America lost every war after 1945, mainly against rice farmers, bedouins,and other hobos. So did Soviet Union, France, and every other first world country.
Why can't advanced countries fight wars unless one side forfeits? Why couldn't Germany go full guerilla warfare, and win the war by attrition?
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
historyisaweapon.org
twitter.com
>implying we wanted to win
>implying we weren't holding back because Israel was pushing us
>implying day of the rope won't come
First world countries are part of zog. The point of war is to kill as many whites as possible
the whole point is to funnel money from the taxpayer to the defense contractors and their politicians. everything went just as planned
Countries that fight these long guerilla wars don't end up well long term. If you look at Germany, Japan, and Korea it's best to simply start a bunch of shit, negotiate peace after an intermediate period of time, and secure as much civilizational gibs as possible.
And of course the yanks have their excuses at the ready
>have the best military in the world
>hamper your own military with insane rules of war
>go on an offensive war, but play by defensive rules
does this sound like a winning strategy to you? does it sound like something someone who actually wants to win a war would impose on themselves?
look at the first gulf war. we literally unleashed a blitzkrieg and won almost immediately. now compare that strategy to the other wars that were mentioned
because they've all been weird regional proxy wars and shit and nothing can escalate to total war because of nukes
Because the wars are limited in scope because there is no existential risk. If we conducted Vietnam in the same way as WW2 literally any guerrilla resistance would be squashed with concentration camps and destroying the ability to fight. They will kneel or they will starve.
This is assuming we just didn't nuke them like we would have nuked Germany.
wars are not fought to win. wars are fought to stimulate military-industrial economics. the rich get richer and the poor die as cannon fodder.
You have to have men who are moral... and at the same time who are able to utilize their primordial instincts to kill without feeling... without passion... without judgment... without judgment! Because it's judgment that defeats us.
>Why couldn't Germany go full guerilla warfare, and win the war by attrition?
Something I've never been able to find the (((history))) books - but did any Germans keep on fighting the Allies/Soviets beyond 1945?
They had the werewolfs. But nothing really came of it.
>They had the werewolfs. But nothing really came of it.
It'd be an interesting history what-if scenario.
I supposed the Germans looked at the Allies & the Soviets and said fuck it - let's side with the least worst of the two.
Mr Schwarzkopf, I'm CIA.
Nothing to contribute except that sgt Mike vining is my idol and I wish I were him
Well the Germans were pretty tapped out by 1945. Western Germans were happy that they weren't under Soviet occupation, and eastern germans didn't want to get butchered for resisting after the fight was over.
Who are these guys? I see this pic a lot.
Korean war was a tie Lets be honest
Never mind, reverse image search worked.
Why because jews.
Why the Germans coulnd´t ?
Because other than Vietnam there were no restrictions.The country was occupied by millions of soldiers.
ZOG lost these wars.
we didn't lose, we gave up.
you're right about the 'Nam RoE being a strategically unsound design (unless you make weapons) but the 1st gulf war is a bad example because the entire NATO construct was called upon to btfo of iraq
>give it our all against fellow white group of people with similar values as us because they might occupy our allies
>hold back against actual commie threats
They aren't insane rules, and are actually the proper way to go about things in the sorts of wars we are in currently.
Because the (((central bankers))) want it that way.
They make their profits off wars--and drug dealing-- not peace.
Damn.
Any context for your pic related?
why would you attack a country then defensively try to win the war? how does this make any sense?
Because the wars we currently have ourselves involved in are not conventional wars. They are unconventional warfares, against largely guerrilla combatants. The key of this style of warfare is to win the hearts and minds of the populist, while working to build up a government (that is friendly, or at least against the guerrilla movement) with a good police force, and military
>expecting to win the hearts and minds of a people we invaded
>expecting them not to side with their own people
that worked out well in iraq and vietnam didn't it? we're coming close to 20 years in the middle east and we're still trying to win those hearts and minds
i use that exact argument with regard to U.S wars in the Middle East. Had the U.S military treated the Jihadists the same way as the Nazis or Japanese with regards to "rules of war" you'd have the survivors lined up outside churches begging to be converted. I still to this day cannot understand why nukes weren't dropped on Sept 12 or even that that the un-uniformed enemy wasn't shot on sight instead of sent to Gitmo.
Vietnam was fought almost entirely as a conventional war, and Iraq was improving until Obama decided to pull out too early.
Most of these guerrilla's aren't their own people, and many of which that are their own people aren't supported by the vast majority of the country.
America didnt lose a single engagement in Vietnam. They left because protests and public sentiment was ruining careers in politics and they had accomplished their goals in Asia at the time. They didnt want to carpet bomb it into the ground and leave an empire of dirt. They could have. They should have. They didnt. Calling it a loss is fun for non-Americans to laugh at them over, but from casualties to battles, they were not losing.
