NationStates Jolt Archive

Which war was the worst in American history?
Why?

Vietnam. Why? You lost.

Vietnam: The war was horrbly administered and run. It's a perfect example of what happens when complex things are micromanaged.

Where are the Mexican-American War, the Spanish-American War, and the Cold War? Surely those deserve a place on the list more than Iraq, GWI, or the BS MIC vs Media.

Vietnam because President Johnson lied to the American people. Though the United States won every military engagement (and yes, that is a fact), the President failed to sustain popular support on the domestic front.

When the last of our troops pulled out of South Vietnam due to a treaty signed, North Vietnam took it over undoing our efforts to keep communism in check.

I'm not American.

And I picked Vietnam too, mostly because it was a dismal failure, and because the American forces (and also the Vietnamese) engaged in horrific atrocities, which were never properly punished and still remain a stigma to the US anywhere in SE Asia.

Vietnam: The war was horrbly administered and run. It's a perfect example of what happens when complex things are micromanaged.

Amen to that!

The Civil War, because either way America lost, and it only Americans who died for the most part.

FYI....

Vietnam was not a war... it was a conflict.

Where are the Mexican-American War, the Spanish-American War, and the Cold War? Surely those deserve a place on the list more than Iraq, GWI, or the BS MIC vs Media.

The Cold War was not armed conflict, and thus was excluded.
The Iraq War was and remains deeply divisive too many, and the phrase "worst" can be taken many ways. Plus there were only ten options.
MIC BS was supposed to be the none of the above choice.

FYI....

Vietnam was not a war... it was a conflict.

Don't tell that to the people fighting there. To them it was a war. Korea was also a conflict as was Gulf War I and Gulf War II.

FYI....

Vietnam was not a war... it was a conflict.

Tell that to the 5 million dead Vietnamese.

My vote goes to the Civil War. It has had the longest reaching impact. We are pretty much over Vietnam. But the Civil War and it;s results still have a major impact on the face of the US in the overextension of the government and in the ethnic tensions that still stem from the nastiness of reconstruction that resulted from the Civil War.

My vote goes to the Civil War. It has had the longest reaching impact. We are pretty much over Vietnam. But the Civil War and it;s results still have a major impact on the face of the US in the overextension of the government and in the ethnic tensions that still stem from the nastiness of reconstruction that resulted from the Civil War.

You may be over Vietnam, but Vietnam is not.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/2892061.stm

"Worst" does not neccesarily mean worst for the US.

I would say Vietnam...pulled in due to france's imperialistic dilusions of gradeur. Since Eisenhower didn;t have the balls to stand up to Degaulle and help vietnam become a democracy like it originally wanted (ho chi mihn requested the US to help shake off the french so they could lead their own nation in a DEMOCRACY) when they couldn't get their help...they looked to the russians and the chinese...:(

You may be over Vietnam, but Vietnam is not.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/2892061.stm

"Worst" does not neccesarily mean worst for the US.
So what the whole world opposed the US invasion of Iraq. Freedom Fries ring a bell?

So what the whole world opposed the US invasion of Iraq. Freedom Fries ring a bell?

Yes, but Iraq didn't have Tiger Force, My Lai, or Son Thang.
Vietnam was the worst example of US military arrogance, mismanagement, and wanton butchery ever. Iraq was not good, but it doesn't rate by comparison.

Vietnam was the most pointless war, the civil war resulted in the most American death and tragedy, and World War II was obviously the worst war in WORLD history.

FYI....

Vietnam was not a war... it was a conflict.

Why single it out? Neither the Korean, nor the two Iraq ones were technically wars either from an american perspective.

Oh I was expecting some "America can do no wrong" wacko to attack me for using the words "wanton butchery " to describe American military operation. No takers?

Tell that to the 5 million dead Vietnamese.
I tried, but all they did was sit there it decay. Corpses really are a pain in the ass when you invite them over for dinner.

Anyways, I would probably say Vietnam was bad, the military was underminded by a certain executive officer whose only real accomplishment was getting assassinated and when the smoke had cleared, not a single damn thing had happened. The South fell, Communism won the day, and there were mounds of corpses all over this place.

The Cold War was not armed conflict, and thus was excluded.
The Iraq War was and remains deeply divisive too many, and the phrase "worst" can be taken many ways. Plus there were only ten options.
MIC BS was supposed to be the none of the above choice.

I realise there are only 10 options, that's why I questioned the exclusion of major wars in favor of the Gulf War and Iraq War.

The Cold War was quite arguably an armed conflict. First off, consider that the Vietnam and Korean Wars (Amorado, those two most certainly fit the qualification for wars under international treaties) were in essence extensions of the Cold War. Even if you were to leave those, and the numerous minor proxy skirmishes aside, there would still be many, many incidents of armed incursions, a significant number of which resulted in casualties, plus all the espionage and revolutionary violence and conflict.

And if you wanted an "other" why did you post MIC vs Media instead of other?

World War One. Possibly the worst war in terms of shear physical suffering and definitely one of the worst in terms of death. But also the deaths seemed to be reletively pointless. It was all just a result of the great powers jostleing between themselves for that little bit more greatness. Very few of the soldiers even knew why they were out there. The generals had never seen war like this before and so were using very poor tatics and the ammount of men lost for the ammount of territory gained was rediculously high. Whats even worse is that it acomplished very little. If anything, it caused even more death later on in WW2. Though WW2 had a viable opponent, the removal of the Nazis. Frankly there wasnt much diffrence in terms of goverments during WW1. The German government wasnt somehow evil in the same way that the Nazis were.

Its interesting that Vietnam is so high in the polls, is that because most of the people on here are Americans?

I realise there are only 10 options, that's why I questioned the exclusion of major wars in favor of the Gulf War and Iraq War.

The Cold War was quite arguably an armed conflict. First off, consider that the Vietnam and Korean Wars (Amorado, those two most certainly fit the qualification for wars under international treaties) were in essence extensions of the Cold War. Even if you were to leave those, and the numerous minor proxy skirmishes aside, there would still be many, many incidents of armed incursions, a significant number of which resulted in casualties, plus all the espionage and revolutionary violence and conflict.

And if you wanted an "other" why did you post MIC vs Media instead of other?

