Did it even matter if non-european powers managed to defeat America/european powers?

Feb 2015
639
washington
#1
The only two times it actually achieved anything was when the ethiopians defeated the Italians and when the japanese defeated the Russians. The Italians lost to just about everybody though and the Japanese were a little more powerful than most other non-european powers so that one is fairly understandable.


But every other time a european power would not accept defeat and would just come back with even more men. The Zulu's, Sikhs and Afghani's beat the british in battle but were all eventually defeated. America was defeated several times by native american tribes, most notably at Custers last stand but in the end emerged completely victorious.

So it seems like these people only had two choices accept a quick defeat, or keep fighting until you were thoroughly defeated. A great power could never afford to take a hit to its prestige by losing a battle to "savages". Would you agree or disagree?

Any cases where you think the non-european power could have triumphed if they had done things differently.
 
Nov 2017
19
Your heart
#3
Well, The French invasions of Brazil, I think that in that time you already had Brazilian born people fighting.

There is the Battle of Guararapes where a mixed forces of Brazilian and Portuguese force expelled Dutch forces from the northwest of Brazil.

The Brazilian campaign in the South of Italy in WW2, wasn't a major role but they released and help release some cities.

Philippines vs the Spanish Empire, there is the famous Siege of Baler.

Spanish America Independence

Cuban War of Independence, no U.S.A isn't the star here, they on came in the and to basically use me the control of the island like what happen in Philippines that started the America-Philippine war.

Thailand, the only Asian country that wasn't somehow colonized.

And I'm pretty sure you can find more, and I think the battles of you said the diference of technology was a major factor then any other thing.

And a war that I think could be won if made differently by the art that lost is the Malvinas war, Argentina had the upper hand but they ****ed up...


I am sure Vietnam defeated the USA
I would call that a draw. I Vietnamese wouldn't be able to kick the U.S out on there own, was a strategical victory for he U.S.A if the war keep going eventually the north would fall completely. The U.S "lost" a propaganda battle they didn't had support from there public opinion and even from some soldiers that resulted on a peace treaty very similar the one between the Koreans, with the U.S promising to back the South Vietnam if the North attacked. So the North attacked the South on a surprise U.S didn't helped and we have the Vietnam of today and this false impression that they won, I mean if you think just in the objective ok it's a win, but not in the way that the American-Vietnamese war ended or the typical victory that came in mind when thinking in a war.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_Geneva_Conference

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Peace_Accords
 
Last edited:

Chlodio

Ad Honorem
Aug 2016
3,523
Dispargum
#4
Ultimate European victory was much more critical during the Age of Imperialism. The Europeans (and their American cousins) could only dominate their much more populous colonies by maintaining the illusion of white superiority. After Japan inflicted numerous defeats on so many European powers in 1941-42, the colonial empires were doomed. Of course, about that time Italy was struggling in Ethiopia, and even in WW1 colonials had seen their European masters suffer defeats.

America's defeat in Vietnam was post-imperial and therefore less critical to the illusion of white superiority.
 
Feb 2016
4,227
Japan
#5
I’m not sure the Sikh wars fits your example.
They fought some bloody battles the Sikhs but they only won Ramnugger out right, and retreated from Ferezoah (forgive my spellings. Typing from memory).
The British didn’t “come back with more men” and were outnumbered. The Sikhs had a well trained “european” army supplemented by lots of traditionally armed troops. They also had a lot of heavy guns. Some bloody battles there... worse than the Crimea.
 

Poly

Ad Honorem
Apr 2011
6,692
Georgia, USA
#6
'....I would call that a draw. I Vietnamese wouldn't be able to kick the U.S out on there own, was a strategical victory for he U.S.A if the war keep going eventually the north would fall completely...
The Vietnam war was a classic war of attrition that the USA was bound to lose

Had the USA stayed in the war longer, it would have just lost with more casualties and more lost tax $billions

The objective was to prevent Vietnamese unification under communist government so you have to say that the Vietnam war was a 100% loss to the USA and 100% win for North Vietnam.


...the U.S "lost" a propaganda battle...
Losing the votes of a few thousand protesters was nothing to losing billions of tax $$$

Even the USA's treasury is not bottomless. The war had to end for the USA.
 
Nov 2017
19
Your heart
#7
The Vietnam war was a classic war of attrition that the USA was bound to lose

Had the USA stayed in the war longer, it would have just lost with more casualties and more lost tax $billions

The objective was to prevent Vietnamese unification under communist government so you have to say that the Vietnam war was a 100% loss to the USA and 100% win for North Vietnam.




Losing the votes of a few thousand protesters was nothing to losing billions of tax $$$

Even the USA's treasury is not bottomless. The war had to end for the USA.
I never look in the economic side or stopped to think in the time that it took, by what I found the U.S troops were deployed in 1965 and U.S started to withdrawal in 1973, 8 years is too much for a no major change in a war, looking in that way it is a lose in all directions.
 
Nov 2017
789
Commune
#9
I am sure Vietnam defeated the USA
It really didn't. North Vietnam did manage to take South Vietnam, but only right at the end of the war when the US was struck by Watergate which ended support for SV. Other than that Vietnam was left devastated, Indochina did not adopt Communism and within a decade the Vietnamese became allies of the US and adopted a mixed capitalist econmy.
 

Similar History Discussions