mentioned in 2.

You will recall (I would hope) both Britain's and Germany's inablity to move enough men and equipment across the Channel to attack the other. This kept Britain safe from invasion and kept Germany safe from a British invasion of France. The eventual invasion and liberation of France was only possible with the vast additional resources the United States was able to bring to Europe.

Had the United States not entered the war, the UK-US invasion of France and Italy could not have happened. There would have been no Western front for the Germans. The Nazis would have therefore beaten the USSR, or had they not, been beaten by a USSR that would have more than likely 'liberated' the whole of Western Europe as well as the lands they did 'liberate'.

It is possible that the British alone could have bombed German cities and infrastructure into eventual submission (a process that was already well underway when the US entered the war), but this would almost certainly have lengthened the war by years. The USA was absolutely vital for the quick Allied movement of land forces across the Continent and the eventual invasion of the Reich itself. 

Without the USA, at best the war would have lasted *far* longer, and at worst, would have been lost. Probably the latter. They may have been late, but they most certainly were not TOO late, nor too little.


----------



## Victoria32

invictaspirit said:


> Sigh....
> 
> If you remove any one of the following factors, the Nazis would have won the Second World War:
> 
> 1. Hitler's decision to invade the USSR, thus bringing the USSR into the war on the Allies' side
> 2. The United Kingdom's resistance to a German invasion, and the resulting British air superiority over north-western Europe and the maintenance of a free, anti-Nazi territory from which to launch bombing raids and eventual land invasion
> 3. The entry of the United States to the war, facilitating the land invasion mentioned in 2.
> 
> You will recall (I would hope) both Britain's and Germany's inablity to move enough men and equipment across the Channel to attack the other. This kept Britain safe from invasion and kept Germany safe from a British invasion of France. The eventual invasion and liberation of France was only possible with the vast additional resources the United States was able to bring to Europe.
> 
> Had the United States not entered the war, the UK-US invasion of France and Italy could not have happened. There would have been no Western front for the Germans. The Nazis would have therefore beaten the USSR, or had they not, been beaten by a USSR that would have more than likely 'liberated' the whole of Western Europe as well as the lands they did 'liberate'.
> 
> It is possible that the British alone could have bombed German cities and infrastructure into eventual submission (a process that was already well underway when the US entered the war), but this would almost certainly have lengthened the war by years. The USA was absolutely vital for the quick Allied movement of land forces across the Continent and the eventual invasion of the Reich itself.
> 
> Without the USA, at best the war would have lasted *far* longer, and at worst, would have been lost. Probably the latter. They may have been late, but they most certainly were not TOO late, nor too little.


Obviously I should have said "_not all by itself_"... but I stand by my assertion that they entered almost too late, and it was by luck that it wasn't too little!
I wasn't alive at the time, but I was brought up by those who were, who participated, who lost family,  and who were getting sick even by then, of all the New Zealanders around believing that if it wasn't for America etc. Aside from anything else, the oft-heard assertion that if it wasn't for America we'd all be speaking German/Japanese etc., leaves out the Russians who took the brunt of it in Europe. 

Even if the western world owes them big time, as they are all too inclined to say, I think they've been amply repaid by now! (I had better not say more, the last time I did, the ordure rather hit the ventilator somewhat..) 

Vicky 

Vicky


----------



## SaritaMija

TRG said:


> Most Americans would probably say that Viet Nam was a war that was lost. It's difficult to make the case that it wasn't, but there are a couple of points to consider. First, the war in Viet Name was not lost on the battlefield, but in the hearts and minds of American citizens who decided that it was a battle not worth fighting


 
I sincerely believe that will be the case for the Iraq war as well. I think it probably already is.



SaritaMija said:


> Vietnam was technically never declared as a war.


 
I would like to say two things about this one:
1. I graduated high school in 2004 and will graduate college in 2008 and I never in my life received a lesson about Vietnam in school, even when I explicitly asked.
2. Although it was never declared a war (similar to the situation in Iraq) I agree that that is merely a technicality and it was for all intensive purposes a war.


----------



## EmilyD

regarding the Vietnam _conflict:_

John McCain (Senator in Arizona and presidential candidate) is well known for having been a *Prisoner Of War*_, _during that period.  I have never heard the expression Prisoner Of Conflict or Prisoner of Armed Action, etc.

Maybe I've missed it, but whenever the US invades a country or removes the president or leader of a country( and we all know there are many, many examples of this)*, it is never considered a war.*


----------



## Athaulf

Victoria32 said:


> Aside from anything else, the oft-heard assertion that if it wasn't for America we'd all be speaking German/Japanese etc., leaves out the Russians who took the brunt of it in Europe.



Russians certainly took the brunt of it, but you seem to be ignoring the fact that without the U.S. help not just in WW2, but also in the Cold War, Western Europeans would have likely been doomed to speaking Russian rather than German. And as much as I like the Russian language in itself, this would have been only slightly less bad -- just ask Karuna or someone else from any country that was conquered by the Russians in WW2.


----------



## TRG

Victoria32 said:


> And so I think you have answered your own question! It seems evident to me, from what you and badgrammar have said, that in your school systems, you are never taught about your country's own military disasters!
> Oh and by the by, America didn't win World War 2. It participated, too little and too late, - but that was all...
> 
> 
> Oh TRG, I can't believe that you people actually felt entitled to invade a country, overthrow its government, split it in half and declare its own citizens "foreign insurgents" that you claim you are liberating the country from. Hey wait - you have a habit of doing just that! (Iraq anyone)?
> 
> Vicky


 
"You People?" That's a bit of a loaded phrase, but if you can expand on what you mean by it, perhaps I can respond to your comment.