I knew the Iraq war would get some votes. I thought the Gulf War was probably going to be a bigger issue than the Mexican-American War, even though in my mind it was more justified.
As for the Cold War, it's difficult to clearly define, so I didn't include it. Anyway, it wasn't technically a war, since they never openly fought.
And, as for not putting other, I'm either drunk or crazy. Probably crazy :D
Besides, I think conspiracy theorists deserve a voice, to go along with the competing ones inside their heads.

World War II was obviously the worst war in WORLD history.

I would disagree. World War II was bad but it had an important goal and it achived it. Unlike World War I where it was all about great power pride.

I would also appriciate the American civil war not just being refered to as "the civil war". It is not the definitive one and nor is it unique in what it achieved. Abraham Lincon may have freed lots of slaves but Tsar Alexander II freed more in the emancipation of the serfs. He also did so much earlier than Lincon and without the accompanying civil war.

I tried, but all they did was sit there it decay. Corpses really are a pain in the ass when you invite them over for dinner.

Anyways, I would probably say Vietnam was bad, the military was underminded by a certain executive officer whose only real accomplishment was getting assassinated and when the smoke had cleared, not a single damn thing had happened. The South fell, Communism won the day, and there were mounds of corpses all over this place.

You can't blame it all on Kennedy. LBJ and Nixon were both responsible too.

Yes, but Iraq didn't have Tiger Force, My Lai, or Son Thang.
Vietnam was the worst example of US military arrogance, mismanagement, and wanton butchery ever. Iraq was not good, but it doesn't rate by comparison.

Not hardly! The Civil War saw much worse by far. The military of both sides was corrupt, treatment of POWs was awful, and there were attrocities on both side to put Mi Lai to shame.

Its interesting that Vietnam is so high in the polls, is that because most of the people on here are Americans?

It's the worst war in AMERICAN history, not world history. In my personal opinion, it's the Civil War, which caused the most death and suffering to Americans of any other war, but some people find the sheer pointlessness of the Vietnam war even more abominable.

I knew the Iraq war would get some votes. I thought the Gulf War was probably going to be a bigger issue than the Mexican-American War, even though in my mind it was more justified.
As for the Cold War, it's difficult to clearly define, so I didn't include it. Anyway, it wasn't technically a war, since they never openly fought.
And, as for not putting other, I'm either drunk or crazy. Probably crazy :D
Besides, I think conspiracy theorists deserve a voice, to go along with the competing ones inside their heads.

Fair enough. ;)

Neo Cannen, since the topic is "Which war was the worst in American history?" the American Civil War need not be specified.

The Civil War by far! The American casualties were so tremendous because it was American vs. American. We burned through the teenagers and 20 year olds in the first year of the war. By the end of the war it was manly fought by children and older men.

Not hardly! The Civil War saw much worse by far. The military of both sides was corrupt, treatment of POWs was awful, and there were attrocities on both side to put Mi Lai to shame.

At least 618,000 Americans died in the Civil War, and some experts say the toll reached 700,000. The number that is most often quoted is 620,000. At any rate, these casualties exceed the nation's loss in all its other wars, from the Revolution through Vietnam.
http://www.civilwarhome.com/casualties.htm

How many people died in the Vietnam war? Quick answer: Approximately 5.4 million total.
http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=5096

You can't blame it all on Kennedy. LBJ and Nixon were both responsible too.
Ah, but LBJ was the spawn of Kennedy (Vice-President and all) and Nixon bombed them and left (a great plan for any occasion, really).

Yes, but Iraq didn't have Tiger Force, My Lai, or Son Thang.
Vietnam was the worst example of US military arrogance, mismanagement, and wanton butchery ever. Iraq was not good, but it doesn't rate by comparison.

What about World War II? Dresden, Operation Keelhaul, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, etc...

Fair enough. ;)

Neo Cannen, since the topic is "Which war was the worst in American history?" the American Civil War need not be specified.

No, the topic simpley says "worst war". Thats the thread title anyway

I would also appriciate the American civil war not just being refered to as "the civil war". It is not the definitive one and nor is it unique in what it achieved. Abraham Lincon may have freed lots of slaves but Tsar Alexander II freed more in the emancipation of the serfs. He also did so much earlier than Lincon and without the accompanying civil war.

It isn't called the civil war because slaves were freed, civil war is just the name of a war whenever a nation splits and starts fighting. 600,000 Americans died in it, which is more than died any other American war. Also, the war was not just about slavery. The north simply hinged onto that single unjust issue on the south part to make themselves look like the good guys. The war was mostly about states rights, and Abraham Lincoln caused the war unnecassarily. The south would have caved on slavery eventually, we didn't need to kill half a million people to do it.

Either the Civil War or Vietnam. Vietnam was a total failure and loss on our part, but the Civil War was in a way a loss too. We the Union may have won it, but we still lost a lot of our people. It was one of our bloodiest wars too, but you can say we lost because in those few years we lost tons of parents, children, brothers, fathers, etc in that war. As it put brother against brother, and families against each other.

What's pathetic is that Vietnam could have been won in a very short period of time, had we invaded the North, bombed Hanoi, mined Haiphong, bombed the transportation links to China, etc.

Ah, but LBJ was the spawn of Kennedy (Vice-President and all) and Nixon bombed them and left (a great plan for any occasion, really).

LBJ was a sociopath, and Nixon a compulsive liar and all-round scumbag.
I can blame them too if I like.

FYI....

Vietnam was not a war... it was a conflict.

I know the government called it that but I disagree. A war is a war regardless of what the government calls it. :gundge: :sniper:

A rose by any other name still has thorns ;)

Vietnam, without a doubt.

As short a topic as American History is, I would have to say the worst was the American Civil War for a number of reasons:

1. The unbelievably poor quality of leadership (citing McClellan and Burnside in particular) and the quality of the troops in general. Rober E. Lee and Grant stand out in the context of the American Civil War, but they were nothing special if we put them into the context of war as a whole.

2. The Union was preserved, why? The North had the chance to let the South (which I consider to be morally and economically backwards even today, my opinion) secede to become its own nation! You lot misssed -such- an oppurtunity.

3. It inflated Lincoln's reputation to an absurd extent, considering he eroded away those civil rights which the war was 'supposedl'y fought over.

