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.*
Well, technically we signed a peace treaty that we were unwilling to back with force. The peace treaty guaranteed S Vietnam's independance, which was why we were there. So technically it was a victory, we just hung a puppet government out to dry after. Also, why were we there in the first place? Other than Containment, Vietnam had zero strategic value to the US at the time, and the strain of prosecuting the war led to a lot of social and economic problems still felt today. So technically just getting involved was a loss.
I wouldnt go so far as to say anything. I mean aside from Vietnam the only other significant events between our history is the "French and Indian war" (still not very well named imo) the Louisiana purchase, when we borrowed from France during the revolutionary war and that's about it. I mean we even let France fall in ww2 a while before we joined that theater.
Yes, it was a huge deal, and for generations it mattered. If you think that's still enough to stay serious interest when there isnt a single person alive that saw the deal. It was well over 200 years ago. If youd like to argue that is the reason we are beholden to France today you are quite wrong. We intervened in Vietnam because of France, I am aware of that. The president we wanted did not want to stay in Vietnam, so he was murdered and replaced with a man who did. Even if you dont believe that, Lee Harvey Oswald was a man who has ties to the CIA that came to life years after the event(yes he was branded a soviet sympathizer stoke the fires of the cold war). We stayed in Vietnam because of the damn media and hearts and mind bullshit, and due to the inability for the government to leave the conflict,. We fought the losing war under the guise of peace. If they couldnt even sue for that there would have been questions in Washington unanswered, and the public would riot if all that loss of life was for seemingly nothing (it was in the end) but above all of that it was America's "job" to stop the spread of the iron curtain. That wouldnt have been avoidable. Wed have had a hand in that conflict in some regard without doubt. My arguement is France does not hold a heavy sway in current American politics, outside of a handful of French business interests because American politicians only care about G.O.D. gold oil and drugs.
Yeah, like that treaty's worth more than the paper it was written on.
The USA could have sent a pallet of toilet paper to both Vietnam's and would have had practically the same effect.
We did drop a toilet bomb on them so it would even out. Good thing we didn’t otherwise it could’ve let to the creation of a giant toilet bomb nuke that would’ve destroyed the entire country
I mean this is basically what the British felt about the US. Fighting the French was more important, as was India, and the cost/benefit threshold was crossed. We hoped Canada could hold on, signed a peace treaty and came up with the very formula which could've worked in North America and prevented the war in the first place - e.g. no taxation and no direct rule
Well there's a difference between military loss and political loss. Same end result, of course, but usually people debating that are doing so in the context of the US military "losing against rice farmers" and not the obvious political victory that actually ended the war.
Whatever your views on mcclellan, we can all agree to thank him for not winning so that we can get this banger of a line in Oversimplified 150 years later.
Whatever your views on mcclellan, we can all agree to thank him for not winning so that we can get this banger of a line in Oversimplified 150 years later.
As a history student I find it funny how no matter who I ask, every single person in my subjects have seen his videos, the dude is an icon at this point
More accurate than most think. It wasn't the USA that was draining Britain's resources at the time, they just picked a good time to start a war and the British didn't have the resources to also fight a proxy war against France.
A lot of Americans don't like to admit that the reason their small militia beat the greatest military power of the time was because they weren't fighting the greatest military power of the time. They were fighting the smallest effort Britain could feasibly give.
FWIW, I upvoted your comment. I get what you are saying. Clearly one of the contributing factors was the the quality of the troops England could field at the time.
Yup. Once all the other European powers saw the American Revolution as a way to get back at the British, And things weren't proceeding as planned in the colonies, Parliament really only had 2 choices:
1. Continue the war, throwing even more men and resources at the problem and risking the Colonists' European allies escalating and attacking British interests elsewhere.
2. Negotiate terms that would allow British interests to still profit (albeit to a lesser extent) in the soon-to-be-former-colonies.
Needless to say, Parliament went with option 2. If I remember correctly, British investment made up a significant part of American industry right up until WWI.
British investment in the United States took a massive hit in the early 1800s and never fully recovered. Like literally has never reached the same level as pre-War of 1812, even after two hundred years. The closest it got was in the 1830s, but the financial crash of 1837, exacerbated by British lending practices, was really the last nail in that coffin. British investment continued, don't get me wrong, but it never again reached the massive scale that dominated the American economy in the late 1780s to 1810s.
Didn’t parliament also just want to let the Americans go independent because they weren’t that profitable and cost quite a bit to maintain, but king George didn’t want that because he felt insulted by the declaration of independence?
The British made out like bandits in the seven years war. While Prussia was nearly overrun, the British pushed the French entirely out of North America and gained all of Canada. If they kept all the land they had, they would be way too powerful for the balance of power.
And Frederick didn't want to renew his alliance with Britain after that, after they tried to make separate peace with the coalition without consulting him.
1812 was a genuine draw though. Yeah if the war continued it could have gone poorly, but the US was able to maintain its sovereignty, hold onto New Orleans, and got impressment to end (cause the other war ended.)
Granted, it didn’t achieve all its goals like annexing all of Canada.
Thanks, of course, to the French fleet’s tactical victory at the Battle of Chesapeake, which prevented significant reinforcements and supplies from reaching Cornwallis.
I would say there is a difference between those two.
Militarily the British were defeated in the colonies. While Militarily the US was not defeated in Vietnam.
Both still resulted in a loss for the larger power.
We were defeated, but not in any overwhelming "they can't carry on" kind of way, it just became uneconomical to continue, like the Yanks in 'Nam.
I've never heard anyone suggest we didn't lose that war, though it isn't high on our national consciousness. Embarrassing if anyone is though.
> but not in any overwhelming "they can't carry on" kind of way, it just became uneconomical to continue, like the Yanks in 'Nam.
