Frederichs Blog 'Why'd they lose?'

**Frederich Barbarossa** · October 01, 2009, 09:28 PM

Ok I saw that thread and I had to make my own, to make a better theory. You deserve a cookie for trying, but I agree ww1 was not a game. As I have done in other threads I just give away theories, reasons, and conclusions as to why wars aren't won by certain factions. Therefore I have inteaded to open a blog or maybe a long research paper here in tw center, to show to you all. If you agree lucky you! If you don't, you could just leave.

No Im joking, stay and debate. Theres nothing like a nice debate, unless its stupid like the ones I usually have with Lysimachus who thinks rep is prestige. I do not and so I will move on and make the blog or thread. Each day I will update, leave as much negative or positive feedback as possible. So enjoy heres a list of wars I shall do.

*7 years war (considered the first world war)
*Napoleonic war (1812 ain't the only reason!)
*World War 1
*World War 2 ( You know some of my reasons, and most of you agree with them.

)
*Korean War ( Its not entirely due to the Chinese invasion, there is some more though this war was exactly lost for any of the sides not even North Korea.)
*Vietnam War ( A withdrawal in my opinion isn't exactly a lost but more like a hit and run.)

Enjoy!

**hellheaven1987** · October 01, 2009, 09:40 PM

Originally Posted by Frederich Barbarossa

*Korean War ( Its not entirely due to the Chinese invasion, there is some more though this war was exactly lost for any of the sides not even North Korea.)

One sentence - MacArthur is a dick.

Originally Posted by Frederich Barbarossa

*Vietnam War ( A withdrawal in my opinion isn't exactly a lost but more like a hit and run.)

One sentence - Americans are dicks

**Frederich Barbarossa** · October 01, 2009, 10:12 PM

yes we are a war like people.

**Sulfurion Blackfyre** · October 02, 2009, 01:51 AM

One thing is withdrawing from a battle, another is withdrawing from a war.... that means you lost.

**Abendstern** · October 02, 2009, 01:54 AM

Originally Posted by Frederich Barbarossa

*Napoleonic war (1812 ain't the only reason!)
*World War 1
*World War 2 ( You know some of my reasons, and most of you agree with them.

)

Id say these are quite obvious: The losing side was too ambitious / faced overwhelming opposition.

**Arto** · October 02, 2009, 01:59 AM

Originally Posted by Frederich Barbarossa

*7 years war (considered the first world war)

Enjoy!

Wasn't that some sort of stalemate?

**Abendstern** · October 02, 2009, 02:02 AM

Depends on what you assume what everyone involved wanted to get out of it.

That is if you for instance assume that France, Austria and Russia wanted to preserve the status quo in Europe (and getting bankrupt along the way) then it is a stalemate on military level and a strategical success for them.

**konny** · October 02, 2009, 07:00 AM

Originally Posted by Road Warrior

Wasn't that some sort of stalemate?

In general, yes. That war was fought to exhaustion (in the last stages both sides were in fact disbanding regiments, not raising new ones!). With agreeing to end the war on the status quo ante the allies had not achieved their gains and Prussia could claim victory simply for not being destroyed and having returned all occupied territories. On the other hand Prussia also had conquered large parts of enemy lands, like Saxony, what she had to return - so, not realy a winner after all.

Taking it as the last phase of the Austrian War of Succession, Austria could also claim victory for getting away with losing Silesia only, because in the initial phase of that conflict large parts of Austria, all of Silesia and most of Bohemia, the Netherlands and Austria's Italian posessions were occupied by hostil armies.

The conflict had one definite loser: France, and one definite winner: England. Everyone else would have ended about where he started.

**Last Roman** · October 02, 2009, 09:34 AM

Originally Posted by Road Warrior

Wasn't that some sort of stalemate?

no, the British gained a lot from the French. Much of France's overseas empire was handed over.

**conon394** · October 02, 2009, 10:40 AM

Korean War

Hmm perhaps I'm missing something. The North lost they failed to overrun the south... The UN did fail to archive its expanded war aims, but it essence its original object preserving the ROK was achived.

**hellheaven1987** · October 02, 2009, 10:52 AM

Originally Posted by conon394

Hmm perhaps I'm missing something. The North lost they failed to overrun the south... The UN did fail to archive its expanded war aims, but it essence its original object preserving the ROK was achived.

Well, the reason was because American landed on Incheon; North Koreans were well-overran the defence around Pusan at that time.

**Tiberios** · October 02, 2009, 11:02 AM

Originally Posted by hellheaven1987

Well, the reason was because American landed on Incheon; North Koreans were well-overran the defence around Pusan at that time.

The end result was still the same. The North failed to take over the south while the UN achieved their war aims by preserving South Korea.

**Tiberius Tosi** · October 02, 2009, 11:06 PM

Originally Posted by hellheaven1987

Well, the reason was because American landed on Incheon; North Koreans were well-overran the defence around Pusan at that time.

So? Germany went around the Maginot line and not through it, something they may not have been able to fully do. Does that mean Germany didn't defeat France? lol