Hmmm, I went with the Vietnam War. Why? Because of the terrible atrocities and apathetic cruelty associated with it. I know nothing of atrocities during the American Civil War, so I can't comment on them, but we all know the kind of shit that went on in Vietnam. Not nice stuff.
After that, World War One. Even more pointless than Vietnam, and a lot worse for the troops. But less cruel. Also, most of the crappiness was borne by the British, French, and Germans. Probably the worst war in the history of the world though.
Iraq II comes in a distant third, and only because it seems to have been started on false premises (not an argument I want to divert the thread with, so if anyone disagrees, ok, you win.) and it has showcased some disgusting behaviour on the part of a liberating force that in some cases approaches the brutality of the dictator you replaced.
World War Two was probably (insofar as the word applies to war) the best war - it was to stop an utter bastard. And, as an irish person, I would like to apologise to everyone for deValera's condolences on Hitler's death. Neutral or no, diplomatic procedures or no, it was wrong.
I admit I know very little about the American Civil War, so I am not qualified to comment on it, and have not.
Final caveat: all wars are bad. Some are just less bad than others.

Hmmm, I went with the Vietnam War. Why? Because of the terrible atrocities and apathetic cruelty associated with it. I know nothing of atrocities during the American Civil War, so I can't comment on them, but we all know the kind of shit that went on in Vietnam. Not nice stuff.

The atrocities were isolated instances. I know many vets, and none of them are drug addicts, rapists, or baby killers, nor are any of the vets they know. And the atrocities committed by the U.S. during the Vietnam War pale in comparison to the ones committed during WWII.

As short a topic as American History is, I would have to say the worst was the American Civil War for a number of reasons:

1. The unbelievably poor quality of leadership (citing McClellan and Burnside in particular) and the quality of the troops in general. Rober E. Lee and Grant stand out in the context of the American Civil War, but they were nothing special if we put them into the context of war as a whole.

2. The Union was preserved, why? The North had the chance to let the South (which I consider to be morally and economically backwards even today, my opinion) secede to become its own nation! You lot misssed -such- an oppurtunity.

3. It inflated Lincoln's reputation to an absurd extent, considering he eroded away those civil rights which the war was 'supposedl'y fought over.

I have a very simple rebuttal in favor of Vietnam. 600-700 thousand deaths compared to 5.4 million. There is no comparison.

It isn't called the civil war because slaves were freed, civil war is just the name of a war whenever a nation splits and starts fighting


I know that, but I was trying to say that its not "the" definitive civil war. There are loads of others, hence why you shouldnt call it "the" civil war.

The atrocities were isolated instances. I know many vets, and none of them are drug addicts, rapists, or baby killers, nor are any of the vets they know. And the atrocities committed by the U.S. during the Vietnam War pale in comparison to the ones committed during WWII.

I can't agree that they were isolated incidents. Not everyone was involved, sure, but it was endemic in the Army at that time.
http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20031022/SRTIGERFORCE/110190169
People forget exactly how much was covered up. For instance, at My Lai, where 500 people (unarmed civilians) were butchered, exactly 3 1/2 years were served in prison, by one man. Than Nixon pardoned him. Nobody else was ever put in prison.

Why is everyone so focused on Vietnam? Are you just intent on ignoring what I said about WW1. Vietnam may have been bad but more nations were involved in WW1 and it didnt rearly have the same vaugely viable opponent that Vietnam had.


World War One. Possibly the worst war in terms of shear physical suffering and definitely one of the worst in terms of death. But also the deaths seemed to be reletively pointless. It was all just a result of the great powers jostleing between themselves for that little bit more greatness. Very few of the soldiers even knew why they were out there. The generals had never seen war like this before and so were using very poor tatics and the ammount of men lost for the ammount of territory gained was rediculously high. Whats even worse is that it acomplished very little. If anything, it caused even more death later on in WW2. Though WW2 had a viable opponent, the removal of the Nazis. Frankly there wasnt much diffrence in terms of goverments during WW1. The German government wasnt somehow evil in the same way that the Nazis were.

I know that, but I was trying to say that its not "the" definitive civil war. There are loads of others, hence why you shouldnt call it "the" civil war.

The poll question was which was the worst war in American history. That's why I felt it needed no clarification. For the record, I am not American, and I know there have been many other wars.

I can't agree that they were isolated incidents. Not everyone was involved, sure, but it was endemic in the Army at that time.
http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20031022/SRTIGERFORCE/110190169
People forget exactly how much was covered up. For instance, at My Lai, where 500 people (unarmed civilians) were butchered, exactly 3 1/2 years were served in prison, by one man. Than Nixon pardoned him. Nobody else was ever put in prison.

My Lai was the worst American atrocity. How many people were killed? About 500. The worst communist atrocity was the Hue Massacre, in which several thousand were killed. Contrary to what pinkos say, the communists weren't these do-gooder, lovable, huggable patriots, they were evil incarnate. Their atrocities make the Nazis look like angels.

Consider this: Vietnam was the first war the U.S. fought in which the media was uncensored. Meaning, the kind of shit that went on probably happened in all the other previous wars, except that we didn't know about it because the press couldn't say a damn thing. The atrocities in the Vietnam War are not unique to that conflict.

Why is everyone so focused on Vietnam? Are you just intent on ignoring what I said about WW1. Vietnam may have been bad but more nations were involved in WW1 and it didnt rearly have the same vaugely viable opponent that Vietnam had.

WWI was a colossal waste, but it brought about the practical end of imperialism, and for the poll question (American history) it simply isn't the worst war for the States.
WWI has been called the Canadian war of Independence here in Canada, because we paid for our freedom from UK with the lives of soldiers at Vimy Ridge and elsewhere. I know it had a similar effect in other countries.
Vietnam, by contrast, had no tangible benefits. Not even one.

No question it would have to be the War of 1812.


Any war where we in which we couldn't successfully invade Canada has got to numero uno on the US war fiasco list.

My Lai was the worst American atrocity. How many people were killed? About 500. The worst communist atrocity was the Hue Massacre, in which several thousand were killed. Contrary to what pinkos say, the communists weren't these do-gooder, lovable, huggable patriots, they were evil incarnate. Their atrocities make the Nazis look like angels.