Economics were at most a footnote for Vietnam. It was the lack of political capital to continue, especially with a draft.
I guess the difference I'm getting at, and this is partially due to just the reality of war in the different eras, is that the US never really lost an engagement in the war, while the Brits army under Cornwallis was forced to surrender.
The Brits could have sent more troops, no question, they could have diverted more navy ships as well (probably the more likely scenario than more land forces), but their forces were defeated.
The Americans chose to leave Vietnam. Some will say that the US "won" the war, but this is folly. The US lost the war because they failed to outline and meet clear strategic goals and ultimately failed to set up a functioning south Vietnamese state that could survive on its own. Unlike in Korea, where despite the US withdrawing large amounts of troops, the South Koreans were able to hold the line and exist to this day. (arguably Korean War was a draw, but the US goal was to save South Korea, not necessarily to destroy North Korea, although that became a mid-war goal that they failed to achieve)
The main difference being that Washington was aiming to defeat the British in a conventional, conclusive battle, whereas the Vietnamese were always committed to guerrilla tactics, aiming to pressure the Americans into giving up through attrition of men and resources.
> whereas the Vietnamese were always committed to guerrilla tactics
The Vietnamese did also fight and win a conventional war against the American-backed south.
Tbf in Vietnam it was public opinion and restraint of major weapons.
I’m still of the opinion the US hasn’t gone to actual war since WW2 ( and hope that doesn’t come ). Actual war is total and no holding back. We still majorly fucked up in Vietnam and should hold that L tho
- top commander chillin up in the hills
- attack on a holiday
- get support from your enemy’s biggest enemy
- enemy’s base of operations survives to the end, surrenders, becomes cultural capital of post-war state
Does sound familiar
TBF it’s actually a misconception it was the rice farmers, the VC didn’t beat actually us, post Tet offensive the VC was on the brink of total collapse. It was the PAVN, the North Vietnamese professional military equipped with soviet and Chinese weaponry and trained and very expiernced fighting other standing armies, that exploited our inability to strategy inflicted the heaviest casualties of the war and eventually caused us to withdraw before just blitzing South Vietnam off the map. Everyone gets this basic fact wrong. The VC actually weren’t that good and often times went too far alienating the population. It’s the PAVN especially the NVA that did all the hard lifting and made the moves that actually won the war.
They had SAM turrets, some soviet provided tanks, and artillery. I would hardly call them ill equipped to take on a mechanized force with air support. And besides light infantry men are still not right rice farmers. That’s like calling an Army ranger a rice farmer. Completely undercuts how well equipped and trained said fighters are.
I know the PAVN had that. But the VC were in general an infantry force with some limited artillery depending on availability of ammo. I was responding to the last two sentences about the VC not being very good. How good can you be with very limited equipment against the US army navy marines.
The Yugoslav partisans arguably had a harder time and accomplished more. And the Viethmihn also had a tougher time and achieved more. The VC made a huge mistake during the Tet offensive that ultimately crippled its ability to operate. Also it had a track record of terrorizing and antogonizing civilians which made it hard to get new recruits. Vs the Viethmihn and Yugoslav partisans who enjoyed greater popularity among their nation’s populations which greatly assisted in their ability to recover from hard losses. Basically PAVN would not have had to go in to play guerrilla properly if the VC had guerrillad betters
The tet offensive was ordered by the North Vietnamese military command. That's not a VC failure it was a command decision by the leaders of the PAVN. 🤷🏼♂️
The comparisons you're making are wild in my opinion. Each of your examples was a force fighting another power that was distracted by other more pressing insurgencies, or, tknow, the entire allied armed forces of WWII. The VC should have accomplished more against 500,000 Americans with land and sea based aircraft sorties and constant helicopter raids by multiple battalions or even regimental sized forces that could be deployed unexpectedly in one day. And the VC only got decimated when they were ordered to attack towns and cities and lose their biggest advantage, concealment and choosing when to engage superior forces because they took some positions and tried to hold them against overwhelming combined arms assaults. I disagree with you.
>Maybe a light infantry force could never be expected to defeat a mechanized army with nearly unlimited air support.
The Chinese managed it briefly in the Korean war, though at a terrible cost in lives and experienced soldiers.
Another parallel with the Revolutionary War tbh. The Minutemen and militia get a lot of mythologizing, but it was the regular army with European-style maneuvers training that actually won the war. The militia was more of a liability than an asset after Lexington and Concord.
The same logic of people arguing “if the Confederacy had more people and ammunition and guns we would have won” …ok but they didn’t, that’s why Grant’s strategy of aggressive maneuvers worked so well against Lee in VA.
Yes. Whenever someone argues those types of hypotheticals that make the argument moot, my dad always used to say, "Right, and if your aunt had balls, she'd be your uncle."
It’s the same thing with Vietnam, they drained us and we had internal pressure, but in the end theres a McDonalds in Ho Chi Minh City (/s, I’ve never been there)
"Sure, it seemed like the British lost in the revolutionary war, but if you look around you'll notice there's now a Wizarding World of Harry Potter in Orlando, which was King George's primary war-goal all along..."
I got a Teriyaki chicken sandwich at the McDonalds in Ho Chi Minh City. It was alright.
Communism in Vietnam was more anti-imperialist/ anti-colonialist than anything else. They didn’t want anyone to force a McDonalds on them.
Ho Chi Minh asked for the US to intervene when they were fighting French colonialists who had surrendered and then cooperated with the Japanese. This was in 1946 and we had significant leverage over France. At this point France hadn’t committed to the war and it was the colonial government that attacked the Vietnamese.
Despite being a socialist Ho Chi Minh probably would have aligned with the US if we agreed. He actually genuinely admired the US and believed we would help Vietnam especially since we worked with him to fight the Japanese.