----------



## Victoria32

TRG said:


> "You People?" That's a bit of a loaded phrase, but if you can expand on what you mean by it, perhaps I can respond to your comment.


TRG, I apologise unreservedly for my loaded comment, I was a bit angry at the time. I meant of course your government/media! Events since 9/11 have sped seemingly out of control... I work with Muslim people - at least one guy has a brother trapped in Baghdad as a stateless person. I'd be hysterical with worry, but it is true that Muslims are pretty fatalistic..

Vicky


----------



## ireney

Moderator's note: Whether the USA won the WWII or didn't, the USA most certainly wasn't on the losing side and therefore this discussion is off topic.

You can do a little search and find previous discussions on the matter.


----------



## TRG

SaritaMija said:


> I just finished a book called "The Man in the High Castle" by Phillip K. Dick. The book is about how America would be if the Allies had lost World War II.
> 
> Right now, I am studying in Spain (originally from the US) and the woman I live with asked me what the book was about. Since my Spanish is limited, I simply told her that it is about how the world would be if the US hadn't won _a_ war. She then asked if the United States won _every_ war? I quickly replied "no," and clarified my statement, but it got me thinking.
> 
> I can't think of a single war that the United States has lost. I don't know if this is a result of poor schooling or bias in the school systems, but I am college educated and can't think of any. My question is, do you think there is a lot of bias in school systems and/or a lack of political/historical emphasis? Also, is this prevalent in other countries as well?


 
After Ireney's note I had to go back and read again the original post. The poster's assumption seems to be that since she didn't know of and hadn't learned in school about any wars the U.S. had lost then her education must be deficient. I would say that your education is deficient, but the fact that you are here affords you the opportunity to correct the problem. I can't say if the problem is institutional or not, but I'm confident a thorough study of American history would reaveal that there were wars that have been lost. It's possible that old history books were all written by American apologists, but I'm fairly certain the ones now being written will give full disclosure to any defeats. I believe many in academia are downright anxious to record for history that the current war was a defeat before it's even over.


----------



## Athaulf

TRG said:


> After Ireney's note I had to go back and read again the original post. The poster's assumption seems to be that since she didn't know of and hadn't learned in school about any wars the U.S. had lost then her education must be deficient. I would say that your education is deficient, but the fact that you are here affords you the opportunity to correct the problem. I can't say if the problem is institutional or not, but I'm confident a thorough study of American history would reaveal that there were wars that have been lost. It's possible that old history books were all written by American apologists, but I'm fairly certain the ones now being written will give full disclosure to any defeats.



There is also the problem of what constitutes a full, self-contained war (as opposed to only a battle or campaign within a war). There are indisputably battles and even large campaigns that were outright lost by the U.S. (e.g. Pearl Harbor and the subsequent Japanese offensive in the Pacific all until the Battle of the Coral Sea). However, I'd say that even the greatest defeats of the U.S. in recent history, like Vietnam, can be viewed as only campaigns within larger wars that were ultimately won (Cold War in this example). Note that since we're talking about the world's decidedly most powerful state, it is obviously a truism that it was victorious in everything that happened in recent history if one views the events from a large-scale perspective.

All this is of course a matter of what definitions we choose, which is ultimately irrelevant unless the goal is propaganda rather than an objective discussion of facts. 



> I believe many in academia are downright anxious to record for history that the current war was a defeat before it's even over.


But there are indeed wars that can be counted as lost even before the first shot is fired.  Those are (among others) the ones which are entered without clearly defined strategic goals.  Regardless of what one might think about the current war from the moral, legal, and other perspectives, it is indisputable that it's being conducted with a serious lack of strategic vision -- even the enemies are not well-defined, there is no well-defined general strategy, and the ultimate strategic goals are left completely vague. Historically, this has been a recipe for defeat regardless of any other circumstances.

Of course, those who are most anxious to record the current war as defeat are likely motivated by other considerations, but that's an altogether different story.


----------



## TRG

Athaulf said:


> There is also the problem of what constitutes a full, self-contained war (as opposed to only a battle or campaign within a war). There are indisputably battles and even large campaigns that were outright lost by the U.S. (e.g. Pearl Harbor and the subsequent Japanese offensive in the Pacific all until the Battle of the Coral Sea). However, I'd say that even the greatest defeats of the U.S. in recent history, like Vietnam, can be viewed as only campaigns within larger wars that were ultimately won (Cold War in this example). Note that since we're talking about the world's decidedly most powerful state, it is obviously a truism that it was victorious in everything that happened in recent history if one views the events from a large-scale perspective.
> 
> All this is of course a matter of what definitions we choose, which is ultimately irrelevant unless the goal is propaganda rather than an objective discussion of facts.
> 
> But there are indeed wars that can be counted as lost even before the first shot is fired. Those are (among others) the ones which are entered without clearly defined strategic goals. Regardless of what one might think about the current war from the moral, legal, and other perspectives, it is indisputable that it's being conducted with a serious lack of strategic vision -- even the enemies are not well-defined, there is no well-defined general strategy, and the ultimate strategic goals are left completely vague. Historically, this has been a recipe for defeat regardless of any other circumstances.
> 
> Of course, those who are most anxious to record the current war as defeat are likely motivated by other considerations, but that's an altogether different story.


 
I agree with what you have said. When I said that academics are already writing in the history books that the war in Iraq was a defeat, it was somewhat tongue in cheek, but when the history is really written, people will have to look at the war in Iraq in its full context as part of a much bigger struggle, just as the war in Viet Nam was part of the Cold War.


----------

