The "Wars of the Past" Thread

[JJJ's Ulcer]

Dude, that's all speculation that no one can prove. It's fun, but unknowable. For what it's worth, I think Nam would have played out the exact same way. A lot of the initial escalations happened under Kennedy. And LBJ was just continuing his Nam policy when he took over.

 

[Hobgoblin]

I've always believed that in order to see what a two term JFK presidency would have looked like, think of LBJ's terms but less "extreme."

 

[JJJ's Ulcer]

I would replace "extreme" with "effective", at least for domestic policy. I think LBJ is a paradox. His foreign policies were a disaster, but look at what he did on the domestic front; Civil Rights Act, Voting Rights Act, Medicare, Medicaid, Immigration Act, Revenue Act, improving education and the environment, spearheading the space-race, fighting poverty and racism in the South...

I don't see anything extreme about that. He carried an authority that JFK lacked. And okay, yeah, he bullied Senators in congress to get legislation passed. He was effective. Obama could have learned a lesson from him (sadly I think it's too late now). And I don't think JFK would have been able to pass half the domestic agenda that LBJ managed. If not for 'Nam he would be ranked in the top five Presidents ever (and tying FDR for best President of the 20th century). Vietnam was his undoing.

 

[Hobgoblin]

I agree. Johnson was much better on the domestic front than on the foreign front.

Bush Sr is kind of a paralell. He handled foreign affairs pretty well but didnt do well on domestic policies.

 

[JJJ's Ulcer]

I agree. Johnson was much better on the domestic front than on the foreign front.

Bush Sr is kind of a paralell. He handled foreign affairs pretty well but didnt do well on domestic policies.

Actually, I was about to reply with Obama, but then I saw your edit.

I think Obama has been pretty stellar on the foreign policy front and pretty ineffective and disappointing on domestic policy.

 

[Hobgoblin]

That is also very true.

 

[8wid]

I think because Kennedy agreed to a partial communist government in Laos, did nothing when the Berlin Wall was raised, ended the Cuban Missile Crisis peacefully and tolerated Castro's government, kept troop levels in Vietnam modest while he was alive, and calmed the Checkpoint Charlie situation down in Berlin, he would have been smarter than Johnson and would have had the skill to question the intelligence from the Gulf of Tonkin incident more and would not have increased troop levels as a result and definitely not created that dreadful resolution that eliminated the constitutional requirement for a declaration of war.

Even though he ordered the assassinations of Fidel Castro and the president of South Vietnam, Kennedy didn't want to escalate the Vietnam War because he was trying to lower Cold War tensions unlike Johnson who escalated them. Kennedy was the first President to use detente and likely would have continued to if he had lived. Why not in Vietnam even if he would have only withdrawn very gradually, likely taking until the end of his second term to do so.

 

[Hobgoblin]

Sometimes I wonder if Kennedy would have survived his second term, even if he had never been shot. His records show he was in terrible health.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1003773-1,00.html

 

[JJJ's Ulcer]

Got a Sunday morning quiz for everyone.

1) What's the shortest war in recorded history?

2) What's the longest war in recorded history?


Answers go up tonight. I'll trust people not to cheat and look up wikipedia or google.

 

[Dr. Evil]

Got a Sunday morning quiz for everyone.

1) What's the shortest war in recorded history?

2) What's the longest war in recorded history?


Answers go up tonight. I'll trust people not to cheat and look up wikipedia or google.

1. Seven Day War
2. The 100 Years War in Europe.

 

[JJJ's Ulcer]

1. Seven Day War
2. The 100 Years War in Europe.

1. I think you mean Six Day War, but that'd still be wrong
2. Right

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

Wasn't Rome and Parthia at war for like 400 years straight?

 

[Dr. Evil]

1. I think you mean Six Day War, but that'd still be wrong
2. Right

Yeah, that's what I meant.

Anyone watch Ken Burns Civil War?

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

Yeah, that's what I meant.

Anyone watch Ken Burns Civil War?

I own the box set.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Wasn't Rome and Parthia at war for like 400 years straight?

Yeah but they didn't really have anything else to do in those days.

 

[JJJ's Ulcer]

Okay, answer time.