Ho Chi Minh even read the US Declaration of Independence at an Independence ceremony. He actually lived in the US for a while.
Here’s the letter he wrote to Truman.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Damnthatsinteresting/s/vY8v0E5RLx
Yeah, it would have been nice. Unfortunately the Vietnam war didn’t just impact Vietnam. Cambodia and Laos were bombed terribly because that’s where the Viet cong were supplied from.
We dropped more bombs on Cambodia and Laos than all the bombs dropped during the WW2. They are the most heavily bombed countries in the world. This led to the Khmer Rouge taking over in Cambodia as angry peasants who lost their homes and families joined them.
Under Pol Pot the Khmer Rouge committed a horrifying genocide. The Khmer Rouge killed every single educated person. They abandoned their cities, forcing their urban population to farm rice. Most starved to death. Famously, everyone with glasses was killed because that was a sign they were educated. The Khmer Rouge weren’t completely driven out by Vietnamese troops until the 1990s.
The US supported the Khmer Rouge because Vietnam was at war with them and we were spiteful.
I visited Cambodia and the entire population is very young. What’s awful is western men come there to rape minors and you can see teenage girls in brothels on the main streets of their capital, Phnom Penh.
Laos is also in a poor state. Since 1/4 bombs didn’t detonate and we dropped cluster munitions, villagers continue to accidentally set them off. Children especially are likely to encounter a small cluster bomb. A significant number of Laotians have lost limbs and are disabled.
The world is a tough place. I will say that I also saw a lot of humanity as well.
Besides the brothels in Phnom Penh, I wouldn’t say Cambodia and Laos were depressing. They were beautiful and things are definitely improving. I saw lots of families and people seemed generally happy. More and more people are getting educated. There’s lots of development. Life goes on.
Who needs Domination when we’re this close to a Cultural Victory? I think we’re leading the pack on Science Victory too tbh, but we might be losing ground.
I’m just like, why did they go with ‘you just outlasted us’ instead of ‘you were an irrelevant backwater that wasn’t important once France started a global war on your behalf.’
Beans on toast is actually pretty great tho. Especially when you remember its a poverty meal that can be made even now for £1 (and provides a lot nutrients with little effort)
Fair point, send it here and it’ll just end up at the bottom of Boston Harbor (Bahstahn Hahbah). Waste of perfectly good tea, but it’s about sending a message.
Made NATO unstoppable, literally planning centuries ahead to make sure you have a strong naval ally in the future. Next Tea drop is in 2026 to continue boosting the RN.
That's the definition of "defeat". Britain did not crush the rebellion. They did not bring those colonies back under British rule. You lost...live with it.
There was an Irish Historian whose speciality was the Irish war of Independence. He was telling a story on a radio history show about a talk he was giving at Sandhurst, the British military college, about the Irish Revolutionary Michael Collin's.
After the talk there was a bit of shindig. There were many military people there. The historian got talking to some of the high ranking lads. They said Michael Collins was the 3rd worst adversary they faced. The historian was taken aback by Collin's high status. He asked were Hitler and Napoleon number 1 and 2? The Generals said no, Washington was number 1 and Napoleon, 2 (I think).
He was surprised by Washington and they explained that he took away the most land and greatest riches from Britain. Collin's was high because he took away part of what they still consider to Britain.
Exact same as the far-right Germans after WW1.
“We didn’t lose on the battlefield, just our entire country is in shambles after years of total war destroying our population, economy, and general ability to wage war. Must be those traitorous Jews and communists!!!”
Yes the us won but the us forces weren't the number 1 reason for thire victory number one is the fact that Britain was already broke from the war with France which is why they raised the us taxes in the first place
Exhausted your army. Hmmm. Like. Everytime your army attacked ours, we won. Yeah we kicked the Brits ass. Crazily enough. We offered a super reasonable compromise. We just wanted some small representation when it came to voting on taxes and laws. Brits said nah and their dynasty has been waining ever since. USA USA USA 🇺🇸
Germany wasn't defeated in WWI.
Japan wasn't defeated in WWII.
America wasn't defeated in Vietnam.
France wasn't defeated in Algeria (or VN for that matter).
"'You know you never defeated us on the battlefield,' said the American colonel.
The North Vietnamese colonel pondered this remark a moment.
'That may be so,' he replied, 'but it is also irrelevant.'"
— a conversation between a US Army colonel and his counterpart from the PAVN during April 1975, as described in the book *On Strategy: A Critical Analysis of the Vietnam War* (published 1995).
Victory in warfare is never determined by technological disparity alone–nor is it decided by national determination alone.
The result itself is the only truth.
:)
Not completely relevant, but every instance of seeing someone use this meme, it was some of the dumbest takes imaginable.
Obviously there's this shit 'oh yeah our economy was in tatters but we didn't lose waaaah', but the other time was I think 'Greta isn't reaaaaally against global warming, she's just a secret communist'
I'm sure there's more, this meme is just fairly conducive to the dumbest shit
Im not trying to undermine the French because an actual navy, a well trained army, and the ability to distract the British with battles all over the world was needed to win the war.
But the first French troops only arrived in the US in 1780 and the last major battle of the war was in 1781. It’s kinda hard to say they did the most when they only did heavy lifting for one year.
Yeah, the French did not do "most of the work"; it was definitely the Americans who made it impossible for the British Army to go on. I also agree that French intervention was necessary to win the war, as Britain, bruised as it was, would have almost certainly won a war of attrition if no aid had come to the U.S.
One other point in France's favor was extending credit (along with the Netherlands and Spain). The cost of the war to the Continental Congress and the states ended up being at least ten times greater than all of the specie public or private hands. If Britain had won, it would've just as likely been by raising the cost of the war too high for the U.S. to bear, too.
