Why so many American military defeats/humiliations since 1945?

Re: Why so many American military defeats/humiliations since 1945?


The thing is neither you will admit "US failures" nor US bashers. So I just threw one coin in, on some occasions you were right and on some occasion they were right. There are "battles" and there are "wars", there is a difference I think, you can win the war but lose the battle. The guy who used your logic to prove one point but you failed to acknowledge it but found yourself replying to my sarcasm instead.

Re: Why so many American military defeats/humiliations since 1945?

Don’t side track the issue.. ground realities cannot be change no matter how much you BS… The lingo fits the behaviour of the terrorist… Or are you saying that the royal treatment at the hands of Shri little kim or Shri Ho Chi Minh was better then my words of choice…

Re: Why so many American military defeats/humiliations since 1945?

Of course there are more than a few interpretations to this discussion.

Most of the conflicts listed, Cuba, Vietnam, Korea, Berlin, Cambodia, and a lot of other conflicts like Afghanistan, Latin America, and some in Africa were essentially the US resisting Communist expansionism. For 50 years the Communists tried to dominate the world. In the larger picture, Vietnam for example was just a battle in a much larger conflict.

As you are all aware, the Berlin wall fell, the Soviet Union collapsed, the Federation of Soviet States are now largely democratic, as well as most of the Eastern Bloc. China is no longer bent on expansion, and hardline Communists like Mao have been replaced with more practical Godless Communists, who have become cost effective trading partners who creep more towards capitalism each day. Cuba and Castro are footnotes.

I don't know about you folks, but that sure sounds like the most optimistic outcome of all of those conflicts. Does the end justify the means? Perhaps. On behalf of America, I will now accept your comments of gratitude for our sacrifices and successes.

Re: Why so many American military defeats/humiliations since 1945?

Unfortunately lefties of South Asian origin will never understand or accept your point of view. They are still mourning the death of Commies.

Re: Why so many American military defeats/humiliations since 1945?

What all of this proves to me that Pakistanis have no idea about foreign wars and just repeat the same old rhetoric taught by their parents....

I have proved time and time again about vietnam, korea

and yet posters continue to spew their rhetoric....

its just a cheap attempt to protray USA as an evil country...

i wonder how most pakis will react if India starts drumming the crackdowns on bengalis, the balochis as protraying pakistan as an evil country....

Re: Why so many American military defeats/humiliations since 1945?

Not all Pakistanis, only the ones who live in leftie commie world.

Re: Why so many American military defeats/humiliations since 1945?

true or those who know about American history in "pass the word"

Re: Why so many American military defeats/humiliations since 1945?

m2k,
You are an expert on Vietnamese people, culture and language?
:hehe:

Typical m2k response protocol:

  1. Deploy frantic google wikipedia search
  2. prepare a post in microsoft windows doc armed with spellcheck
  3. bombard the thread with useless irrelevant information replete with dates and numbers and go off on a tangent
  4. Employ Psy-ops by refuting other posters with ad hom attacks and
  5. Go for the kill with one of these comments:
    :bobo: (M2K)—> "Dude, you dont know anything about the Vietnamese people, language culture. I know. I have wikipedia.

GS crowd: Have you ever been to vietnam?
:bobo: : Um, no. b-b-but I know more than anyone here. So, you gotta believe me.

M2k we love you, man.

Re: Why so many American military defeats/humiliations since 1945?

The problem with all this is that the premise of this thread is that the US has been "defeated and humiliated". Well oooopppps.

Powers that have been "defeated and humiliated" rarely go on to be the worlds only superpower.

Perhaps our posters here are portraying bee stings as fatal injuries. The overstatement of Americas "defeats" probably has a purpose eh?

Re: Why so many American military defeats/humiliations since 1945?

Point taken, that the it is now curtains for comunism, so a lot of this is simply water under the bridge.

Did the end justify the means? Probably not. Certainly not in Korea and Vietnam/Cambodia, where in spite of millions of civilian casualites, communism was hardly contained in those countries, and in fact made gains.

I should also point out, that the irony of accepting this kind of slaughter in the name of freedom and democracy as being "worth it" is remarkably similar to those other ideologues who slaughter in the name of whatever politics they practice.

Re: Why so many American military defeats/humiliations since 1945?

Hmmm...American colonialists defeating the mighty British Empire...:D

Re: Why so many American military defeats/humiliations since 1945?

Hahaha, thats a good one…
see, a smart ass comment followed by funny logic…

thats the way you can insult people but no name calling

fret you should take some pointers

Re: Why so many American military defeats/humiliations since 1945?

Read all of my posts. I never said the USA won the vietnam war, I said USA accomplished its stated objectives.

If the Iraqi army has rampant corruption, if the Iraqi generals are selling out the military to the insurgents but when there were US troops there, Iraqis fougth bravely and beat back the insurgents countless times. but when the americans leave Iraqi army starts to fall apart.

