Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 welshhoppo wrote:
When it comes to warfare, America has never won a war on its own.


This is what I've been told, so if anyone can think of one, then let me know.

Well, we won the American Civil War.

Joking aside, what about the Mexican-American War?

And the Spanish-American war. We got the Philippines out of that.

We beat the Japanese basically by ourselves. There was little involvement of significance from the other allied powers.

It probably would have happened, but no one will ever truly know.


Ah yes The Mexican-American War. I suppose that one does count, unless you class the California Republic as a different country

 Grey Templar wrote:
It was still a war.

The pacific and European conflicts were actually very different too.

Europe was a land based conflict with a small sea component while the Pacific war was largely navel(with a huge air component) and amphibious warfare.

The wars also ended separately.

The Atlantic sea component actually dwarfed the Pacific. It just didn't have battleships and carriers slugging it out (by the time we got into it).

 Grey Templar wrote:
And the Spanish-American war. We got the Philippines out of that.

We beat the Japanese basically by ourselves. There was little involvement of significance from the other allied powers.

With the Spanish-American War you had help from the Cubans and the Philippines themselves. Then when you have the Philippine-American war you have help from the rebels.


War is a complex issue.

California and Texas were ceded to the US as part of the peace terms of that war.

Believe me, the US could have gotten a lot more land out of it. The Mexican army was in shambles, we could have easily taken the whole country if we had really wanted to. The reason we didn't was because there was division over the war back in the states so there was compromise.

Indeed, a quick web search brought that up. You seemed to be doing rather good as well. I don't suppose Mexico has ever truly forgiven you.

 welshhoppo wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
And the Spanish-American war. We got the Philippines out of that.

We beat the Japanese basically by ourselves. There was little involvement of significance from the other allied powers.

With the Spanish-American War you had help from the Cubans and the Philippines themselves. Then when you have the Philippine-American war you have help from the rebels.


War is a complex issue.

So any kind of help at all, even if was really just token, disqualifies us as doing it by ourselves?

Pretty much. That's the amazing things with facts, you can nit pick them so they always help you out.


I suppose the best example would be 'America has never won a war against a world power without some kind of external aid.'


In other news, it is safer to drink and drive. Although it can cause thread de-railment.

 welshhoppo wrote:


We horribly destroyed several of Germany's cities (often for no good reason, something that I believe we should be punished for, Dresden didn't deserve what it got.)

I hate this kind of "Sins of the father" thinking. Why should 21st Century Britain be held accountable for crimes We did not commit? That were committed before many of us were even born? I am no more liable for Dresden than a 22 year old German is for the Holocaust.

Things we as a country should be held accountable and "punished" for are things that were committed in our lifetime, by leaders we elected (and in some cases, are even still in office today). Iraq. Afghanistan. Our interference in Libya and Syria. Drone strikes in Pakistan.

Not things which we today rightly abhore and regard to be crimes, that happened decades (Dresden) or even centuries (Slavery, British Empire, Colonialism) ago by people who are long dead.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 welshhoppo wrote:


We horribly destroyed several of Germany's cities (often for no good reason, something that I believe we should be punished for, Dresden didn't deserve what it got.)

I hate this kind of "Sins of the father" thinking. Why should 21st Century Britain be held accountable for crimes We did not commit? That were committed before many of us were even born? I am no more liable for Dresden than a 22 year old German is for the Holocaust.

Things we as a country should be held accountable and "punished" for are things that were committed in our lifetime, by leaders we elected (and in some cases, are even still in office today). Iraq. Afghanistan. Our interference in Libya and Syria. Drone strikes in Pakistan.

Not things that happened decades (Dresden) or even centuries (Slavery, British Empire, Colonialism) ago by people who are long dead.

Ah it comes from being a Law student. We punished the Germans for what they did, and we killed the only people who could actually bring any of them to justice.


But Britain is a dark country. We have one of the most bloodiest histories of any country.

 Grey Templar wrote:

We beat the Japanese basically by ourselves. There was little involvement of significance from the other allied powers.

Of course you mean aside from the largest army in the world.

 Palindrome wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

We beat the Japanese basically by ourselves. There was little involvement of significance from the other allied powers.

Of course you mean aside from the largest army in the world.

A broken wiki link? That is scary I guess...

 djones520 wrote:

 Palindrome wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

We beat the Japanese basically by ourselves. There was little involvement of significance from the other allied powers.

Of course you mean aside from the largest army in the world.

A broken wiki link? That is scary I guess...

I think he means this one.... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Army_%28United_Kingdom%29

 welshhoppo wrote:

But Britain is a dark country. We have one of the most bloodiest histories of any country.

We don't, not really. German soil has seen so much blood I'm suprised its managed to dry out and there are large parts of the world who has seen massacres and genocides that far surpase anything seen on English or Scottish soil.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 djones520 wrote:

A broken wiki link? That is scary I guess...

Its this forum's torturous link system.

 Palindrome wrote:

 welshhoppo wrote:

But Britain is a dark country. We have one of the most bloodiest histories of any country.

We don't, not really. German soil has seen so much blood I'm suprised its managed to dry out and there are large parts of the world who has seen massacres and genocides that far surpase anything seen on English or Scottish soil.

I'm pretty sure that the Germans did not kill 1.8 billion Indians.


https://sites.google.com/site/muslimholocaustmuslimgenocide/indian-holocaust


It may have taken us a little bit longer than the Germans, but we still did it.

 welshhoppo wrote:

https://sites.google.com/site/muslimholocaustmuslimgenocide/indian-holocaust

That wasn't on British soil though. It really depends on what you class as a countries history.

 Palindrome wrote:

 welshhoppo wrote:

https://sites.google.com/site/muslimholocaustmuslimgenocide/indian-holocaust

That wasn't on British soil though. It really depends on what you class as a countries history.

India was part of the British Empire at the time, I suppose it makes it count.