America lost Vietnam sweetcheeks
so what is your strategy for winning a non conventional war? muh hearts and minds and that's it?
There are tons of documents online; read the counter-insurgency manuals
Most were rounded up by Eisenhower and holocausted in his death camps - fenced in, covered in mud and shit, no shelter and starved to death. Millions dead. Civilian population was firebombed into oblivion - planned murder and geoncide by jews. They literally brought in jews from hollywood to film mockup examples of hwo the people would die in the firebombings. This isnt bombs - its phospherus designed to kill as many as possible. They bombed them, let them go in shelters and left. When they came out of shelters to repair and save lives, thats when the real bombings began. The air scorched lungs of any that tried to flee and the fire killed any that stayed. They did this to just about every German city.
Germany is also pretty fucking flat. Theres no mountains or large water bodies or other impedments. Its why the 2 front war in ww1 was so dangerous and they decided to cut through belgium to strike the mobilizing of France (they did not declare war, but moblization of russia was basically a declaration and france mobilization in the west was another declaration without actually announcing war with germany). they wanted to end france quick and swing back and russia. instead, stuck in trench warfare. however, russians, being useless and led by jews with no military experience after purging the czars, failed miserably and was beaten back with no effort at all. but there was extreme danger in that nothing could stop 2 military on each side coming at germany if they waited.
same applies to post-ww2. where are you going to stage your campaign from? you are occupied by foreign invaders, your men are all dead, your teenagers are all dead, your women are all raped and murdered and your military bases and supplies are gone. you have nowhere to hide. you have no way to resupply. you have no allies to aid you. where is this guerilla tactics going to apply?
Our GOVERNMENT lost the war, our MILITARY won all the battles dipshit. The Vietcong was eliminated after the Tet Offensive but so was Americans support of the war. The NVA got decimated in every engagement; in fact it was so bad they had to use neighboring countries just to do basic movements with their units.
so why are we still trying to subdue 6th century barbarians? do you think the wars are being prolonged, or do you think counter insurgency actually works?
There's no real debate that there wasn't a real end goal in sight at the beginning of the operations, but that has changed over time. Guerrilla Warfare's take a long time
This isn't call of duty. The k/d doesn't matter
don't forget we also shut down all the waterways making it nearly impossible for the NVA to resupply their troops
If we really wanted to win we could just nuke them , I guess we just dont really want to win for some reason .
Shit. Are they ok?
The tactics used against Germany are called Total War. That's where you kill civilians without mercy as if they were soldiers. (Jews can't stand the existence of blue eyed blonde people so they have to kill as many as possible every chance they get.) The other countries we fought, we did not use Total War. We could easily have destroyed all the supply lines and concentrations of humans but the Jews are not threatened by Asian beauty. Therefore there was no need to use Total War except in a few isolated cases.
>after 1945
Implying the Russians didn't win WW2
To win a war you must destroy the other sides will to fight. It is very hard to destroy a persons will to fight if it escalates slowly like most gurrilla wars do. By the time the real destruction starts happening they have lost so much they don’t have much to lose so they fight on. When the conflict reaches this point it is very hard to win, especially with a free press that will show the one kid killed in strike but not the 30 soldiers.
No, we were tactically much better on the battlefield (as we always are) but our government stopped it because it was a stupid ass war from the beginning.
Our soldiers and military are the only institution of our government I am pleased with. They always do the job well and efficiently. There are fuckups yes but in terms of what a military is supposed to be and do there is no debate around the fact that ours is the best. If you honestly believe some rice farmers were able beat the US military in combat you are delusional.
The only downside to having a military as badass as ours is whoever we fight is going to come out badass and battle hardened. I think that is one of the main reasons Vietnam beat China just after our war with them.
>win the hearts of the people
>train and fund them to fight against our enemy aka their brothers.
>these heart we won are made with the road of blood and destruction of their shit
>20 years later they are no a terrorist cell trying to take down america
sound strategy.
Yes we have the blueprint for success and we only choose to deploy it in limited areas or when resistance is particularly bad. We know how to win and we’re choosing not to because the goal is not to ‘win’. How the fuck is this so difficult for you people to understand?
>Our soldiers and military are the only institution of our government I am pleased with
I agree with mostly on that. During the Iraq war both the military and the state department were trying to put forward initiatives on what to do after we've won the war, but the administration ignored them.
No, I don't believe the North Vietnamese won military battles, but they did end up winning the war because our politicians were inept, and didn't understand the actual type of fight we were in.
We trained them to fight the Soviet's buttercup.
We won one once
To win a war you cant just keep pumping troops into the mid east so they can get there shit blown away by suicide bombers all day. You need to actually defeat the enemy. But politicians in america suck ass when it comes to war.