1: The Communists were despicable.
2: In Vietnam, a country that favored communism (and elected communists) the US fought democracy and helped a dictator. Thus, in Vietnam, the communists were broadly in the irhgt.
3: Communist atrocities were horrible, but 4 million of the 5.4 million dead vietnamese were civilians, and I'm not sure torturing soldiers is as bad as carpet bombing villages.
4: Nothing makes the Nazis look like angels. Try a body count.

Vietnam, because we could have won it fairly easily, simply by blowing the levy.

Or if we didn't use that tactic, we could haev won it still, had no hippies been alive or had they shut the hell up. It was pressure from the f**king hippies -- who could NOT have known what conditions were like over there -- on the government that hurt the effort to defend South Vietnam from the Communist North.

Had all of America been behind the effort, the government would have allowed our military to put its best foot forward... neither happened.

We did not use our most powerful weapons.

etc.

It isn't that the Viet Cong beat America... America beat America.

No question it would have to be the War of 1812.


Any war where we in which we couldn't successfully invade Canada has got to numero uno on the US war fiasco list.

Canada had Brock. You guys had people like Hull. You didn't have a chance because your generals were so horrendously stupid.
WE BURNT DOWN THE WHITE HOUSE!!!!!

No, the topic simpley says "worst war". Thats the thread title anyway

???

Which war was the worst in American history?
Why?

At least 618,000 Americans died in the Civil War, and some experts say the toll reached 700,000. The number that is most often quoted is 620,000. At any rate, these casualties exceed the nation's loss in all its other wars, from the Revolution through Vietnam.
http://www.civilwarhome.com/casualties.htm

How many people died in the Vietnam war? Quick answer: Approximately 5.4 million total.
http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=5096

If you want to compare casualties, that's a different story. But note that the figure you give comes from another forum, and that came from this link http://www.rjsmith.com/kia_tbl.html, which uses as it's source a single AP article quoting the Hanoi figures for the entire 21 years of the war (which includes the French portion of the war). The figure is thus questionable and doesn't neccesarily apply to the US war in Vietnam.

Furthermore, it primarily counts civilan deaths (without listing how many were tangentally connected to the war) whereas the Civil War figure lists only military casualties. Military casulaties are fairly comperable.

Finally, it sidetracks from your argument that the US conduct of the war in Vietnam was inferior to that of the Civil War.

1: The Communists were despicable.
2: In Vietnam, a country that favored communism (and elected communists) the US fought democracy and helped a dictator. Thus, in Vietnam, the communists were broadly in the irhgt.
3: Communist atrocities were horrible, but 4 million of the 5.4 million dead vietnamese were civilians, and I'm not sure torturing soldiers is as bad as carpet bombing villages.
4: Nothing makes the Nazis look like angels. Try a body count.

1.Yes, they were.

2.Rigged elections hardly count, do they? And North Vietnam was far more dictatorial than the South.

3.And most of those civilians were killed by communists. I'm not sure carpet bombing villages is as bad as cutting open pregnant women and pulling their fetus out, cutting off peoples' genitals and stuffing them in their mouths, beating three-year-old girls to a bloody pulp with rifle butts, burning entire villages (including children) with flamethrowers, decapitating people, disemboweling people, impaling little boys' heads with bamboo lances, pulling out tongues with pliers and cutting them out, jamming chopsticks in small childrens' ears and bursting their eardrums, gang-raping women in front of entire villages, burying people alive, beating people to death, car bombing, blowing up hotels and restaurants, kidnapping children and forcing them to go on suicide missions, rigging dead bodies so that when the families came to retrieve them they got blown to smithereens, etc.

4.The Viet cong make them look like angels. In terms of body count, no, but in terms of brutality, hell yes.

.
Vietnam, by contrast, had no tangible benefits. Not even one.

It could be argued that like WW1, one of the major benefits it created was an awareness of a change in warfare. WW1 was the first large scale mechanised war (the American Civil war was not as large scale as this) and demonstrated that the ideas from previous colonial wars were out of date. In the same way, Vietnam taught the Americans the dangers of aysymetrical warfare and that you cannot win just by bashing your way into a country.

Vietnam because President Johnson lied to the American people. Though the United States won every military engagement (and yes, that is a fact), the President failed to sustain popular support on the domestic front.

When the last of our troops pulled out of South Vietnam due to a treaty signed, North Vietnam took it over undoing our efforts to keep communism in check.

youve got to be kidding me the vietnam war was fought back and forth the us did not win every engagement.

youve got to be kidding me the vietnam war was fought back and forth the us did not win every engagement.

We never lost a major battle in that war. If our politicians had balls, we would have won quickly and easily.

We never lost a major battle in that war. If our politicians had balls, we would have won quickly and easily.

You may or may not have realised that the reason you lost is that most of the fighting was not done in battles but in gurrila tatics, which is why the Americans lost.

2.Rigged elections hardly count, do they? And North Vietnam was far more dictatorial than the South.

3.And most of those civilians were killed by communists. I'm not sure carpet bombing villages is as bad as cutting open pregnant women and pulling their fetus out, cutting off peoples' genitals and stuffing them in their mouths, beating three-year-old girls to a bloody pulp with rifle butts, burning entire villages (including children) with flamethrowers, decapitating people, disemboweling people, impaling little boys' heads with bamboo lances, pulling out tongues with pliers and cutting them out, jamming chopsticks in small childrens' ears and bursting their eardrums, gang-raping women in front of entire villages, burying people alive, beating people to death, car bombing, blowing up hotels and restaurants, kidnapping children and forcing them to go on suicide missions, rigging dead bodies so that when the families came to retrieve them they got blown to smithereens, etc.


2. Diem's RVN government had gained the support of the US to circumvent the scheduled democratic elections, and under Diem's dictatorship, South Vietnam would be free of both socialism, and a democratic process that threatened to irreversibly install it. The North Vietnamese had been winning the public relations battle; it had implemented a massive agricultural reform program which distributed land to peasant farmers, and the people of the South took notice. President Eisenhower noted in his memoirs that if a nation-wide election had been held, the communists would have won.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_war

3. How about collecting poeples ears as trophies, machine gunning children, holding a gun to the head of a woman's child and forcing her to give oral sex, burning houses while people are still inside, beating farmers to death with rifles, shooting a young teenager because a soldier wanted to test his new .38 on a live target, and the like? The Soviets did the sort of things you described. They were horrendous. The Americans however, have no right to feel that they were any better, especially since they were doing it to civilians. At least the Americans that the Vietnamese horrifically abused in Vietnam were soldiers.

