What's the difference between a Brit denying that they lost against America in 1783 and an American denying that they lost against Vietnam in 1783.
Both sides: "we didn't lose we just couldn't be bothered anymore"
Although in Britain's case they were also up against Spain, France and the Dutch Republic.
Other urls found in this thread:
pbs.org
twitter.com
Crap i mean 1973
> they lost against America in 1783 and an American denying that they lost against Vietnam in 1783.
That copy and paste failure lmao you dumb Brit.
well you just answered your own question now didn't you, retard?
>lost against Vietnam in 1783
Give fire upon those Charlies
>implying soviet and china wasn't involved in vietnam
be honest you snaggle mouthed twit
if anything, America actually lost in 1783.
it took hundreds of years for them to be considered once again part of the anglosphere, and they fucked it up again
America was never part of the Anglosphere
The difference: ‘murica went on to replace you as the worlds hegemon, while vietnam contunies to be a third world shithole with above average sized craters in it. The point being that no matter the outcome, uncle sam won.
because the amerifats think bodycount means something when it's actually the occupation and integration/genocide of territory into hempire that yields actual results.
>inb4 Niccolò
This is literally discussing immediate outcome of the war, not what happened centuries later. It's not like the US became relevant straight after the war.
are you retarded?
No. Are you? Americans were never Anglo-Saxon
The first thing that came to mind was a river in Egypt. Literally where the brits killed millions of unarmed people trying to enslave Africa.
We were not defeated militarily by the North Vietnamese, our public morale was degraded by communist cells like the SDS. In fact, the anti-war movement was used as a vehicle for insidious Marxists to corrupt our mainstream culture and cause all of the problems you see today in America.
Pic related
That’s fair. They didn’t really lose. They just didn’t want to waste lives or resources.
my dad stole a fishing boat during the war and sailed it back himself and I say he was victorious
Inb4 56%
Hold up I found a better picture lmao
i ask the question again,, are you that retarded? you of course know that both the Angles and the Saxons were germanic....
France lost against themselves in 1792
This made my day thanks
No, but one way of determining which side won a war/battle is to compare the results with the prestated goals.
Take for example the battle of jutland: the germans prestated goal was to break the blockade, while the royal navy’s goal was to keep it going. Even though the Germs sunk more ships and killed more humans, they didn’t manage to break the blockade or gain access to the open sea for surface vessels.
In our case, loosing the resource rich empty space hurt the british empire in the long run while burning down vietnam continues to have little to no impact on the US.
Germans are Anglo too then?
But the British objective was never to retake America. We knew that it was lost immediately and we had the napoleonic wars to deal with.
Our attack on America was more a simple show of force. It warned the world that if you declare independence we'll come and give you a jolly good kicking and guess what? Other countries didn't get any silly ideas.
>Tl;Dr we won
I should add: the prestated goal of the uk was to keep the colony, and it wasn’t achieved. The prestated goal of the us was inexistent and fuzzy (contain communism somewhere). They did stop it from spreading although at great cost.
Wasn't America's goal to prevent Vietnam falling to communism, which it did. It's like saying Gaul beat Rome because France is no longer occupied by Romans.
Also if you want to go down that route, after 1783 Britain went on to make another larger and more powerful Empire. So by that logic did britain not win?
>What's the difference between a Brit denying that they lost against America in 1783 and an American denying that they lost against Vietnam in 1783
I did acknowledge the mistake and correct it. 1783 and 1973 aren't that far apart.
>an American denying that they lost against Vietnam in 1783.
British education wins again
It’s not entirely true that nobody resisted the british empire after that american adventure.
In the greater context however, I’ll agree with you on the Napoleonic war angle: the colonies were a sideshow to a much more important conflict on the relevant continent, so could treat it similarly to a lost battle with no short term impact.
America only went to Viet Nam to help the French colonists escape. It was a rescue mission, and a success, as far as we are concerned.
...
>58K dead in a rescue mission
>win
k.
We can all agree vietnam was frances fault. We all told them to give that shit up and fuck off but they were all like "if we cant have vietnam then we are gonna join the russians and go full commie bastard"
the fucking eternal frenchman is the ture menace noone ever notices.