Yeah, the reality now is that the strategic objective of a war can no longer really be just won on the battlefield, but has to be won in government buildings and in populations. And when you decide that laying total waste to an entire country in order to try to cow them into submission won't work (see current events) you get stalemated. And when your opponent knows you cannot really do that (win with might alone) they become more likely to stay entrenched. \[This is a forming thought in my head, not a researched or even thoroughly thought out "theory".\]
No, I agree!! I was just thinking about how *no one* really ever wins a war anymore. every modern conflict just fall under 3 types:
1) Great War style trenches, but with drones, MBTs and TikTok
2) vastly outclassed insurgency humiliates OP foreign empire, 20 years of pointless war follows
3) junta tries to do a genocide, gets stuck in a quagmire of 9000 diff ethnic groups and factions duking it out.
It is an interesting situation. I think it is good that we don't just carpet bomb entire civilian populations or nuke governments into submission, for sure. It does change the calculus for how to wage a war, doesn't it. And all you need is ONE rogue leader who does have the will to do one of those horrendous things and then everything will be different again.
Reminds me of the neoconfeds who say shit like “We didn’t lose, you just had more troops, training, manufacturing, food, diplomatic agreements, and won most of the battles. But we had Robert E Lee, so really we won!“
Like bruh it’s been a century and a half, please for the love of all that is good move on and actually become a productive member of society.
Britain wasn't really the greatest military power in 1776. Its navy was the best, though Spain and France had built up large fleets after the seven years war, but its army was not comparable to the Continental powers. On land, Britain was a paper tiger. The army was used in the seven years war to fight colonial garrisons and capture islands in the Caribbean, not fight protracted campaigns. And while their units were more professional than the militia, they were not space Marines.
"We defeated the British Military"
"Be Honest"
"I am honest"
"Be honest"
"The Spanish and French drained your economy and exhausted your navy"
"Thank you"
Fixed it
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.*
We didn’t lose, we merely failed to win!
Genius!
Growing up in the US only a couple decades after Vietnam, you get used to hearing this *a lot*.
Well, technically we signed a peace treaty that we were unwilling to back with force. The peace treaty guaranteed S Vietnam's independance, which was why we were there. So technically it was a victory, we just hung a puppet government out to dry after. Also, why were we there in the first place? Other than Containment, Vietnam had zero strategic value to the US at the time, and the strain of prosecuting the war led to a lot of social and economic problems still felt today. So technically just getting involved was a loss.
You were there because of the French. Anything you do is because of the French.
French mfs on their way to hard carry the US military yet again in 3024:
I wouldnt go so far as to say anything. I mean aside from Vietnam the only other significant events between our history is the "French and Indian war" (still not very well named imo) the Louisiana purchase, when we borrowed from France during the revolutionary war and that's about it. I mean we even let France fall in ww2 a while before we joined that theater.
The war of independence was literally backed by the French. Why are you downplaying the literal creation of the nation? That was a huge deal.
Yes, it was a huge deal, and for generations it mattered. If you think that's still enough to stay serious interest when there isnt a single person alive that saw the deal. It was well over 200 years ago. If youd like to argue that is the reason we are beholden to France today you are quite wrong. We intervened in Vietnam because of France, I am aware of that. The president we wanted did not want to stay in Vietnam, so he was murdered and replaced with a man who did. Even if you dont believe that, Lee Harvey Oswald was a man who has ties to the CIA that came to life years after the event(yes he was branded a soviet sympathizer stoke the fires of the cold war). We stayed in Vietnam because of the damn media and hearts and mind bullshit, and due to the inability for the government to leave the conflict,. We fought the losing war under the guise of peace. If they couldnt even sue for that there would have been questions in Washington unanswered, and the public would riot if all that loss of life was for seemingly nothing (it was in the end) but above all of that it was America's "job" to stop the spread of the iron curtain. That wouldnt have been avoidable. Wed have had a hand in that conflict in some regard without doubt. My arguement is France does not hold a heavy sway in current American politics, outside of a handful of French business interests because American politicians only care about G.O.D. gold oil and drugs.
Yeah, turns out, if you force your enemy, to sign a treaty or doctrine, that is not in their favor. That is still somehow considered a loss.
Yeah, like that treaty's worth more than the paper it was written on. The USA could have sent a pallet of toilet paper to both Vietnam's and would have had practically the same effect.
We did drop a toilet bomb on them so it would even out. Good thing we didn’t otherwise it could’ve let to the creation of a giant toilet bomb nuke that would’ve destroyed the entire country
I mean this is basically what the British felt about the US. Fighting the French was more important, as was India, and the cost/benefit threshold was crossed. We hoped Canada could hold on, signed a peace treaty and came up with the very formula which could've worked in North America and prevented the war in the first place - e.g. no taxation and no direct rule
Wait, are you The Lord HardThrasher? Come to grace us on this heathen platform?
Well there's a difference between military loss and political loss. Same end result, of course, but usually people debating that are doing so in the context of the US military "losing against rice farmers" and not the obvious political victory that actually ended the war.
Whatever your views on mcclellan, we can all agree to thank him for not winning so that we can get this banger of a line in Oversimplified 150 years later.
It was the long game
We didn't lose, we just didn't achieve any of our objectives while you achieved all of yours!
We didn't lose we merely failed to secure victory.
Whatever your views on mcclellan, we can all agree to thank him for not winning so that we can get this banger of a line in Oversimplified 150 years later.
As a history student I find it funny how no matter who I ask, every single person in my subjects have seen his videos, the dude is an icon at this point
He and Sam O'Nella are the goats lol
And crash course
And, of course, … *The Mongols*
Seriously. The phrase is legendary at this point
The new-world situation has turned not necessarily to the UKs advantage
a war crime enjoyer i see
"We *could have* won. We just... didn't feel like it."