I have a very simple rebuttal in favor of Vietnam. 600-700 thousand deaths compared to 5.4 million. There is no comparison.

Again, that figure is 600-700,000 military combat deaths, not counting any civilan death. Your 5.4 million for Vietnam includes 4 million deaths not directly attrbuted to combat, and is from a questionable source (the Hanoi government) that has a stake in inflating the civilan deaths (which it lists as 4 million). Furthermore, it includes an extended period of conflict, quite a bit of which was not the US effort.

I know that, but I was trying to say that its not "the" definitive civil war. There are loads of others, hence why you shouldnt call it "the" civil war.

There were loads of other Civil Wars in the US? Since when?

you could say that now with hein sight but then we could say that if france and england had brains (not my opinion just an example) and envaded germany before ww2 then nazi germany might not of killed 2 million jews

to say that any war could have been won quickly and easily in hein sight is easy but in the days of the war the leaders had no idea what they where really fighting.

We never lost a major battle in that war. If our politicians had balls, we would have won quickly and easily.

Not a major battle, but the jungles of 'Nam were hell. Pure hell. the "major battles" were never the issue.

FYI....

Vietnam was not a war... it was a conflict.


All contries involved engaged in acts of war thus making it a war. If you feel it wasn't a war go ahead and try to take away the benefits that have been given to those who fought it. Lets see how long you survive.

Again, that figure is 600-700,000 military combat deaths, not counting any civilan death. Your 5.4 million for Vietnam includes 4 million deaths not directly attrbuted to combat, and is from a questionable source (the Hanoi government) that has a stake in inflating the civilan deaths (which it lists as 4 million). Furthermore, it includes an extended period of conflict, quite a bit of which was not the US effort.



There were loads of other Civil Wars in the US? Since when?

1: Fair enough.
2: Civil wars elsewhere, not in the US.

you could say that now with hein sight but then we could say that if france and england had brains (not my opinion just an example) and envaded germany before ww2 then nazi germany might not of killed 2 million jews

to say that any war could have been won quickly and easily in hein sight is easy but in the days of the war the leaders had no idea what they where really fighting.

It was actually closer to six million Jews that perished in the Holocaust, not to mention the Gypsies, homosexuals, disabled, Poles, Czechs, Slavs, French, British, and especially Soviet men and women as well.

An important war from American history is missing here as well. It seems no one remembers the War of 1812, where we Americans got the tar kicked out of us by the British. Sure, the war ended peacably and it didn't seem like there was a "clear" winner at the time, when the entire Royal Navy is blockading the entire East Coast of the United States and not even blockade runners can get through... well, it's pretty clear who's winning and later who won. (Just for perspective, the American Navy had about 6 frigates completed, with one being built at the time of the war. The British Navy had over 600 with more being produced constantly)

Other than that, the American Civil War was probably the worst. Because, regardless of whether they were Union or Confederate, they were still Americans of some sense or another.

Now, despite all of this, it's safe to say all wars are hell. None of these wars listed has been pretty and clean. It really is difficult to pick a "worst war" because all of them are catastrophic in loss of life. For anyone out there who believes war is a glorious prospect and is a great way to make a nation look good and for their men and women to look brave and true, I have a book that I suggest you read:

All Quiet on the Western Front, by Erich Maria Remarque.

Now, despite all of this, it's safe to say all wars are hell. None of these wars listed has been pretty and clean. It really is difficult to pick a "worst war" because all of them are catastrophic in loss of life. For anyone out there who believes war is a glorious prospect and is a great way to make a nation look good and for their men and women to look brave and true, I have a book that I suggest you read:

All Quiet on the Western Front, by Erich Maria Remarque.

A very good book. And if you think that these things are restricted to war, or the early 1900's- please read Shake Hands With The Devil by Lt. Gen Romeo Dallaire.

The war of American Independance because you yanks would be better off as a British colony! :D

No question it would have to be the War of 1812.


Any war where we in which we couldn't successfully invade Canada has got to numero uno on the US war fiasco list.

Then you have to chalk up the Revolutionary War next to it.

Besides that 1812 shouldn't have happened. Both sides agreed to a cease-fire and thus it really ended in a draw and a victory for no one.

Canada had Brock. You guys had people like Hull. You didn't have a chance because your generals were so horrendously stupid.
WE BURNT DOWN THE WHITE HOUSE!!!!!

Canada didn't but Britain did but lost at Fort McHenry and then were unceremoniously tossed back out.

2. Diem's RVN government had gained the support of the US to circumvent the scheduled democratic elections, and under Diem's dictatorship, South Vietnam would be free of both socialism, and a democratic process that threatened to irreversibly install it. The North Vietnamese had been winning the public relations battle; it had implemented a massive agricultural reform program which distributed land to peasant farmers, and the people of the South took notice. President Eisenhower noted in his memoirs that if a nation-wide election had been held, the communists would have won.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_war

3. How about collecting poeples ears as trophies, machine gunning children, holding a gun to the head of a woman's child and forcing her to give oral sex, burning houses while people are still inside, beating farmers to death with rifles, shooting a young teenager because a soldier wanted to test his new .38 on a live target, and the like? The Soviets did the sort of things you described. They were horrendous. The Americans however, have no right to feel that they were any better, especially since they were doing it to civilians. At least the Americans that the Vietnamese horrifically abused in Vietnam were soldiers.

2.Of course the communists would have won, they already controlled a majority of the people in the North, and the South's government was young and unstable.

3.The Vietnamese did it to civilians as well. And the American atrocities, while by no means justified, were at least somewhat excusable. They could rarely differentiate between civilian and soldier, the nature of the conflict drove many over the edge, and many soldiers interpreted some villagers' refusal to identify Viet cong (because they didn't want to be killed) as signs that they must be the enemy. The Viet cong, however, knew who were civilians and who were not. Moreover, regardless of how common or rare American atrocities were, they were not official U.S. policy. They were official policy for the communists. Communists were encouraged to do such things, and received medals, promotions, etc. as a result of it.

you could say that now with hein sight but then we could say that if france and england had brains (not my opinion just an example) and envaded germany before ww2 then nazi germany might not of killed 2 million jews

6 million Jews! That is what happens when you go with appeasement instead of taking them on head on.

to say that any war could have been won quickly and easily in hein sight is easy but in the days of the war the leaders had no idea what they where really fighting.

