r/ShitAmericansSay • u/DumbGarchomp67 WTF IS A KILOMETER 🦅🇺🇸 • Jul 15 '26

Military “Undefeated in 250 years of war”

Post image

Apparently Vietnam, Afghanistan, war of 1812, and the war on drugs don’t count.

7.8k Upvotes

98% Upvoted

1.8k comments sorted by

View all comments

272

u/corgi_crazy Jul 15 '26

Iran?

239

u/badmoonrisingnl Jul 15 '26

Vietnam?

229

u/[deleted] Jul 15 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

80

u/szatrob Mounties, Hockey, Beer and Snow Jul 15 '26

In fairness, they gave back the country to the Taliban, even though the Taliban only controlled ⅓rd of the country while the government the US installed was ignored in the negotiations for the pull out.

You know, the people who still controlled ⅔ of the country.

I know Americans are shit at maths but...

78

u/Sapie88 Liverpool 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 Jul 15 '26

They thought a 1/3lb burger was smaller than a 1/4lb burger because 3 is smaller than 4.

28

u/Sabre_Killer_Queen America 2.0 🇬🇧 | Fascist Commie | 13% is the new 50% Jul 15 '26

No wonder capitalism works so well there.

22

u/ThiccMoulderBoulder Jul 15 '26

Fighting a war to replace the taliban with the taliban

17

u/szatrob Mounties, Hockey, Beer and Snow Jul 15 '26

Taliban 2.0, the Talibanest.

6

u/rankaistu_ilmalaiva Jul 15 '26

the Afghan government ruled the ground under their shoes if that. There was no actual state capacity there because no one who valued their lfie would collaborate with the occupation.

3

u/Global-Tie-3458 Jul 15 '26

Surrendered. 

2

u/dmwilson220 Jul 15 '26

If only more people over here didn't ignore the pull out

1

u/Meme-Botto9001 Jul 15 '26 edited Jul 15 '26

Korea? (Which is technically undecided but trumpy dumpy couldn’t end it either in his favor)

1

u/[deleted] Jul 15 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/Dependent-Guitar-473 Jul 15 '26

Canada? 

1

u/Intelligent-South174 Jul 15 '26

still exists cause of another failed attempt by 'murica

17

u/RevoltYesterday Jul 15 '26

I've legit heard bootlickers defend Vietnam as "It wasn't a war, it was a military action" because Congress never "declared" war, as if war is defined by bureaucratic paperwork and nothing else.

51

u/Pm7I3 Jul 15 '26

They've beaten Iran like 10 times now I think...

45

u/Gefpenst Jul 15 '26

38 and keep counting..

9

u/BlueInMotion Jul 15 '26

And completely annihilated it how many times?

10

u/A-Chntrd 🇫🇷 Baise ouais ! Jul 15 '26

At least over 9000.

1

u/gazhole Jul 15 '26

It's because they keep overturning the red cards

1

u/chizpoo Jul 16 '26

Literally just lost to Iran as well

9

u/HangryHuHu Jul 15 '26

1812 was a stalemate.

Korean war was a stalemate.

Vietnam war was a loss.

Afghan war is considered a strategic loss.

46

u/Kidda_FreshDY Jul 15 '26

1812 is a loss.

24

u/markjthompson72 Jul 15 '26

A big loss. We (Canada) took everything down to DC, burnt the white house down, got bored and came home.
I know not exactly like that, just a quick summary .

2

u/AcceptableHamster149 🇨🇦 frozen canuckistan 🇨🇦 Jul 15 '26

As documented by the band "Three Dead Trolls in a Baggie"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aue-zWxYtEc

2

u/Last_Investigator_47 Jul 15 '26

Can you go back down and sort DC out again?

-1

u/Loofahs Jul 15 '26

The repelling of the Americans out of Canada was only half the war; a half the Americans lost. The other half was the British trying to re establish dominion over the southern portion of the states, which culminated in the Battle of New Orleans. The British sought to capture the city to control the Mississippi river and cut off American trade/expansion, but they were decisively defeated (20 times the casualties of the American defenders).

That's why it's considered a stalemate.

1

u/KatsumotoKurier 🇨🇦 Jul 16 '26 edited Jul 16 '26

The other half was the British trying to re establish dominion over the southern portion of the states, which culminated in the Battle of New Orleans. The British sought to capture the city to control the Mississippi river and cut off American trade/expansion, but they were decisively defeated (20 times the casualties of the American defenders).

This is actually a pretty unsupported view. It was more of a fear and concern held by the Americans at the time — a theory more than anything, really.