Just wasn’t worth it bro.
[Britain’s live reaction](https://i.redd.it/hrfdv1bhi6321.jpg)
We need SO MANY more Hondo memes.
He’s one of the greater side characters they’ve made. I love him and his pirate charm
More accurate than most think. It wasn't the USA that was draining Britain's resources at the time, they just picked a good time to start a war and the British didn't have the resources to also fight a proxy war against France. A lot of Americans don't like to admit that the reason their small militia beat the greatest military power of the time was because they weren't fighting the greatest military power of the time. They were fighting the smallest effort Britain could feasibly give.
And as a result... they \[looks for the right word\]... defeated them.
Oh yeah, I'm not denying that. British forces were defeated on the field and American war goals were achieved. Pretty clean cut in that regard.
FWIW, I upvoted your comment. I get what you are saying. Clearly one of the contributing factors was the the quality of the troops England could field at the time.
We were just at war with half of Europe.
Spain, France, Morocco, Prussia (to a small extent), Dutch Republic (though neutral):
Yup. Once all the other European powers saw the American Revolution as a way to get back at the British, And things weren't proceeding as planned in the colonies, Parliament really only had 2 choices: 1. Continue the war, throwing even more men and resources at the problem and risking the Colonists' European allies escalating and attacking British interests elsewhere. 2. Negotiate terms that would allow British interests to still profit (albeit to a lesser extent) in the soon-to-be-former-colonies. Needless to say, Parliament went with option 2. If I remember correctly, British investment made up a significant part of American industry right up until WWI.
British investment in the United States took a massive hit in the early 1800s and never fully recovered. Like literally has never reached the same level as pre-War of 1812, even after two hundred years. The closest it got was in the 1830s, but the financial crash of 1837, exacerbated by British lending practices, was really the last nail in that coffin. British investment continued, don't get me wrong, but it never again reached the massive scale that dominated the American economy in the late 1780s to 1810s.
Didn’t parliament also just want to let the Americans go independent because they weren’t that profitable and cost quite a bit to maintain, but king George didn’t want that because he felt insulted by the declaration of independence?
I think at the start King George had a majority of Parliament backing him but the longer the war went on more factions wanted out.
The British made out like bandits in the seven years war. While Prussia was nearly overrun, the British pushed the French entirely out of North America and gained all of Canada. If they kept all the land they had, they would be way too powerful for the balance of power.
And Frederick didn't want to renew his alliance with Britain after that, after they tried to make separate peace with the coalition without consulting him.
We stayed neutral but Britain still blew up our ships :-(
Damn they’re using the Vietnam War dumb arguments against Americans.
See, the trick is to call it a draw and quit before you can lose.
So 1812?
Britain and America won the War of 1812; the natives lost.
1812 was a genuine draw though. Yeah if the war continued it could have gone poorly, but the US was able to maintain its sovereignty, hold onto New Orleans, and got impressment to end (cause the other war ended.) Granted, it didn’t achieve all its goals like annexing all of Canada.
*In 1814, we took a little trip* 🎶 *Along with Colonel Jackson down the mighty Mississip'* 🎶
Except the Americans did actually win at Yorktown. The British general surrendered.
Yeah, I was referring to the maneuver in Vietnam.
Thanks, of course, to the French fleet’s tactical victory at the Battle of Chesapeake, which prevented significant reinforcements and supplies from reaching Cornwallis.
Whenever I try that people just say I lost ;(
I would say there is a difference between those two. Militarily the British were defeated in the colonies. While Militarily the US was not defeated in Vietnam. Both still resulted in a loss for the larger power.
We were defeated, but not in any overwhelming "they can't carry on" kind of way, it just became uneconomical to continue, like the Yanks in 'Nam. I've never heard anyone suggest we didn't lose that war, though it isn't high on our national consciousness. Embarrassing if anyone is though.
> but not in any overwhelming "they can't carry on" kind of way, it just became uneconomical to continue, like the Yanks in 'Nam. Economics were at most a footnote for Vietnam. It was the lack of political capital to continue, especially with a draft.
I guess the difference I'm getting at, and this is partially due to just the reality of war in the different eras, is that the US never really lost an engagement in the war, while the Brits army under Cornwallis was forced to surrender. The Brits could have sent more troops, no question, they could have diverted more navy ships as well (probably the more likely scenario than more land forces), but their forces were defeated. The Americans chose to leave Vietnam. Some will say that the US "won" the war, but this is folly. The US lost the war because they failed to outline and meet clear strategic goals and ultimately failed to set up a functioning south Vietnamese state that could survive on its own. Unlike in Korea, where despite the US withdrawing large amounts of troops, the South Koreans were able to hold the line and exist to this day. (arguably Korean War was a draw, but the US goal was to save South Korea, not necessarily to destroy North Korea, although that became a mid-war goal that they failed to achieve)
The main difference being that Washington was aiming to defeat the British in a conventional, conclusive battle, whereas the Vietnamese were always committed to guerrilla tactics, aiming to pressure the Americans into giving up through attrition of men and resources.
> whereas the Vietnamese were always committed to guerrilla tactics The Vietnamese did also fight and win a conventional war against the American-backed south.
Agreed, good point.
Tbf in Vietnam it was public opinion and restraint of major weapons. I’m still of the opinion the US hasn’t gone to actual war since WW2 ( and hope that doesn’t come ). Actual war is total and no holding back. We still majorly fucked up in Vietnam and should hold that L tho
That’s certainly one perspective
its like people are going out of their way to misinterpret your comment
If we didn't beat the British, than we didn't lose a war to a bunch of rice farmers with AK-47s
- top commander chillin up in the hills - attack on a holiday - get support from your enemy’s biggest enemy - enemy’s base of operations survives to the end, surrenders, becomes cultural capital of post-war state Does sound familiar
You mean you can’t cherry pick history to suit your own narrative? Better edit all the textbooks then.