P O L I T I C A L C O R R E C T N E S S
There hasn’t been a major organized resistance to US occupation in Afghanistan in almost a decade. We’ve basically been funding our opposition through foreign aid to the Muslim world just to ensure there’s still someone to shoot at us occasionally. These situations are just like ISIS. The moment we pull funding opposition will collapse.
Because nukes are cold war fear propaganda and Japan taught the world how to survive defeat with pride
We won one
The Vietnam redpill:
youtube.com
But I can't blame you for being eternally butthurt, Croat faggot. Half a century taking Bolshevik Jew cock, and half a millennium taking Ottoman Turkroach cock. And then you Balkannigger spergs set off WWI with your muh Yugoslavism autism.
Go ask South Korea whether we lost that war for him. Or you can go to hell and ask Saddam who "won"? Yeah Iraq is a shithole and so is Afghanistan. They were war-torn unstable shitholes before America ever got there.
Even now it's hard to stop the occasional hidden bomb, especially when the locals are willing to help. They'll even take pictures like that to mock us here on the internet.
It usually just pisses troops off tho
The Great Yomp. Gurkhas. I remember, and shed a tear for the memory of Baroness Thatcher and the Britain that used to stand astride the world.
I shed a tear too - we couldn't do it now, our navy has more admirals than ships and our carrier has no planes. Feels bad man.
>Korea
>Draw because Truman was too big of a cuck to let MacArthur nuke them dirty Chicoms off the fucking map
>Vietnam War lost because they downscaled their aid to South Vietnam which was rife of corruption and the North was able to conquer the South, but not after being crippled by the US.
>Grenada, shitstomped by the US
>Panama, shitstomped by the US
>Persian Gulf 1, Iraq shitstomped by the US
>Somalia, Americans pull out because they got bored of shooting starving Africans and bad press
>Yugoslavia, bombed some Serbs along with NATO, although accomplished very little because the UN is dogshit
>Afghanistan, NATO initially shitstomps Taliban, but Afghanis are unable to get their shit together and thus all the advances fail because of tribal fucker mentality
>Persian Gulf 2 Electric Boogaloo, utterly shitstomp Iraq again, but utterly fail in rebuilding the country because they lay off all the Iraqi soldiers quite obviously pissed at Americans
>Libya, Gaddaffi gets shitstomped and NATO utterly ruins one of the better African countries because of social media
>ISIS shitstomped with help from NATO air and SOF support
I dunno, it's a good enough track record if any. Surprisingly, fighting counter-insurgencies is pretty fucking hard when you aren't England in Malaysia and rounding any fucker that looks like a punk, and you can get away with anything,
because advanced societies get whiners who don't want to hurt the enemy so while the entire war could last a year and we could decimate their forces instead we must hold back in fear of conquering the world
Because the United States is bound by relations and morals. We can just nuke shit and away away. We can't do that for some reason.
We're losing wars because we aren't fighting them for legitimate causes.
- We don't take land
- We don't take resources
- We don't rape the women
- We don't slaughter the men
- We have to protect civilians
- We have to be humane
- We have to play by arbitrary rules
What's even the point anymore?
The political leadership doesn't fight to win, they fight to stalemate.
>because they got bored of shooting starving Africans
More like they didn't like getting a taste of their own medicine, I've seen Blackhawk Down. I fully understand why the American public didn't want to lose ANY men for such a shithole though.
>What's even the point anymore?
Something something money something something Jews
>post 1945
>wars
see
we lost because we weren't doing the things that proper nations do during wars. basically we fight with both arms tied behind our backs
if we engaged in war the way the romans did it we would have destroyed every wannabe enemy and most of you would be waiving the red white and blue flag.
Guerilla warfare is a LOT harder to defeat than tradition warfare, especially in the case of the gooks, who had the "home-field advantage" with their tunnel networks and bunkers hidden among the jungles and mountains.
>- We don't take resources
right, it's just a coincidence the middle east is pumped full of oil as well as american/jewish dick
We're there for oil, but we aren't taking it outright. We do this autistic "regime change" to puppet the country and then make them sell it to us for cheap. We're also there to stop Russia from doing the same thing.
That's just stupid. We need to take the land, slaughter the population, and replace it with Americans to work and manage the new nation.
what's the deal with the guy with the white shirt? pmc?
looks like if rick moranis had a bad day and just picked up a car-15 to settle things straight
Because fighting wars against civilians is very difficult. Civilians can hide in general population, have no centralized area of command, and they can fight dirty, while government militaries have to fight relatively fair.