1.) The shortest war was only... get this... 38 minutes. Yeah, not even as long as an episode of 'Mad Men' (or the drama of your choice). It was the Anglo-Zanzibar war in 1896 between the United Kingdom and UK-backed forces and the vast, feared armies of Zanzibar. No points for guessing who won this epic half-hour tussle. You can read more about it here Anglo-Zanzibar war

2) As guessed by Dr Evil, the 100 years war was the longest war (at least from my reading). It actually lasted 116 years. England wanted control of the French throne and France wanted its confiscated territories back. It went from 1337 to 1453. France was the ultimate victor in this conflict, but at 116 years, no one can say England didn't put up a fight. Amazing to think a man and his great-great grandson were probably fighting in the same war at different times. You can read more about it here 100 year war.

Now, Kahran, you mentioned a 400 year war between Rome and Parthia. It's possible I'm wrong, but was it a series of conflicts about the same issue over a long period of time or a consistent state of warfare? The Crusades all had similar goals, but they still count as separate wars. Granted, the 100 year old war also had some brief truces, but they were uneasy and didn't last beyond a few years. Anyway, be interested in learning more about these ancient Roman conflicts as I don't know a lot about it.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

Apparently it was closer to 280 years, so I overstated it. It was a series of conflicts somewhat similar to the Hundred Years War with some brief periods of peace in between. The question is somewhat difficult, because sometimes it is fuzzy on what counts as a single war and what doesn't. Some historians even argue that the Hundred Years War is actually three separate wars rather than one.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Here's an interesting one...

George Washington named Britain's greatest ever foe

Though it really should be "most successful".

 

[Daniel Thompson]

What about the war between the spartans and persians?

 

[terry78]

Here's an interesting one...

George Washington named Britain's greatest ever foe

Though it really should be "most successful".

That right there gets him an automatic thumbs up.

 

[Quetzal]

Aren't you a delicate flower.



Thank you! This is the real reason the United States fought World War I.



Ignoring the ridiculous possibility of an armed Mexican invasion, see 8wid on the German role.

The Lusitania sank after the Germans adopted unrestricted submarine warfare. Clearly, the German leaders did not want to antagonize America and risk bringing it into the war on the side of the Allies. However, the effects of Britain's blockade were tightening the noose around Germany and increasing pressure to end the war quickly. Hindenberg and Ludendorff calculated that the risk of antagonizing the U.S. by unrestricted submarine warfare was outweighed by the potential to win the war sooner by disrupting Allied shipping across the Atlantic.

Let's be clear: the U.S. did not go to war against Germany to avenge the Lusitania. That was merely a convenient pretext. We know this is true because countries do not inevitably go to war when a foreign nation kills their citizens. The U.S. didn't go to war with Israel over the U.S.S. Liberty incident, for example.

I just want to point out what historians have been pointing out for decades, Mexico was in no position to do anything. Their most recent revolution was still ongoing from 1910 and there was a massive power shift within Mexico. Madero, Villa, and Zapata were all assassinated within this time and the general public was both fed up with its government and the state of the country.

There was no way Mexico would ever seriously consider attacking the USA, especially in the state of chaos they were in.

Makes me wonder what Germany was thinking with the note.

=====

To put it on other terms it would be like if someone was trying to convince Somalia to declare war vs the US

 

[DACrowe]

Okay, answer time.

1.) The shortest war was only... get this... 38 minutes. Yeah, not even as long as an episode of 'Mad Men' (or the drama of your choice). It was the Anglo-Zanzibar war in 1896 between the United Kingdom and UK-backed forces and the vast, feared armies of Zanzibar. No points for guessing who won this epic half-hour tussle. You can read more about it here Anglo-Zanzibar war

2) As guessed by Dr Evil, the 100 years war was the longest war (at least from my reading). It actually lasted 116 years. England wanted control of the French throne and France wanted its confiscated territories back. It went from 1337 to 1453. France was the ultimate victor in this conflict, but at 116 years, no one can say England didn't put up a fight. Amazing to think a man and his great-great grandson were probably fighting in the same war at different times. You can read more about it here 100 year war.

Now, Kahran, you mentioned a 400 year war between Rome and Parthia. It's possible I'm wrong, but was it a series of conflicts about the same issue over a long period of time or a consistent state of warfare? The Crusades all had similar goals, but they still count as separate wars. Granted, the 100 year old war also had some brief truces, but they were uneasy and didn't last beyond a few years. Anyway, be interested in learning more about these ancient Roman conflicts as I don't know a lot about it.

First, I would have sworn it would be Grenada. But that's good to know.