France left in 1954 wtf
your queen may have wanted to enslave Viet Nam but that was never our goal. It was not a war for us. no win or lose about it
>your queen may have wanted to enslave Viet Nam
What did you mean by this?
Depends what you consider winning a war.
If winning a war is absolute destruction and mindlessness i dont think america has ever failed in doing that and i dont think itll ever fail.
>France left in 1954 wtf
learn to read. France helped Viet Nam gain it's independence from China in 1954
Pics
>"In July 1954, after one hundred years of colonial rule, a defeated France was forced to leave Vietnam."
pbs.org
Yet another Aussie faggot sucking up to America
>Notice me senpai
>We are your favourite country, right?
>We are definitely relevant
Kill yourself auscuck
fuck your zionist propaganda
Wow you got me
>Although in Britain's case they were also up against Spain, France and the Dutch Republic.
And in America's case they were also up against the Soviet Union, China and North Korea.
american comprehension the post.
Becuase america actually won the war, they forced the north to sign a peace treaty, then left, years later another war started that dodnt involve the US.
brits aren't bad people, they're just easily fooled.
they worship the illegitimate queen, when they could easily revolt and become independent
some of them are waking up
True, but I'd argue French and Dutch involvement in the revolutionary war was far more than Soviet involvement in Vietnam. For one the Dutch got into direct naval conflict as did the french as well as them assisting Militia forces on land.
>Illegitimate
Care to elaborate without using the words: 'jew', 'lizard' or 'hag'
Yeah... except only within fifty years after the American Revolution nearly all other colonies in the Americas declared independence. What is the Monroe Doctrine?
Because, you fucking keelhauled teabag, we were the Vietnamese all along!
So in other words, they lost.
vietnam wasn't a colony
Britain won the war of 1812 and America failed to affect our shipping at all, the US was built on selling grain to Europe because it was the only produce we allowed them to ship.
>they worship the illegitimate queen, when they could easily revolt and become independent
>Implying we want to be a 3rd world tier republic like the rest of the world
No thanks. Parliamentary Monarchy is the best system of government.
>they lost a war that didnt involve them
ok
Being a monarchist is having very low self-esteem. You do know that you can't actually own any land in the UK, right? You're all just squatting on the Queen's land. Talk about a renter's society. At least in a "free republic" like the US, there's an illusion of being a land owner and all the privileges that entails etc.
>You do know that you can't actually own any land in the UK, right? You're all just squatting on the Queen's land.
So? She has the divine right to rule. At least we all rally around someone that has been born and bred to rule, as opposed to republicans who rally around a glorified celebrity.
>having very low self-esteem
Why does having dedication to something give you low self esteem? England expects that every man will do his duty.
Stop Ameri-splaining.
>So? She has the divine right to rule
LEWL
This is what Britbongs honestly believe. I'll commend you for being open about it.
Good for you. Enjoy your pseudo-freedom
Monarchs are born to rule and shouldn't be restricted by the masses, but should still do their best to please them and not let them stray from the right path
>What's the difference between a Brit denying that they lost against America in 1783 and an American denying that they lost against Vietnam in 1973?
Pride.
Britain lost America while fighting the French, Spanish and Dutch. All first world nations and the strongest army's/navy's of their time.
The US lost to a third world nation with a fraction of the power the US had.
The important difference in these two conflicts is that America had no real strategic objective in the Vietnam War -- unlike Britain. Pulling out of Vietnam was more of a moral and ideological loss. GB lost thirteen prosperous colonies. It's very disingenuous to say that their loss wasn't a severe setback for the Empire. It wouldn't be a stretch to say that Britain was forced to expand further eastward: Australia, India, Hong Kong etc., in part because to offset the economic loss in the North American trade.
I would rather be ruled by a monarch I can take pride in a than a faceless government and banks
>God save the USA and Wells Fargo
Vietnam fell to communism in 1975 user. We won the first war and failed to show up for the second war. Not that is matters as they suck us off today like everyone else.