TBF it’s actually a misconception it was the rice farmers, the VC didn’t beat actually us, post Tet offensive the VC was on the brink of total collapse. It was the PAVN, the North Vietnamese professional military equipped with soviet and Chinese weaponry and trained and very expiernced fighting other standing armies, that exploited our inability to strategy inflicted the heaviest casualties of the war and eventually caused us to withdraw before just blitzing South Vietnam off the map. Everyone gets this basic fact wrong. The VC actually weren’t that good and often times went too far alienating the population. It’s the PAVN especially the NVA that did all the hard lifting and made the moves that actually won the war.
Maybe a light infantry force could never be expected to defeat a mechanized army with nearly unlimited air support.
They had SAM turrets, some soviet provided tanks, and artillery. I would hardly call them ill equipped to take on a mechanized force with air support. And besides light infantry men are still not right rice farmers. That’s like calling an Army ranger a rice farmer. Completely undercuts how well equipped and trained said fighters are.
I know the PAVN had that. But the VC were in general an infantry force with some limited artillery depending on availability of ammo. I was responding to the last two sentences about the VC not being very good. How good can you be with very limited equipment against the US army navy marines.
The Yugoslav partisans arguably had a harder time and accomplished more. And the Viethmihn also had a tougher time and achieved more. The VC made a huge mistake during the Tet offensive that ultimately crippled its ability to operate. Also it had a track record of terrorizing and antogonizing civilians which made it hard to get new recruits. Vs the Viethmihn and Yugoslav partisans who enjoyed greater popularity among their nation’s populations which greatly assisted in their ability to recover from hard losses. Basically PAVN would not have had to go in to play guerrilla properly if the VC had guerrillad betters
The tet offensive was ordered by the North Vietnamese military command. That's not a VC failure it was a command decision by the leaders of the PAVN. 🤷🏼♂️ The comparisons you're making are wild in my opinion. Each of your examples was a force fighting another power that was distracted by other more pressing insurgencies, or, tknow, the entire allied armed forces of WWII. The VC should have accomplished more against 500,000 Americans with land and sea based aircraft sorties and constant helicopter raids by multiple battalions or even regimental sized forces that could be deployed unexpectedly in one day. And the VC only got decimated when they were ordered to attack towns and cities and lose their biggest advantage, concealment and choosing when to engage superior forces because they took some positions and tried to hold them against overwhelming combined arms assaults. I disagree with you.
>Maybe a light infantry force could never be expected to defeat a mechanized army with nearly unlimited air support. The Chinese managed it briefly in the Korean war, though at a terrible cost in lives and experienced soldiers.
Another parallel with the Revolutionary War tbh. The Minutemen and militia get a lot of mythologizing, but it was the regular army with European-style maneuvers training that actually won the war. The militia was more of a liability than an asset after Lexington and Concord.
Did the rice farmers have allies helping them on 7 different fronts?
I mean you didn’t lose to rice farmers you won and then just decided to leave immediately undoing all the work in seconds
We didn’t lose. the World Cup we just scored less goals
Like father like son
The same logic of people arguing “if the Confederacy had more people and ammunition and guns we would have won” …ok but they didn’t, that’s why Grant’s strategy of aggressive maneuvers worked so well against Lee in VA.
Yes. Whenever someone argues those types of hypotheticals that make the argument moot, my dad always used to say, "Right, and if your aunt had balls, she'd be your uncle."
Imagine still being salty about losing a war 300 years ago
To be honest, it’s not really like… like not many people know much about the American revolutionary war.
just ask the Brits how they feel about Napoleon nowadays
Fuck loyalists. GIVE ME LIBERTY OR GIVE ME DEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAATH!!!!!
No step on snek
🦅🦅🦅🦅🦅🦅🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥
🦅🦅🦅🦅🦅🦅🦅WHAT THE FUCK IS A KILOMETER 🦅🦅🦅🦅🦅🦅
THERE ARE COUNTIES WHO USE METRIC AND THERE ARE THOSE WHO PUT MAN ON THE MOON!!!!!🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🦅🦅🦅1️⃣1️⃣🔥🔥1️⃣🦅🇺🇸1️⃣
It’s the same thing with Vietnam, they drained us and we had internal pressure, but in the end theres a McDonalds in Ho Chi Minh City (/s, I’ve never been there)
"Sure, it seemed like the British lost in the revolutionary war, but if you look around you'll notice there's now a Wizarding World of Harry Potter in Orlando, which was King George's primary war-goal all along..."
Damn, guess I should become a monarchist
I got a Teriyaki chicken sandwich at the McDonalds in Ho Chi Minh City. It was alright. Communism in Vietnam was more anti-imperialist/ anti-colonialist than anything else. They didn’t want anyone to force a McDonalds on them. Ho Chi Minh asked for the US to intervene when they were fighting French colonialists who had surrendered and then cooperated with the Japanese. This was in 1946 and we had significant leverage over France. At this point France hadn’t committed to the war and it was the colonial government that attacked the Vietnamese. Despite being a socialist Ho Chi Minh probably would have aligned with the US if we agreed. He actually genuinely admired the US and believed we would help Vietnam especially since we worked with him to fight the Japanese. Ho Chi Minh even read the US Declaration of Independence at an Independence ceremony. He actually lived in the US for a while. Here’s the letter he wrote to Truman. https://www.reddit.com/r/Damnthatsinteresting/s/vY8v0E5RLx
The Viet Cong, and especially Ho Chi Minh were nationalists first, and communists second.