Then sure, I will blame the Iraqi Army for the defeat…

LOL.. Brainwashed… Someone should read your previous posts, maybe you got indoctrinated an American hating madrassa…

Giving canadians a bad name. Its FOB’s from Pakistan that come to Toronto that give Pakistanis a bad name. Each time my Jewish, white, friends are shocked that I support Israel. They assumed by watching people like you on TV, that Pakistan is nothing more than a place where they hate jews, christians and americans…

You are Pathetic

Re: Why so many American military defeats/humiliations since 1945?

I have lots of Vietnamese friends. My 4th year software engineering group project, 2 of group members are vietnamese…

Hmm.. no. I dont search in wikipedia. I contribute in wikipedia. I know all this info from reading books, watching documentaries, keeping up on current issues. I read the Jerusalem Post, Tehran Times, Hamas news letter, Chechen Militia daily news, Washington Post, Al Manar TV(Hezbollah), Arab News, DAWN, timesofindia and many others to get different view points on current news issues.

That I do. :smiley:

Not irrelevant info. But info that backs up what I am saying. If you cant put two and two together, its not my fault.

Not refuting other posters, but I debating them by presenting facts and numbers while they present fiction and conspiracy theories.

Again you are wrong. I don’t use wikipedia, I contribute to it. I have friends from Israel to Jamaica to Australia to Quetta. I get bombarded with different viewpoints and then I rationalize and see the correct viewpoint. But as for Vietnamese people. Some people *cough Fret *cough wizard, who don’t know anything and then make statements about events as if they actually were there. I back my statements with facts while they back with the typical banter…

I already explained it above.

Thanks.. :smiley:

Re: Why so many American military defeats/humiliations since 1945?

Are you saying people are correct in saying that most of the fighting (you say 90%) against Germany in WW2 was carried out by the USSR?

Re: Why so many American military defeats/humiliations since 1945?

Yes...

Germany invaded Soviet Union in June 1941 with 75% of their military....

But once the Germans got embroiled in massive fighting against the Russians, another 15% were send to the Russian Front.

Germany only had 50,000 men in North Africa.

When the Allies invaded Italy in July 1943, Germany only send 200,000 men to deal with them.

By June 1944, Germany had lost nearly 4 million men.

1 Million were killed, 2 million were wounded and could no longer fight and another 1 million were taken prisoner.

Germany had 6 Million men left.

Of which 400,000 were in France, 200,000 were in Italy and the rest around 5,500,000 were in Eastern Front.

By august 1944,

Germany had lost nearly 200,000 men in France and 800,000 in the Eastern Front.

German man power is down to 5 million men.

Germans add another 1 million men to their forces mostly de-commissioned pilots and naval officers.

Germany increases the size of the forces fighting the allies by 500,000 from 200,000 so a total of 700,000 German troops were now facing the allies in September 1944 and around 5 million were facing the Soviets.

By December 1944, Germany had lost another 500,000 men either being killed, captured or wounded.

Their man power was now, on the Western Front, down to 500,000 and on the East it was down to 4 million men.

Germany uses the last of its reserves to launch a massive counter attack agasint the Allies in Ardennes on december 16, 1944. The attack uses nearly 500,000 men. In the end, over 100,000 german troops were casualties.

The Germans withdraw across the Rhine.

On the East, The Soviets launch their massive counter attack on January 12. From January 1945 to March 1945, The Germans lose nearly 1 million men on the East.

Their strength is now down to 3 Million men in the Eastern Front and 500,000 on the Western Front with 150,000 fighting in Italy.

The Allies break cross the Rhine and en-circle the Germans in Ruhr trapping 300,000-350,000 and they surrender.

While on the Eastern Front, the Russians launch a massive attack to capture Berlin. When they capture Berlin, nearly 700,000 German casualties are incurred of which 300,000 are dead and and 400,000 are wounded.

When Germany surrenders.

It has only 100,000 men in Arms on the Western Front, 50,000 in Italy, and around 1,500,000 in the Eastern Front mostly in the Army Group Center in Prague.

So thats a brief summary.

In Total,

Germany lost 90% of its military fighting the Russians and 10% fighting the Allies.

Casualties: Dead + wounded + prisoners + missing

Germany lost around 40,000 men from May 1940-June 1940 fighting the Western Allies
Germany lost around 50,000 men in North African Campaign
Germany lost around 100,000 men in the Italian Campaign
Germany lost around 200,000 men in Normandy
Germany lost around 150,000 men in Western Offensives from September 1944-December1944
Germany lost around 100,000 men in Ardennes counter-attack

German Navy: 130,000 men
German air force in West: 50,000 men

TOTAL German casualites fighting the Western Allies: rougly around 850,000

Eastern Front:
June 1941 - December 1941: 500,000 men
December 1941 - June 1942: 200,000 men
June 1942 - February 1943: 1,000,000 men
February 1943 - July 1943: 300,000 men
July 1943 - September 1943: 500,000 men
September 1943 - Dec 1943: 500,000 men
Dec 1943 - June 1944: 700,000 men
June 1944 - August 1944: 800,000 men
August 1944 - December 1944 500,000 men
December 1944 - March 1945 1,500,000 men
March 1945 - May 1945 900,000 men

TOTAL German casualties fighting the Soviets: close to 8,000,000

So its slightly less than 90%.

