American handling of won wars has failed every time

a reply to: JoshuaCox

It's not at all far fetched and has happened a bajillion times throughout history..

In fact that is the the historical norm..

History is written by the victors. Victory isn't welcome by the vanquished living under occupation.

Google protests in Japan over new US bases in Okinawa and in South Korea over installation of Thad missiles. Click on images of protesters...

Betcha didn see that in the main stream news.

a reply to: intrptr

Yea.. your gonna have people who protest anything and everything..

Reguardless, undeniably when compared to any of the places that reconstruction went wrong, Japan and Germany were a success.

a reply to: intrptr

Didn't trump just give the saudis billions of dollars in weapons as well?

a reply to: crazyewok

Maybe after the invasions started, but their economy and military already produced the massive amount of hardware required to do what they did before the invasion..

And that was after crazy reparations put on Germany by the U.K. After ww1.

So in 20 years they went from no military and massive debt, to the most powerful single military on the planet BY FAR..

Because let's be real. 1v1 the nazis beat EVERYONE..

Hell the traditionalist German military of WW1 beats anyone 1v1..

So I don't think you can overhype that..

a reply to: Irishhaf

The purpose of our troops in Korea was to stop Korea from going communist and at best we did it half way..

It doesn't matter how many battles you win , it matters who wins the war..

Ask Robb Stark lol.. ask hannible and Rome.. ask the american revolutionaries, asked the confederacy..

All won more (at least of the early) battles and all lost the war.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Every war ends when the nation behind the army providing the bullets , beans, bandages and bodies required to supply the army quits.

It was something it took humanity until the civil war to learn.. it is the economy and people behind the army that matters. Not the soldiers on the ground..

Beat the soldiers and you win the battle , beat the civilian population and you win the war.

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: JDmOKI
a reply to: crazyewok

What war is fought without allies? please name some

if you wanna take complete credit for the western front and the Pacific please try your best to logically answer that.

a defeated French and a poorly armed, barely holding on Russian army loses without a two front war.

and without the US navy Japan would still be in control of everything in the pacific. How about North Africa and Italy? The UK soldiers were valiant and brave during the entire war but you lose without the US.

as for the OP Japan's reconstruction after the war is a great achievement. also, South Korea being the economic powerhouse they are today and looking at N Korea we can see that the cease fire of the Korean War was also at least a positive result.

I'm anti war but my grandfather being a vet of WWII and losing friends in Iraq this entire thread is completely disrespectful.

Fight your own wars since especially western Europe benefits from our military doing the majority of the work.

What you blabbering on about. My point was the US was not the only country in those wars and that after the war responsibility for reconstruction was split and not held by one country.



As for UK losing WW2 without the USA? UK sent the Germans running from the UK shores a year before the US entered the war in the battle of Britain when the German failed to gain air superiority. And even if they did the German would never have got through the Royal Navy that was the biggest navy in the world at the time! And Africa? Monty already had the Germans in retreat when the US arrived and when the US troops did arrive they where pretty much useless due to lack of any experience and so where not much help until the army reforms and Eisenhower gaining command.

originally posted by: JDmOKI


Fight your own wars since especially western Europe benefits from our military doing the majority of the work.

Majority of the work?

Pick up a history book. UK put in the same amount of men and equipment in the European front in WW2 and WW1? France and UK did the bulk of the fighting and it was the UK naval blockade that caused Germany economic collapse that lead to its capitulation!

OK got it the UK and France didn't even need US soilders and resources to win the war and the UK wasn't an isolated allied power and the French resistance would have eventually taken back their country.

Yes you did win the battle of Britain and North Africa and Italy didn't need Patton.

As for a history book I was referring to after ww2

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: crazyewok

Maybe after the invasions started, but their economy and military already produced the massive amount of hardware required to do what they did before the invasion..

And that was after crazy reparations put on Germany by the U.K. After ww1.

So in 20 years they went from no military and massive debt, to the most powerful single military on the planet BY FAR..

Because let's be real. 1v1 the nazis beat EVERYONE..

Hell the traditionalist German military of WW1 beats anyone 1v1..

So I don't think you can overhype that..

I dont know about that.


They won those early campaigns in Poland and france by superior tactics not equipment.


90% of the german army at that time where basic foot infantry that did not even yave trucks, they had to use horses for artillery transport. That was in massive contrast to France and Britain which used motor vehicles to a much more extent.

Even in tanks the Germans lacked at the Panzer I panzer II and czec tanks where no match for british and french tanks 1 on 1. The reason german tanks came out on top was through superior doctrine. France and britain spread theres out while Germany massed them in concentrated assaults.


France and Britain where trying to fight world war I still while the germans fought WW2.

As for airforce and navy? Well 1 on 1 it lost.

Economic wise there economy was not suited to a long drawn out war.
It needed to win wars quickly.

The cheif Armament minister stated after the war they would have suffered complete collapse of industry by 1947 because there Chromium stockpiles and reserves would be depleted . At which point germany would have to surrender as it would no longer be able to produce tanks, planes or even artillery.


Then there was the corruption that leads onto the political side of the argument that NAZI Germany was always on borrowed time.

The NAZI was thoroughly to the core corrupt that would make a african dicator blush.
The NAZI leader ship, especially Borman and Goering where building castles and palces IN 1943!

And its not just the sheer waste in resources. People like Borman, Goering and Himmler would try and sabotage each other to get one over even at the expense of the war effort.
This lead to huge blunders. Hell Goering should have been given a medel by the allies for helping the allied war effort!


Fact is the German army may have veen strong but the foundation they where on was rotten and due to collapse at any moment.

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: intrptr

Didn't trump just give the saudis billions of dollars in weapons as well?

Hundreds of billions. Proxy warfare isn't cheap.

Remembering too, it isn't "Trump" doing the deal, its the factories for war hiding behind the curtain in the land OZ.

a reply to: JoshuaCox

Reguardless, undeniably when compared to any of the places that reconstruction went wrong, Japan and Germany were a success.

Still occupied to this day. Bombed, firebombed, unnecessarily nuked even... examples of how destruction, occupation and reconstruction as coercion by force is one way to be, ummm... successful.