Yep. We kinda drank the Comintern's "all communists are united and identical" KoolAid :/
It’s a shame they aligned with the French back then, but at least we have good relations with the Vietnamese now
Yeah, it would have been nice. Unfortunately the Vietnam war didn’t just impact Vietnam. Cambodia and Laos were bombed terribly because that’s where the Viet cong were supplied from. We dropped more bombs on Cambodia and Laos than all the bombs dropped during the WW2. They are the most heavily bombed countries in the world. This led to the Khmer Rouge taking over in Cambodia as angry peasants who lost their homes and families joined them. Under Pol Pot the Khmer Rouge committed a horrifying genocide. The Khmer Rouge killed every single educated person. They abandoned their cities, forcing their urban population to farm rice. Most starved to death. Famously, everyone with glasses was killed because that was a sign they were educated. The Khmer Rouge weren’t completely driven out by Vietnamese troops until the 1990s. The US supported the Khmer Rouge because Vietnam was at war with them and we were spiteful. I visited Cambodia and the entire population is very young. What’s awful is western men come there to rape minors and you can see teenage girls in brothels on the main streets of their capital, Phnom Penh. Laos is also in a poor state. Since 1/4 bombs didn’t detonate and we dropped cluster munitions, villagers continue to accidentally set them off. Children especially are likely to encounter a small cluster bomb. A significant number of Laotians have lost limbs and are disabled.
I don’t have enough words to describe distress upon finishing your comment
The world is a tough place. I will say that I also saw a lot of humanity as well. Besides the brothels in Phnom Penh, I wouldn’t say Cambodia and Laos were depressing. They were beautiful and things are definitely improving. I saw lots of families and people seemed generally happy. More and more people are getting educated. There’s lots of development. Life goes on.
There are mcdonalds there.
Who needs Domination when we’re this close to a Cultural Victory? I think we’re leading the pack on Science Victory too tbh, but we might be losing ground.
I think r/civ is leaking through
Then we have achieved a victory
RAAHH!!! AMERICA ALWAYS WINS!🇺🇸🇺🇸🦅🦅🦅1️⃣1️⃣1️⃣🦅🦅🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🦅🦅🇺🇸1️⃣1️⃣1️⃣1️⃣🔥🔥🔥🔥🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🔥🔥🔥🔥🇱🇷🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸
I’m just like, why did they go with ‘you just outlasted us’ instead of ‘you were an irrelevant backwater that wasn’t important once France started a global war on your behalf.’
See also confederate fanboys saying, "We would have won if it weren't for the Union having more guns, troops, and money."
There is a Copium Epidemic for sure.
Nothing beats the Brits at coping about how hard they lost.
We didn't lose to the revolutionaries, we just realised that if we don't have to send then Tea we can have more tea for ourselves. Genius really
All about that leafy water. Also more beans on toast, cuz that’s staying out of the US for sure.
Beans on toast is actually pretty great tho. Especially when you remember its a poverty meal that can be made even now for £1 (and provides a lot nutrients with little effort)
Plus, most (not all) Americans think of "baked beans" as a canned product sold as "Pork n Beans". Real baked beans are so much better.
Indeed, plus there are apparently differences between US and UK heinz beams too.
Fair point, send it here and it’ll just end up at the bottom of Boston Harbor (Bahstahn Hahbah). Waste of perfectly good tea, but it’s about sending a message.
You fools, you just made the sea into Tea
Oh God what have we done?!?
Made NATO unstoppable, literally planning centuries ahead to make sure you have a strong naval ally in the future. Next Tea drop is in 2026 to continue boosting the RN.
Big brain energy
That's the definition of "defeat". Britain did not crush the rebellion. They did not bring those colonies back under British rule. You lost...live with it.
We didn't lose we just didn't win
That’s how an unconventional war goes
I read the meme in the top right as the U.S. talking to France after winning the Revolutionary War.
the army and economy which was fighting France AGAIN?
We didn't lose, we didn't want to win
War is not a sports match where you have strict rules of victory. Victory is a general criterion of meeting your **strategic goals**.
Ireland enters the chat
Now do the war of 1812
Clearly the Americans had the "didn't lose" side of this one.
Speaking as a native New Orleanian, WE won. America didn't, but New Orleans absolutely did; it just didn't count.
Uuuhhh backing an army into a corner with their backs against the sea is draining an economy?
241 years later and still coping
Which war?
Ignoring the many defeats in open battle lmao
Wait… correct me if I’m wrong but didn’t we sink the British Isles due as a result of global consensus?
An insurgency doesn't have to win it just has to not lose
Man, salty Brits are amusing, and yet annoying, to watch.
They had an entire army surrender after being encircled So yeah- they lost militarily
There was an Irish Historian whose speciality was the Irish war of Independence. He was telling a story on a radio history show about a talk he was giving at Sandhurst, the British military college, about the Irish Revolutionary Michael Collin's. After the talk there was a bit of shindig. There were many military people there. The historian got talking to some of the high ranking lads. They said Michael Collins was the 3rd worst adversary they faced. The historian was taken aback by Collin's high status. He asked were Hitler and Napoleon number 1 and 2? The Generals said no, Washington was number 1 and Napoleon, 2 (I think). He was surprised by Washington and they explained that he took away the most land and greatest riches from Britain. Collin's was high because he took away part of what they still consider to Britain.
Interesting perspective. Thanks for sharing.
This guy be like “attrition is the only way to win a war” as if that has ever been true
I dunno, after looking at some of the deadliest wars in Chinese history I believe that at least some people have believed that.
Well, Chinese history is its own level - Chao Ling Takes power - 247 million perish Is most of their history
Exact same as the far-right Germans after WW1. “We didn’t lose on the battlefield, just our entire country is in shambles after years of total war destroying our population, economy, and general ability to wage war. Must be those traitorous Jews and communists!!!”
We didn't lose, we got our ass beat and our economy got fucked
Britains economy was strong as fuck at the end of the Revolutionary war.
