American Military History

Remove all ads!

The U.S. was responsible for the American Revolution. It was instigated by British activity, but the bottom line is if enough people (I've heard estimates of about 1/3 of the then-present 3 million Biritsh citizen who supported the Revolution) didn't support the Revolution, it would never have happened.

The Confederacy obviously started the Civil War. Basically, if they felt like they could ever elect another pro-slavery president, the Civil War wouldn't have happened. See the point about the Revolution above for the analogy.

The USSR definitely has at least as much blood on its hands for the Korean and Vietnam War as do the Americans, the Vietamese and the Koreans themselves. Same applies to China in the Korean War - they were actually involved in combat.

And sorry for the bad pun but... fire away.

 

That's great

I still disagree with the Confederacy starting the civil war (some could actually argue it was started by an author). The chief concern by the South was the North choosing to enforce their opinions and beliefs on the South. The Southern states did not believe the federal government had the authority to override the state's laws -- Lincoln's platform was partially based on the escalation of federal government responsibilities so they superceded that of the state governments.

The south was extremely opposed to this, so they left the Union. To the south the issue was not about slavery, but rather the rights of the state governments were being greatly diminished (something even Jefferson couldn't do). Before Lincoln, the states were the primary governing bodies. The federal government was not very powerful -- the south felt like their rights were being stripped from them because they did not have the same populace that New York and Pennsylvania has.

As far as pro or anti-slavery, many of the leaders of the Confederacy believed the slaves should be freed before the start of any war. They felt their issues would be ignored and the northern soldiers would see them as the slavers from Uncle Tom's Cabin -- they were right. That perception still exists today. Most Americans believe the civil war was fought over slavery -- in reality it was fought to determine whether the state or federal government had more power.

I had thought someone would correct my comment about the British firing the first shots in the revolutionary war (especially some history grads). The first man shot at the Boston massacre was a black man, who was facing the British soldiers, and was shot in the back. The British soldiers swore over and over at their trial they responded to fire -- someone had shot at them first.

 

Well I don't consider selling weapons to be nearly as bad as direct interveniton with military force. Allthough I agree that in Korea USSR was as responsible and perhaps even more responsible than US I can't really find a way to blame USSR for the Vietnam War.

 

I also think the US underestimated the extent to which communism was part of a national liberation movement in Vietnam, and not just another domino falling under Soviet influence. Vietnam sought out the support of the Soviets as a protection against China as much as for any other reason; witness the Chinese support of Cambodian terrorism against Vietnam, the Chinese invasion of Vietnam in 1979, etc. Part of the reason Vietnam was a "quagmire" was due to the number of different overlapping interests and factors at play, including the legacies of Chinese and French imperialism, the desire for national liberation, the Cold War between the US and the Soviets, the "cold war" between China and Russia, Chinese support for Cambodia and fears of Vietnamese "imperialism," etc etc. Most likely a more sensitive response from the US to these conditions would have improved the eventual outcome, but I'm not sure exactly how...

 

The civil war may have been about states right but the burning states right issue was the question about slavery. To say it was about states right is just putting another name on the same thing.

 

America has a military history?

 

The problem with having a big war about slavery is that slavery was in the process of being banned all over the world anyway so all the bloodshed in the American Civil War was a bit pointless (to put it mildly) - unless anyone thinks that USA would continue to have slavery when the rest of the world didn't.

 

I mentioned on another thread this whole issue on the Civil War could go on until the "cows come home" and we would not be any closer to a definitive answer. So, we will start here. What do mean by this comment? There was an election, Lincoln won. He was voted Prez by a system of ballots. Now, how is this different from the red state, blue state, situation we have today?

Here we have the particular regions of our country voting for George, and regions voting against his sorry butt; the regional lines are as obvious as the Mason-Dixon line. Yet, the blue states have to live under one of the worst administrations in the history of the US (IMO). In fact, they are having the "opinions and beliefs of the red states forced on them." So, what gave the SOUTH, a sectional region, the "right" to nullify a national election?

Your move...

BTW, feel free to believe that somewhere in this debate the written words of the Declaration of Independence will be brought up - thought you may want to prepare a bit....

Oh yes:

And the British soldiers were defended by which Founder in that trial? Hint, he was not the author of the Declaration, but on the committee which was given the task of drafting the document But I had originally thought that you meant the shots fired at Lexington, not Boston. But even that is disputed....

[ March 18, 2005, 06:50: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

If any one nation should get the blame for Vietnam, it should be France. It started as a war of decolonization, after all.

 

Why blame? Each party did what they thought was best for the nation.

Edit:
Depends which nation we are talking about, America saw the commies as a threat and forced it down where-ever they could to keep themselves(and the rest of the "free world" safe). The Vietnamese fought for their freedom, and the French fought to keep their colonies..