These Statistics are not teached to students to highschools and universities in Canada or USA because they are biased in their viewpoint as to who really defeated the Germans.

Re: Why so many American military defeats/humiliations since 1945?

Whether it was because of the corrupt South Vietnames military or whatever, do you think US achieved its objective after they left Vietnam? Did communism spread in Vietnam after US left or no?

Re: Why so many American military defeats/humiliations since 1945?

NOTE to Fret and Mercenary: Avoid insulting each other, if you want to prove other wrong then provide articles/news from outside instead of putting numbers and theories without backing'em up. Anymore name calling/insulting would prove in more WARNINGS which may result in a ban!

Re: Why so many American military defeats/humiliations since 1945?

The End of the Vietnam War, 30 Years Ago: Lessons from the Total Defeat of the U.S.

The war in Vietnam that ended 30 years ago with a complete triumph for the Communists was the longest, most expensive and divisive American war in its history, involving over a half-million U.S. forces at one point, plus Australian, South Korean, and other troops. If we use conventional military criteria, the Americans should have been victorious. They used 15 million tons of munitions (as much as they employed in World War Two), had a vast military superiority over their enemies by any standard one employs, and still they were defeated. The Saigon army commanded by Nguyen van Thieu also was far stronger than their adversaries. At the beginning of 1975 they had over three times as much artillery, twice as many tanks and armored cars, 1400 aircraft and a virtual monopoly of the air. They had a two-to-one superiority of combat troops – roughly 700,000 to 320,000. The Communist leadership in early 1975 expected the war to last as much as a decade longer. I was in South Vietnam at the end of 1973 and in Hanoi all of April 1975 until the last four days of the war, when I was in Hue and Danang in the south. I am certain the Communists were almost as surprised as the Americans that victory was to be theirs so quickly and easily; I told them from late 1973 onward to expect an end to the war by the Saigon regime capsizing without a serious fight – much as the Kuomintang had in China after 1947. As a future Politburo member later confessed, they regarded my prediction as “crazy.” They were completely unprepared to run the entire nation, and their chaotic, inconsistent economic policies since 1975 have shown it.

The Americans and Communists alike shared a common myopia regarding wars. What happens in the political, social, and economic spheres are far more decisive than military equations. That was true in China in the late 1940s, in Vietnam in 1975, and it is also the case in Iraq today. South Vietnam was an artificially urbanized society whose only economic basis was American aid. The value of that aid declined when the oil price increases that began with the war in the Middle East in 1973 caused a rampant inflation, at which point the motorized army and society the Americans had created became an onerous liability. South Vietnam had always been corrupt since the U.S. arbitrarily created it in 1955 despite the Geneva Accords provision that there should be an election to reunify what was historically and ethnically one nation. Thieu, who was a Catholic in a dominantly Buddhist country, retained the loyalty of his generals and bureaucracy by allowing them to enrich themselves at the expense of the people. The average Vietnamese, whether they were for or against the Communists, had no loyalty whatsoever to the Thieu regime that was robbing them. After 1973, soldiers’ salaries declined with inflation and they began living off the land. The urban middle class was increasingly alienated, the Thieu regime’s popularity fell with it. It admitted there were 32,000 political prisoners in its jails, but other estimates were far higher.
By the beginning of 1975 the regime in South Vietnam was beginning to disintegrate by every relevant criterion: economically and politically, and therefore militarily. The Saigon army abandoned the battlefield well before the final Communist offensive in March 1975. Moreover, with the Watergate scandal, the Nixon Administration was on the defensive after 1973, both with the American public and Congress, and after Nixon’s forced resignation the new American President, Gerald Ford, was simply in no position to help the economically and politically bankrupt Thieu regime. The American army, at this point, was too demoralized to reenter the war. Washington correctly assumed that its diplomatic strategy had won Moscow and Peking to its side by threatening to swing its power to the enemy of whatever nation would not support its Vietnam strategy – triangular diplomacy.

But it was irrelevant what Hanoi’s former allies did–and essentially they did what the Americans wanted by cutting military aid to the Vietnamese Communists. The basic problem was in Saigon: the regime was falling apart for reasons having nothing to do with military equipment. The Communists were stunned by their fast, total victory over the nominally superior Saigon army, which refused to fight and immediately disintegrated. Thus ended the most significant American foreign effort since 1945. There are so many obvious parallels with their futile projects in Iraq and Afghanistan today, and the lessons are so clear, that we have to conclude that successive administrations in Washington have no capacity whatsoever to learn from past errors. Total defeat in Vietnam 30 years ago should have been a warning to the U.S.: wars are too complicated for any nation, even the most powerful, to undertake without grave risk. They are not simply military exercises in which equipment and firepower is decisive, but political, ideological, and economic challenges also. The events of South Vietnam 30 years ago should have proven that. It did not.

http://hnn.us/articles/11717.html

Re: Why so many American military defeats/humiliations since 1945?

Ah asking questions that make sense!! you expecting a sane reply or ranting and ravings ?