Hitler did knew what he was fighting as did Stalin. I'm sure that if you really look at it, most leaders knew what they were fighting.

2: Civil wars elsewhere, not in the US.

Forum Topic: Which war is the worst in American history?

This is what we are answering. Who cares about the rest of the planet at the moment since you want to know which war is the worst in American History.

RoachBusters: I know. The Russians did far worse. So did the Germans. The Eastern Front was a bad place (which reminds me... I have to get 'Berlin' back). But American atrocities were nowhere near as common (leaving aside the bombing raids...) And we are talking about American wars here. In Vietnam, there were many more atrocities. Or there seemed to be. Possibly the reason that Vietnam is perceived as so bad is because of the media. Probably. That, and movies like Full Metal Jacket or Platoon.
And as for Vietnamese atrocities out-brutalising the Nazis, I don't think so. For one, the Vietnamese didn't set up death camps and wipe out ten million people. That isn't brutality? Right so, how about the Nazis on the Eastern Front? They did the same sorta stuff the Soviets did, because the Slavs were a 'lesser race'.

2.Of course the communists would have won, they already controlled a majority of the people in the North, and the South's government was young and unstable.

3.The Vietnamese did it to civilians as well. And the American atrocities, while by no means justified, were at least somewhat excusable. They could rarely differentiate between civilian and soldier, the nature of the conflict drove many over the edge, and many soldiers interpreted some villagers' refusal to identify Viet cong (because they didn't want to be killed) as signs that they must be the enemy. The Viet cong, however, knew who were civilians and who were not. Moreover, regardless of how common or rare American atrocities were, they were not official U.S. policy. They were official policy for the communists. Communists were encouraged to do such things, and received medals, promotions, etc. as a result of it.

2. Irrelevant. It would still be the people's choice, and the US had no right to try and correct, even if it was wrong.
3. The Americans in My Lai knew what they were doing. So did the ones on Tiger Force. Admittedly, they did not abuse at the same level as the Vietnamese, but the fact is that they did knowingly abuse civilians, and the perpetrators were never punished, making the US government complicit in their deaths.

Vietnam. Why? You lost.


You are a fool. Vietnam is not horrible because of its death toll or the fact that we lost, but because the heroes of 'nam were reviled and denigrated by people they fought to protect. Listen to 4 walls of raifford by Lynyrd Skynyrd to get the idea.

2. Irrelevant. It would still be the people's choice, and the US had no right to try and correct, even if it was wrong.
3. The Americans in My Lai knew what they were doing. So did the ones on Tiger Force. Admittedly, they did not abuse at the same level as the Vietnamese, but the fact is that they did knowingly abuse civilians, and the perpetrators were never punished, making the US government complicit in their deaths.


Very relevant, if we were asked for help stopping communists then the truman doctrine said we HAD to help.

Very relevant, if we were asked for help stopping communists then the truman doctrine said we HAD to help.

Congratulations. Your own doctrine says you had to help. A corrupt dictator wants to avoid an election he knows will show overwhelming support for his enemies, and you HAD to help. This is why I find it so amusing when the US talks of spreading democracy. They only do it when its in their interest.
The simple fact is that in the Cold War, the US did some things that were wrong, such as propping up dictators who opposed communism over people who supported it . They did this regardless of the kind of dictator involved, or if it would be in the people's best interest.
Maybe it was neccesary to do it to beat the USSR, I don't know. But don't try and paint it as morally correct.

Ubiqtorate:

Did you creat this thread to bash Ameican Foreign Policy or do you want an honest debate?

Ubiqtorate:

Did you creat this thread to bash Ameican Foreign Policy or do you want an honest debate?

Honest debate. However, I find that American foreign policy in Vietnam is so ridiculously easy to bash that I can't resist. It's one of the chief reasons I believe it to be the worst war in your history: it's a blemish, along with other instances in the Cold War, on America's record in the world.
If I wanted to bash your current foreign policy, I'd be saying the Iraq war was worst, like someone did on an earlier page.

Congratulations. Your own doctrine says you had to help. A corrupt dictator wants to avoid an election he knows will show overwhelming support for his enemies, and you HAD to help. This is why I find it so amusing when the US talks of spreading democracy. They only do it when its in their interest.
The simple fact is that in the Cold War, the US did some things that were wrong, such as propping up dictators who opposed communism over people who supported it . They did this regardless of the kind of dictator involved, or if it would be in the people's best interest.
Maybe it was neccesary to do it to beat the USSR, I don't know. But don't try and paint it as morally correct.


Your facts are in order, however, your conclusions are not. Is it worse to die a poor slave to a foreign nation or a poor free man that works for a corrupt government? Don't tread on me by Metallica is a good example of what happens to a country who is a threat to our lives and livelihood.

Your facts are in order, however, your conclusions are not. Is it worse to die a poor slave to a foreign nation or a poor free man that works for a corrupt government? Don't tread on me by Metallica is a good example of what happens to a country who is a threat to our lives and livelihood.

It isn't a matter of what I think. I would never, ever have wanted to live under Communist rule. I'm not completely ignorant of history. My point though, is- it was their choice, not the choice of the US government. If they wanted to overthrow their morally bankrupt dictator, I don't think it can be presented as moral that the Americans stopped them. It strikes me as a similar attitude to that which the British had: they'd take care of you because you weren't capable of doing it yourselves. It was wrong then, and I think it's probably still worng now.

Honest debate. However, I find that American foreign policy in Vietnam is so ridiculously easy to bash that I can't resist. It's one of the chief reasons I believe it to be the worst war in your history: it's a blemish, along with other instances in the Cold War, on America's record in the world.
If I wanted to bash your current foreign policy, I'd be saying the Iraq war was worst, like someone did on an earlier page.

Care to point out where I said the word current?

Anyway, I do believe that Vietnam was a bad move. I also know that we won every military engagement in Vietnam. I also know that Vietnam wasn't the most costliest war either.

May God be with you (or whatever diety you worship)

Care to point out where I said the word current?

Anyway, I do believe that Vietnam was a bad move. I also know that we won every military engagement in Vietnam. I also know that Vietnam wasn't the most costliest war either.

