WW I, Korea, WW II and Israel; Heads You Win Should Not be Tails I Lose (Iran, middle east)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The premise of this thread it that when a party starts a war and loses, the defending side should be allowed to finish it. In the cases of WW I, Korea and Vietnam the aggressors, respectively Germany/Austro-Hungarian Empire, North Korea and North Vietnam started wars. The wars ended in armistices, not in military victories. In all cases complete victory was possible but the West, being “nice” left the losing side to their own devices. In all cases it has leapt us to bite us.
WW I (armistice) – This case is perhaps the least clear. The Austro-Hungarian Empire, tied by treaty and history to Germany (only recently Prussia and other principalities) tried to take over the Balkans, lured by the chaos surrounding the murder of the Archduke of Sarajevo on June 28, 1914. (source). After a long war with unprecedented bloodshed the Austro-Hungarian Empire was split into Austria, Hungary Romania, Bulgaria, Albania and Czechoslovakia, and the Balkans reconstituted into Yugoslavia. However the core of the countries remained intact and were not occupied. The terms of this armistice did not sit easily with a still-intact and independent Austria and Germany. They covertly did not comply with the disarmament mandates of Versailles. All else is history.
Korea (armistice) – Probably the strongest case. Korea was historically under the sway of either Japan or China (source). In or about 1910 Japan seized control. When WW II ended Korea was partitioned between the northern half, occupied by the USSR and the southern half, occupied by the U.S. There was, to my understanding, little reason for this generosity to the U.S.S.R. since they took astonishingly little part in the defeat of Japan in the war. In Europe, at least a colorable argument could be made that they earned a share of the spoils, and effective control of Eastern Europe. When NK invaded in 1950 there was little reason for not conquering and holding NK, reuniting it under South Korea’s military dictatorship.
Since then, NK has clearly not found the status quo acceptable. They are now a nuclear power, leaving the West with little choice but surrender or a full-scale war before NK poses a mortal threat to the civilized world.
WW II – This is an example in the opposite direction, of what happens when there is total victory, mostly by the civilized world. While we have not had “kumbaya” perfection (see above regarding Korea, and also other small wars such as Vietnam and the Middle East), the world has by and large not had major wars. Victory was total. Japan and Germany are not a threat to world safety nor are they likely to be.
Israel (armistice in 1948 and 1956, victory in 1967 and 1973) – Another good example. 1948 and 1956 ended in standstills. The Arabs kept on attacking. In 1967 they closed the Straits of Tiran, threatening to throttle Israel’s imports of oil from Iran. Israel obliterated Egypt’s air force on the ground. The war lasted six days.
Since then the rest of the world has sought to give the Arabs a do-over. Trump finally recognized Israel’s choice of capitals. The Arabs should have sued for peace when they had a chance. Israel won and the world “boo-hoos” at their exercise of the victory. If they were anything like North Vietnam, Myanmar or other victorious countries there would have been a bloodbath.
Summary – A loss in war should severely and permanently penalize the aggressor. Germany and Japan were reduced to second-rate, though affluent powers. I don’t think that’s such a bad fate for the people of the Arab world, as opposed to their “leaders.”
Here are the "heads I win tails you lose" situations:
North Korea invades South Korea, loses, but loses no territory; and
Arabs repeatedly engaged in war, both guerrilla (now called terrorism or asymetrical war) or conventional wars, i.e. 1948, 1967 and 1973 and lose, and Israel is expected to give all the territory back with no assurance of peace.
In the case of North Korea they have, almost since the 1953 cease-fire been seeking to expand their military capability. The free world is urged to "negotiate." The West gave money in 1994. NK did not live up to the terms of the agreement.
Israel won all of its wars. Yet it is expected to return territory. We returned Gaza and did not get peace in return. What's up with that?
Since Israel won it's wars, maybe the US should give back California, Nevada, Utah, Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, Wyoming and Texas to the indigenous people to create their own countries.
So how should we be penalized in the wars and military actions where we essentially lost?
Actually good question. But we were not trying to conquer territories.
The wars the U.S. lost were trying to stop other countries, unsuccessfully, from annexing their neighbors. Different metric. he wars the U.S. lost were trying to stop other countries, unsuccessfully, from annexing their neighbors. Different metric.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pruzhany
Since Israel won it's wars, maybe the US should give back California, Nevada, Utah, Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, Wyoming and Texas to the indigenous people to create their own countries.
Good idea </sarcasm>. Throw in Hawaii, Alaska, the states in the Louisiana Purchase and Florida. France, Spain and Russia were violators of the natives, and had nothing to sell. Nor did the sugar companies in Hawaii.
Actually good question. But we were not trying to conquer territories.
The wars the U.S. lost were trying to stop other countries, unsuccessfully, from annexing their neighbors. Different metric. he wars the U.S. lost were trying to stop other countries, unsuccessfully, from annexing their neighbors. Different metric.
...
You often have ever-migrating metrics in your threads.
Really, what you're talking about is the concept of revenge. Under your basic premise, we should have been punished for the Bay Of Pigs Invasion and our incessant bombing of non-military targets in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia.
You often have ever-migrating metrics in your threads.
Really, what you're talking about is the concept of revenge. Under your basic premise, we should have been punished for the Bay Of Pigs Invasion and our incessant bombing of non-military targets in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia.
USA installs a puppet government (or more precisely approve whom is allowed to run in an open free election), imports American corporations/culture and builds a military base. Might as well be a colony at that point.
Also
- WW1: allies were incapable of punishing Germany. There were no foreign troops on German land when the defeat was signed.
- WW2: No mention of the Iron Curtain?
- Israel: USA threatened the USSR to keep their allies in check. Meanwhile Americas ally Israel attacked Egypt on the grounds of "pre-emptive strike". USSR should have retaliated against USA/allies.
This thread is thru American eyes.
Are you saying that enemies of the U.S.A. and the West have to be able to rampage unchecked?
No. Since you ask who is keeping the U.S.A and the West in check?
I am an American. I support my country, in general.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