Second, the "Hundred Years War" is also a series of conflicts that spanned generations with occasional moments of peace. For example the Battle of Agincourt led to Henry V defeating the French and taking over much of Northern France in 1415. There was "peace" as he married into French nobility via one of Charles VI's (France) daughters....two years later they were at war. Then there was peace for a few years. Then Henry invaded France again. Then he died and there was peace until Joan of Arc turned it into sectarian war to throw the English out years later, etc.

Also, there were much longer gaps later because both countries were fighting other battles. England had the infamous War of the Roses civil war that lasted decades in starts-and-stops (which is the loose basis of Game of Thrones for HBO fans out there) and France even invaded Italy several times during this period as it got entangled in papal politics and land claims in Naples.

I'm rambling now, but I think it can be argued that the Hundred Years War was a long series of wars. Of course, I'm not a scholar on the subject.

 

[Thundercrack85]

It really depends on definition. Not all wars have an obvious ending. Sometimes hostilities end without a formal declaration. Sometimes they have a formal peace treaty, but never really end.

The ongoing conflict on the Korean peninsula is a good example. Technically both sides are still at war. And the North Koreans attack the South Koreans from time to time.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

First, I would have sworn it would be Grenada. But that's good to know.

Second, the "Hundred Years War" is also a series of conflicts that spanned generations with occasional moments of peace. For example the Battle of Agincourt led to Henry V defeating the French and taking over much of Northern France in 1415. There was "peace" as he married into French nobility via one of Charles VI's (France) daughters....two years later they were at war. Then there was peace for a few years. Then Henry invaded France again. Then he died and there was peace until Joan of Arc turned it into sectarian war to throw the English out years later, etc.

Also, there were much longer gaps later because both countries were fighting other battles. England had the infamous War of the Roses civil war that lasted decades in starts-and-stops (which is the loose basis of Game of Thrones for HBO fans out there) and France even invaded Italy several times during this period as it got entangled in papal politics and land claims in Naples.

I'm rambling now, but I think it can be argued that the Hundred Years War was a long series of wars. Of course, I'm not a scholar on the subject.

There were 26 years of peace before Henry V came to the throne. That's more than the time between the two World Wars.

The War of the Roses though were after the Hundred Years War. The peace wasn't ratified yet, but the Hundred Years War is considered to have ended after Castillon in 1453. The War of the Roses started two years later. The origins of it lie in the Hundred Years War though.

Speaking of the War of the Roses, it is another war where there were different phases with long periods of peace in between.

 

[8wid]

I just want to point out what historians have been pointing out for decades, Mexico was in no position to do anything. Their most recent revolution was still ongoing from 1910 and there was a massive power shift within Mexico. Madero, Villa, and Zapata were all assassinated within this time and the general public was both fed up with its government and the state of the country.

There was no way Mexico would ever seriously consider attacking the USA, especially in the state of chaos they were in.

Makes me wonder what Germany was thinking with the note.

=====

To put it on other terms it would be like if someone was trying to convince Somalia to declare war vs the US

The United States never really has had much reason to declare war on anyone. Mexico was in the middle of a violent civil war and has no ability to fight the United States. Germany's navy was bottled up in the Atlantic by the British and only their U-boats had any remote freedom to move around. The British lied about the Lusitania being neutral when it was smuggling weapons to Europe. America had no reason to feel threatened by anyone in The Great War.

There was no justification for the United States to fight Germany and Italy during World War II. The only reason this happened was because Hitler declare war on the USA two days after the bombing of Pearl Harbor. If the United States had minded its own business and just let Japan colonize western China by not sending volunteers to fight them in the air and cutting off their oil supply, there was not much incentive to attack the Allies. I think the only motivation Japan had for pushing the British, French, Dutch, and American colonial possessions out of the Pacific in December 1941 was its own paranoia they were going to be attacked soon. It might have also been because they saw how poorly Britain and France had fought against the Germans in Europe and took advantage of their weakness to annex their territories, thinking America would be demoralized and not fight back either because it was a peacetime nation and still suffering from the Great Depression.

Japan was no really military threat to the United States because it had no capability of attacking the American mainland and could fight on the sea or invade its territorial possessions. I say it would have made no difference if the Japanese had taken Guam, Midway, the Phillipines, and others because they were conquered during the immoral Spanish-American War and not maintained. Imagine if the Spanish War had never happened in 1898, Spain would have still been in charge of those territories in the Pacific and under Francisco Franco been a fascist ally of the Japanese Empire. If American had not annexed the unneeded Hawaiian Islands, the British most likely would have acquired them and it would have been of no concern to America if they had. US imperialism has indirectly help start more wars than most Americans realize.