May God be with you (or whatever diety you worship)

You didn't say current, and I apologize. I'm not trying to bash America, just point out why I feel Vietnam was the worst- because it showed America at its worst. In my mind, this is more important than how many troops died, and it's also important because the people who disgraced the American army in Vietnam were never punished.

You didn't say current, and I apologize. I'm not trying to bash America, just point out why I feel Vietnam was the worst- because it showed America at its worst. In my mind, this is more important than how many troops died, and it's also important because the people who disgraced the American army in Vietnam were never punished.

You might actually be surprised at how many probably got punished without the world knowning about it.

I may not have numbers handy since most of JAG cases are closed so probably alot more probably have been punished than we know about.

It isn't a matter of what I think. I would never, ever have wanted to live under Communist rule. I'm not completely ignorant of history. My point though, is- it was their choice, not the choice of the US government. If they wanted to overthrow their morally bankrupt dictator, I don't think it can be presented as moral that the Americans stopped them. It strikes me as a similar attitude to that which the British had: they'd take care of you because you weren't capable of doing it yourselves. It was wrong then, and I think it's probably still worng now.


The choice of north Vietnam, a seperate country, has no standing on the choice of south Vietnam. Also I must ask if you are a student of history, because if you were you would recognize that those who do are less guilty than those who know and do not stop them.

You might actually be surprised at how many probably got punished without the world knowning about it.

I may not have numbers handy since most of JAG cases are closed so probably alot more probably have been punished than we know about.

To use My Lai as an example, Lt. Calley was pardoned by Nixon. Cpt. Medina, Lt. Col Baxter and the other higher officers were either never charged or acquitted. US servicemen were promoted and got full pensions. Calley works as a jeweller now, so I think it's safe to say that in this case there is no question the people involved got off easy.
I've never seen anything to suggest to me that other cases were handled better.

With popular support America could have won Vietnam no more than a year after the tet offensive, as it was the leaders were to busy trying to cover their asses and not leading the troops. If pacifists did not try to make the rest of the country pacifist we would have beaten the NVA and the VC, but the media did what they always do, they gave more attention to the peaceful liberals than they did to the men who fought and died for their freedom to do so.

The choice of north Vietnam, a seperate country, has no standing on the choice of south Vietnam. Also I must ask if you are a student of history, because if you were you would recognize that those who do are less guilty than those who know and do not stop them.

1:President Eisenhower admitted that the Communists would have overwhelmingly won elections in the South.
2: If it is worse for people to know about but not stop atrocities, how do you explain the US treatment of its own soldiers who commit them? Furthermore, how do you explain the lack of US interest in Rwanda and the Congo? I'm a student of engineering and I take a number of other courses, including world history, and my current belief is that world leaders don't do things because they are right, they do them out of self-interest and use moralistic reasons to garner public suupport.
Also, one might argue that the over 5 million dead in the Vietnam war did more damage than years of Communist rule after the war did.
I could continue, arguing about Agent Orange and toher US tactics, but I think my point is sufficiently clear.

To use My Lai as an example, Lt. Calley was pardoned by Nixon. Cpt. Medina, Lt. Col Baxter and the other higher officers were either never charged or acquitted. US servicemen were promoted and got full pensions. Calley works as a jeweller now, so I think it's safe to say that in this case there is no question the people involved got off easy.
I've never seen anything to suggest to me that other cases were handled better.

BECAUSE ITS A JAG THING!!!!

You don't know Jack about how the military prosecutes people. It ain't public by any stretches of the imagination.

EDIT: Sorry for snapping. I'm getting very emotional and it isn't because of this thread either.

With popular support America could have won Vietnam no more than a year after the tet offensive, as it was the leaders were to busy trying to cover their asses and not leading the troops. If pacifists did not try to make the rest of the country pacifist we would have beaten the NVA and the VC, but the media did what they always do, they gave more attention to the peaceful liberals than they did to the men who fought and died for their freedom to do so.

With respect, I must disagree. The US might have been able to win, but they never could have held Vietnam. Jungles, guerilla warfare, support for the enemy from Iraq, China and the USSR would have made it simply a place for Americans to die in constant numbers. Vietnam was not a war that could be won.

With popular support America could have won Vietnam no more than a year after the tet offensive, as it was the leaders were to busy trying to cover their asses and not leading the troops. If pacifists did not try to make the rest of the country pacifist we would have beaten the NVA and the VC, but the media did what they always do, they gave more attention to the peaceful liberals than they did to the men who fought and died for their freedom to do so.

Most of the top military leaders estimated the war could have been won in six weeks or less.

BECAUSE ITS A JAG THING!!!!

You don't know Jack about how the military prosecutes people. It ain't public by any stretches of the imagination.

EDIT: Sorry for snapping. I'm getting very emotional and it isn't because of this thread either.

That's OK. I wasn't actually trying to make you mad, I was hoping oyu had some documented info that I didn't. The thing I do know is that military documents (such as the ones involving Lt. Calley) are generally declassified after 25 years when there is no need to keep them secret, and the ones that have been declassified suggest justice was never done.

Most of the top military leaders estimated the war could have been won in six weeks or less.

Same people who said Iraq was a 7-10 day operation? And that it wouldn't require long-term commitment?

Sorry, that was a cheap shot, and not on topic. I have difficulty believing such optimistic figures, though.

Forum Topic: Which war is the worst in American history?


The forum is entitiled "Worst war"

1:President Eisenhower admitted that the Communists would have overwhelmingly won elections in the South.
2: If it is worse for people to know about but not stop atrocities, how do you explain the US treatment of its own soldiers who commit them? Furthermore, how do you explain the lack of US interest in Rwanda and the Congo? I'm a student of engineering and I take a number of other courses, including world history, and my current belief is that world leaders don't do things because they are right, they do them out of self-interest and use moralistic reasons to garner public suupport.
Also, one might argue that the over 5 million dead in the Vietnam war did more damage than years of Communist rule after the war did.
I could continue, arguing about Agent Orange and toher US tactics, but I think my point is sufficiently clear.


They would have won says Eisenhower, but is it true? I doubt it, because even the most foolish and poorly informed would not want to be forced into a condition of effective slavery, after about a week they started forming geurilla units to combat the communist occupation.

Same people who said Iraq was a 7-10 day operation? And that it wouldn't require long-term commitment?