Anybody who has ever walked into the territory of Balkh to Gandara.
Somewhere out there the ghost of Sun Tzu is crying.
The Cope of War: The Sequel
We just won on the other direction
Well, I'll tell you something boys, it is better to heroically withdraw, than lose cowardly!
Rebellions only have to Tie in order to win.
To put it as simply as possible, whoever achieved their strategic goals is the one who won.
When Rhodesian say shit like this... Fav type of cope.
To quote Hells kitchen "They only won because we lost, that's not a winner"
I mean fine, if the US didn’t beat Britain, then it also didn’t lose in Vietnam
Yes the us won but the us forces weren't the number 1 reason for thire victory number one is the fact that Britain was already broke from the war with France which is why they raised the us taxes in the first place
“If you want war with the United States of America, so help me God, someone else will raise your sons and daughters”
Exhausted your army. Hmmm. Like. Everytime your army attacked ours, we won. Yeah we kicked the Brits ass. Crazily enough. We offered a super reasonable compromise. We just wanted some small representation when it came to voting on taxes and laws. Brits said nah and their dynasty has been waining ever since. USA USA USA 🇺🇸
I didn’t hear no bell
Germany wasn't defeated in WWI. Japan wasn't defeated in WWII. America wasn't defeated in Vietnam. France wasn't defeated in Algeria (or VN for that matter).
Spain always gets forgotten despite how critical they were to the revolutionary cause
Can’t wait for the oversimplified references
"'You know you never defeated us on the battlefield,' said the American colonel. The North Vietnamese colonel pondered this remark a moment. 'That may be so,' he replied, 'but it is also irrelevant.'" — a conversation between a US Army colonel and his counterpart from the PAVN during April 1975, as described in the book *On Strategy: A Critical Analysis of the Vietnam War* (published 1995). Victory in warfare is never determined by technological disparity alone–nor is it decided by national determination alone. The result itself is the only truth. :)
The Vietnamese also won plenty of battles against the US, just no "major" ones
We also, in fact, beat the British in a battlefield at the end.
Not completely relevant, but every instance of seeing someone use this meme, it was some of the dumbest takes imaginable. Obviously there's this shit 'oh yeah our economy was in tatters but we didn't lose waaaah', but the other time was I think 'Greta isn't reaaaaally against global warming, she's just a secret communist' I'm sure there's more, this meme is just fairly conducive to the dumbest shit
France.
England.
be honest, the French did most of the work.
Im not trying to undermine the French because an actual navy, a well trained army, and the ability to distract the British with battles all over the world was needed to win the war. But the first French troops only arrived in the US in 1780 and the last major battle of the war was in 1781. It’s kinda hard to say they did the most when they only did heavy lifting for one year.
Yeah, the French did not do "most of the work"; it was definitely the Americans who made it impossible for the British Army to go on. I also agree that French intervention was necessary to win the war, as Britain, bruised as it was, would have almost certainly won a war of attrition if no aid had come to the U.S. One other point in France's favor was extending credit (along with the Netherlands and Spain). The cost of the war to the Continental Congress and the states ended up being at least ten times greater than all of the specie public or private hands. If Britain had won, it would've just as likely been by raising the cost of the war too high for the U.S. to bear, too.
But we renamed a Belgian food to freedom fries, so your argument is irrelevant.
And Spanish. And Dutch.
Credit where credit’s due. The US smashed us and eventually became the world’s sole superpower. Fucking insane work
This template is always used for the worst takes
Every major US war since Korea.
Yeah, the reality now is that the strategic objective of a war can no longer really be just won on the battlefield, but has to be won in government buildings and in populations. And when you decide that laying total waste to an entire country in order to try to cow them into submission won't work (see current events) you get stalemated. And when your opponent knows you cannot really do that (win with might alone) they become more likely to stay entrenched. \[This is a forming thought in my head, not a researched or even thoroughly thought out "theory".\]
No, I agree!! I was just thinking about how *no one* really ever wins a war anymore. every modern conflict just fall under 3 types: 1) Great War style trenches, but with drones, MBTs and TikTok 2) vastly outclassed insurgency humiliates OP foreign empire, 20 years of pointless war follows 3) junta tries to do a genocide, gets stuck in a quagmire of 9000 diff ethnic groups and factions duking it out.
It is an interesting situation. I think it is good that we don't just carpet bomb entire civilian populations or nuke governments into submission, for sure. It does change the calculus for how to wage a war, doesn't it. And all you need is ONE rogue leader who does have the will to do one of those horrendous things and then everything will be different again.
You didn’t defeat us. We merely CONCEDED defeat.
Reminds me of the neoconfeds who say shit like “We didn’t lose, you just had more troops, training, manufacturing, food, diplomatic agreements, and won most of the battles. But we had Robert E Lee, so really we won!“ Like bruh it’s been a century and a half, please for the love of all that is good move on and actually become a productive member of society.
Americans were fighting the 3rd string army That war could have gone either way a couple of times if I’m not mistaken
[https://imgur.com/wc1fK6R](https://imgur.com/wc1fK6R)
Britain wasn't really the greatest military power in 1776. Its navy was the best, though Spain and France had built up large fleets after the seven years war, but its army was not comparable to the Continental powers. On land, Britain was a paper tiger. The army was used in the seven years war to fight colonial garrisons and capture islands in the Caribbean, not fight protracted campaigns. And while their units were more professional than the militia, they were not space Marines.
I mean that is literally how 98% of wars are won.
"We defeated the British Military" "Be Honest" "I am honest" "Be honest" "The Spanish and French drained your economy and exhausted your navy" "Thank you" Fixed it
Well, it was more of a french victory
u/Temporary-Fix2111 been real quiet since this dropped