>- We don't take land
true
>- We don't take resources
you "secure access" to them
>- We don't rape the women
much
>- We don't slaughter the men
much
>- We have to protect civilians
sometimes
>- We have to be humane
when people are looking
>- We have to play by arbitrary rules
see above
>What's even the point anymore?
money, and lots of it
Nothing changes user
historyisaweapon.org
When you have to keep up the meme that you are liberating them, it's hard to use the amount of violence necessary to win a war.
because no one on the advanced country's army gives a shit about the war; they just want to do their time and gtfo
the people on the resisting side have everything to lose, so they fight to the death
War will always be an elite's game, but aren't exactly making it easy for our men when they have to (mostly) play by some arbitrary rules to be "humane" or "ethical".
They shouldn't be marching into a warzone having to think who to kill and who not to kill, nor should they have any thoughts that the opposition is human in any way.
I think that's also why PTSD is such a big thing nowdays.
You have to either be stupid or do pretty intense mental acrobatics as a regular American soldier if you really want to believe in "protecting your country" and being deployed in eternal wars overseas for justified reasons. It's no wonder cogs in the machine of war industry go insane so easily. Unless you're in it for the killing, the war isn't going to give average veteran anything that wars of the past did. No glory of conquest and spoils of war for them. Just violent desert patrol for money of others and abstract politics.
>Why couldn't Germany go full guerilla warfare, and win the war by attrition?
Volkssturm, which was more honorable, but a strategic mistake.
and still commies laugh at the futility of an armed populace against an oppressive US gov
whos this badass Sup Forums? whats his name
>Lost every war after 1945
Wanna try again sweetie?
>Flag
Lol, still butt blasted about the 90's?
yAaTgKG
???
its not like that though. everything is highly compartmentalized. its all "mission oriented" and "keep your head on a swivel" type rhetoric. no one talks about it in a macro sense like you would on Sup Forums. its just do the job one day at a time and try to be safe
its only after people separate from service that they start virtue signaling on goybook about muh country and muh freedoms. its almost impossible to believe but not one fucking person talks about "hey, maybe we shouldnt be out here to enforce israeli foreign policy." i guess it also doesnt hurt that they give all the missions names like operation "enduring freedom" or that 9/11 was a thing.
Fun Fact: Ol Stormin Norman's Pa was also an army general that went from 1st Lt to Col in 4 yrs during WW1. Served as Provost Marshal to ensure early Gladio Ops were established to bring on WW2. Then went on to play a part in Charles Lindbergh JR kidnapping hoax. Deep state cocks rule the henhouse.
because we killed millions of civilians in WW2. What have we not done since?
Because we had to start respecting people’s human rights and the laws of war.
PTSD is common for your average soldier that is just waiting to be shot at by some arab. Special Ops or shock troops don't really experience PTSD because they are constantly on the attack and are the not waiting.
Because winning a war against a foreign country usually requires genociding the population, unless you want to occupy them for all eternity.
SGM Mike Vinning, the omen of death.
I apologize to everyone reading this for this Amerimutt's behavior
Because the real way to win is unpalatable and not consistent with modern norms.
If your goals are narrow and finite its easy to win or involved negotiation with bad people.
NATO smashed Serbia and Libya, IRA and FARC put down their arms.
Thats why the Taliban are being negotiated with right now.
This.
Read the accounts of WW1.
Extreme example, soilders getting stuck in the mud and taking a 5 days to sink. By the 2nd or 3rd day they were stark raving mad from the shelling and gunfire whizzing a few feet above them. On the 4th or 5th day it would rain and their hallowed screams were drowned out by the rising water pools in the artillery holes they sank in.
Daily reminder large scale irregular warfare is mostly unsuccessful and all the big wins such as Afghanistan, Vietnam etc are an anomaly and are a result of backing from near peer powers.
We didn't lose Korea, it was/is a stalemate.
We lost Vietnam because it wasn't a just war.
We won when we helped Kuwait.
Most of our meddling in South America and the Middle East prior to 2001 was just spooks.
We didn't win Afghanistan (and neither did the Soviets) or Iraq but we blew enough shit up that no one else could win, either, and we got the oil we came for.
Tfw you finally work up the nerve to make your coworkers remember your name, and then stupid General Schwarzkopff overshadows you by landing his damn helicopter in the parking lot.
>Charles Lindbergh JR kidnapping hoax
>hoax
Was it a hoax? Redpill me baby, or at least a link
It's very, very simple.
There is no stomach among white people for ugly images of dead people.
A situation like Iraq could have been solved in a week with a merciless crackdown. People would have to be killed though -- and that will only happen in a war that is not optional, where people are actually fighting for survival.
Wars today are usually 'optional' and the public at large feels no stake.
I honestly think we will have to get back to citizen armies, where everybody has a stake. The 'elites' now don't have their own children in any danger... if they do, they are in the IDF.