Agent Orange, napalm, bombstrikes, massacres, were used to achieve that end, the survival of their own nation.
Sure 'innocent' blood will be shed, that has happened in every war, but it also depends on whose side you are on, for example, do you think the terrorists saw the American citizens as innocent on 9/11? Do you think the American soldiers saw the German civilians as innocent when they bombarded Dresden?
Of course not, they are the enemy, and the enemy is not innocent, why would they be my enemy then?
What is this innocent thing anyway?

[ March 18, 2005, 10:16: Message edited by: Morgoth ]

 

Using chemical weapons on everyone, and napalming villigers was the best interests of the nation?

If the USSR started the war, then why do the Vietnamese refer to the war as 'The American War'

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4339419.stm

Who can forget that photo of little Kim Phuc running scared, naked and burned because she was visiting a temple?

It amazes me how anyone can support such crude and cruel tactics.

 

For the non-American's who have every right to be unfamiliar with the Declaration of Independence, I believe the particular passage being referred to here is (quoting from memory - I may be off by a word or two, but I doubt it):

"We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Hapiness."

I apologize if anything is slightly off there, or possibly mis-spelled. As an aside, this is not how the Declaration of Independence starts. While it is probably the most famous part of the Declaration, it is actually the second paragraph of the document.

Who is supporting them? There's a difference between acknowledging they happened (which has been done) and say that those giving the orders to use such weapons thought themselves justified to do so, and then saying you fully support their decision (which may or may not be true, depending on how you interpret Morgoth's post).

 

Now for a dog's breakfast of responses....

We kicked the British's ass twice -- isn't that enough?

Hence, the war.... If the blue states were to attempt to split from the union and form "The Confederation of Whiners" we would have another civil war (which would be pretty short since most of the military are red-sympathetic).

Yes, they did. It doesn't matter to them. Read the 'Minimanual of the Urban Guerrilla' by Calos Marighella (a.k.a., Carlos the Jackel) sometime -- it's quite enlightening.

Slavery was in the process of being banned in the south. Most historians estimate the south would have abolished slavery on their own by the 1880's (still too long in my opinion). The north was fighting against slavery and unification of the United States, the south was fighting for state's rights and to not be told by the blue states what to do (oops -- well, close enough).

I don't know of anyone in the US that supports those tactics today. Different wars had different tactics.

 

O.K. - The first would be the American Revolution but what was the second time?

If by the second time you are referring to the War of 1812 I would say that a great many people would disagree about that.

 

Hey, you forgot my smiley -- history is written by the winners....

Actually, in the War of 1812 the American Navy beat the British Navy the majority of battles and pretty much won the war. The harrassmen campaigns in British waters helped. Alright, the ongoing 'arguement' Britain had with France MAY have influenced the outcome a bit, too. But it IS clear the British did not win (after all the Union Jack is not a part of the American flag).

 

I read something about Roosevelt ordering the kidnapping of innocent Paraguayan civilians who
happened to be of Japanese race to trade for American POWs.

Also - invading and stealing land from Mexico, Invading Canada.

Just wondering. I cannot find any proper facts on the above.

 

Really? I would suspect that there are a lot of rank-and-file soldiers who are from blue states, as well as many in the corp of officers. But don't worry, the blue staters are true-blue Americans, unlike those traitors of the confederacy who sought to dissolve this great country just so that they could hold on to their human "property."

 

Well, the U.S.A. declared the war and started out by trying to conquer what is now Canada - and failed miserably at that. Of the battles that actually occured elsewhere they were several defeats on both sides. The British were focusing their attention on the French and had no real intention of recapturing the U.S.A. so I would have to say that the war ending with the pre-war status quo intact was hardly a loss.

The history books in the U.S.A. may say that the British were defeated but I can assure you that the history books elsewhere either put it down as a draw (if they are being honest) or as a win for the British. I can assure you that the Canadian history books are just as silly in bragging about how we drove back the American hordes in 1812 as the U.S. history books are at bragging about U.S. history.

 

I guess you did fall for some of the propaganda in history class.... I was referring to the fact that most military members vote Republican -- they may come from those states, but the way the military votes is well documented.

Don't forget the near total annihilation of the Native Americans. Truly the worst moments of American Military History -- Wounded Knee is the lowest point ... it's enough to make you cry.

Wow, the Mexican-American War. IIRC, the war was started because Mexico and Texas never really decided where the border was. The Texans (and the US) thought the border was the Rio Grande while Mexico thought it was the Nueces River. When the US had military between those two rivers, Mexico attacked. Granted the ultimate culprit was the US Manefest Destiny policy and desire to annex California and Oregon. The end result was Santa Anna became a VERY rich man and America bought the land between its western border and California. Gadsden must have been drunk in 1852 when he negotiated purchase the land south of the Gila river in Arizona -- otherwise Arizona would have ocenside resort community on the Gulf of California.

On an entirely unrelated note -- a significant number of the founding fathers died of complications from syphilis. Kind of gives a new meaning to the term founding fathers....