Sorry, that was a cheap shot, and not on topic. I have difficulty believing such optimistic figures, though.

It could have been 10-7 days had America not dropped the British proposed fast and light attack plan.

Same people who said Iraq was a 7-10 day operation? And that it wouldn't require long-term commitment?

The operation lasted 1 month. Right inline with what Rumsfield said. The occupation lasted a year or so! Now the Iraqis are incharge again. Don't get me started on this.

Sorry, that was a cheap shot, and not on topic. I have difficulty believing such optimistic figures, though.

And those numbers are just about accurate too. However, the President Micromanaged Vietnam and it was the worst thing Johson could've done.

Same people who said Iraq was a 7-10 day operation? And that it wouldn't require long-term commitment?

Sorry, that was a cheap shot, and not on topic. I have difficulty believing such optimistic figures, though.

That's assuming we invaded the North, mined Haiphong harbor, bombed the transportation links to China, bombed Hanoi, bombed military bases, factories, power plants, etc., bombed the Ho Chi Minh Trail more extensively (trucks that wandered more than 200 yards away from the trail were safe from bombing, under the Rules of Engagement), mobilized the reserves, etc.

They would have won says Eisenhower, but is it true? I doubt it, because even the most foolish and poorly informed would not want to be forced into a condition of effective slavery, after about a week they started forming geurilla units to combat the communist occupation.

That's odd, because they've been under communist rule since the end of the war, and guerilla warfare doesn't seem to have happened in the thirty-odd years since.
Some people actually believe Communist ideology, and there are still numerous communist nations in the world that are more stable and better off than some capitalist ones.

The forum is entitiled "Worst war"

Read the topic line of the poll. We're talking about the Worst War in American History.

That is exactly what they would have done if they hadn't pulled out.

1:President Eisenhower admitted that the Communists would have overwhelmingly won elections in the South.

Of course they would have. Have you ever seen what they did to people who didn't support the communists?

The operation lasted 1 month. Right inline with what Rumsfield said. The occupation lasted a year or so! Now the Iraqis are incharge again. Don't get me started on this.


The Iraqis may be in charge, but American troops are still dying over there; thus it becomes a long term operation simply until Iraq is stable enough for them to leave.

The Iraqis may be in charge, but American troops are still dying over there; thus it becomes a long term operation simply until Iraq is stable enough for them to leave.

Or until the Iraqis ask us to leave. They can do so at anytime you know.

Of course they would have. Have you ever seen what they did to people who didn't support the communists?

It wasn't fear! A totalitarian, pro-American dictator ruled the country and the Army. They hated him, and communism was the only other option.

Or until the Iraqis ask us to leave. They can do so at anytime you know.

Yes, I belive that (that wasn't sarcasm). However, they won't ask you to leave anytime soon, because IRaq isn't stable enough.

It wasn't fear! A totalitarian, pro-American dictator ruled the country and the Army. They hated him, and communism was the only other option.

The only totalitarian S. Vietnamese dictator was Diem, and he wasn't around during the Vietnam War (he was assassinated November 2, 1963). Even most of the people who hated him hated the communists as well.

That's odd, because they've been under communist rule since the end of the war, and guerilla warfare doesn't seem to have happened in the thirty-odd years since.
Some people actually believe Communist ideology, and there are still numerous communist nations in the world that are more stable and better off than some capitalist ones.


They don't get press like the IRA and radio free tibet do. If you can show me a communist nation where the citizens are better off than they would be in America then your argument will have some signifigance, as it is, theres alot of poor capitalist nations.

Yes, I belive that (that wasn't sarcasm). However, they won't ask you to leave anytime soon, because IRaq isn't stable enough.

It soon will be!

The Sunni Iraqi rebels want to give up. The Sunni Clerics are saying that they should join together to help the Country. To join the Police and Army of Iraq.

Things have changed drasticly.

They don't get press like the IRA and radio free tibet do. If you can show me a communist nation where the citizens are better off than they would be in America then your argument will have some signifigance, as it is, theres alot of poor capitalist nations.

America and democracy are superior systems. I have never once claimed otherwise.
However, I can see people looking around and deciding that communism is what's best for their country. Contrary to popular opinion, communism is not inherently wrong. It is just different. I don't agree with it, but I understand how people could, and I don't attempt to force my democratic views on them.

The only totalitarian S. Vietnamese dictator was Diem, and he wasn't around during the Vietnam War (he was assassinated November 2, 1963). Even most of the people who hated him hated the communists as well.

If I'm not mistaken, his generals took charge, and they were still dictators. (If I am wrong, please correct me)

If I'm not mistaken, his generals took charge, and they were still dictators. (If I am wrong, please correct me)

Nguyen Khan was somewhat dictatorial, Nguyen Cao Ky wasn't dictatorial (except for executing corrupt businessmen), and Thieu was extremely corrupt and authoritarian, but I wouldn't call him a dictator.

Nguyen Khan was somewhat dictatorial, Nguyen Cao Ky wasn't dictatorial (except for executing corrupt businessmen), and Thieu was extremely corrupt and authoritarian, but I wouldn't call him a dictator.

Thank you.

Thank you.

They were angels compared to Diem, though.

Honestly, the people lableing GW2 as the worst war must be dilusional. Even if you hate Bush Jr., current US forign pollocy, and the occupation, Vietnam was worse in every possible way, the Civil war killed more Americans than all other wars combined, the WW1 was the most :headbang: war in world histroy.

That being said, my vote is for WW1 because it set the stage for all the other conflicts on the 20th century. The Cold War happened because WW1 allowed the bolshevics(sp?) to take power in Russia. WW2 happended because the Europeans destroied the German economy, Vietnam and Korea were both because of the Cold War, as is the current groups of Islamic terrorists that are causeing trouble. WW1 and WW2 also forced us onto the forign stage, which we could have done without. We were perfectly happy to just sit back and trade with everyone without geting involved with everyone else's conflicts.

1: Fair enough.

;)

2: Civil wars elsewhere, not in the US.

My (somewhat) facetious question about multiple US Civil Wars was directed towards Neo Cannen's seeming inability to read the word "American" in the title, a la:

I know that, but I was trying to say that its not "the" definitive civil war. There are loads of others, hence why you shouldnt call it "the" civil war.

Steel Fish: Good points.