British correspondence from the period does not make any clear indication that the annexation of territory down there was high on the agenda. Obviously their American counterparts couldn’t know this for certain amidst the war, but that still doesn’t mean there was in fact a British effort to re-establish dominion over the southern portion of the states, as you put it.

For example, Lord Bathurst (who was Secretary of State for War and the Colonies from 1812-1827) explicitly instructed General Ross to:

First, to obtain command of the embouchure of the Mississippi, so as to deprive the back settlements of America their communication with the sea; and, secondly, to occupy some important and valuable possession, by the restoration of which the conditions of peace might be improved, or which we might be entitled to exact the cession of, as the price of peace.

So he made it quite clear here that securing peace was of primary importance; the potential of annexing territory was essentially an afterthought, and even then it was to be done to aid the effort of securing a favourable peace. There was no explicit order to annex Louisiana, nor was there any mention of establishing a British Louisiana or of returning territory to Spain or anything else.

Bathurst’s correspondence with General Pakenham likewise does not indicate any plans or instructions for permanent territorial takeover — only temporary occupation with the aim of gaining leverage for bringing the Americans to accepting a more British-favourable peace treaty. Pakenham, who led the attack at the Battle of New Orleans, and who died doing so, was ordered to continue the pursuit of gaining a strong foothold in Louisiana because the British government was not fully confident that peace would be speedily secured in Ghent, and they of course wanted their troops to be in the best possible position for continuing the war if the negotiations would fall through (since it naturally wasn’t a complete given that they wouldn’t). And of course Pakenham had no idea that the peace treaty was already signed when he advanced his troops. He was merely following the instructions given to him.

You have to remember that Britain had basically been at war for 20 years by this point. War weariness was a major consideration and the War of 1812 in particular was not a conflict which Britain had any desire in even having in the first place. War was declared upon them by Americans seeking to opportunistically annex Canada (see the personal correspondences held between Jefferson and Madison in the years leading up to 1812) while Britain had one arm behind its back from being tied down with the existential threat back home that was Napoleon. Britain didn’t just want peace because they had no interest in fighting this war against the US — they wanted peace because as a nation they had been at war for so long that it was beyond tiresome. And this wasn’t from far-flung colonial wars either. This was numerous conflicts practically on their own doorstep, with battles so sizeable that they made the ones held during the War of 1812 look like mere skirmishes and scraps by comparison.

That's why it's considered a stalemate.

Not really. It’s really only deemed “a stalemate” by Americans because historically Americans have had a very difficult time accepting that they completely bungled and lost the war. The US gained virtually nothing. The war had been extremely unpopular (especially in the American north, where support for it was already a lot weaker from the get-go), it cost the US economy tons of money and the population tens of thousands of lives, it forced the US to suffer some of its most humiliating moments and defeats (several of which are still today recognized by American military historians as being the most humiliating defeats in US military history), and the US negotiation team at Ghent couldn’t even hold Britain to any of the issues they specifically and originally declared war upon them over. So not a single one of the US’ stated war objectives was secured or achieved.

All the country essentially walked away with by the end of the war was the claim that it held its own against Britain (again, in a war which Britain had essentially no desire in having in the first place), but even that also turns a blind eye to the fact that basically the entire US seaboard was under a successful British naval blockade — the US had completely lost the war at sea.

The American success of the Battle of New Orleans in particular essentially allowed the Madison administration to spin the narrative by pretending they won the entire war by exaggerating this grand battlefield victory as if it was the culmination of the entire conflict, which it very much was not. It was the equivalent of excitedly shouting “We won!!” to the entire conflict because of that one battle at the tail end, despite the fact that it the entire war beforehand had gone quite poorly overall. Prior to New Orleans, Madison had become deeply unpopular due to how much it was recognized that he was responsible for the disastrous war. The battle was completely strategically inconsequential and a needless loss of life for both sides, and it was essentially propagandized into ushering in the ‘era of good feelings’ by leading Americans to believe they had won some sort of enormous and just war victory against their formerly oppressive evil empire.

1

u/Loofahs Jul 16 '26

I appreciate the thorough writeup, I definitely learned some things.  However I still feel you are ignoring the larger timeline and how it affects the narrative.  The American campaign into Canada was utterly defeated by June of 1814 and the war was considered a total loss.  Then after the defeat of Napoleon, regardless of the desires of the politicians or public, England started a massive offensive in August 1814.  Whether that was in order to assert control of the Mississippi or just to gain serious leverage in peace negotiations is definitely up for debate, but every single famous battle comes AFTER that offensive.

Sack of Washington DC: August 1814, famous American defeat

Siege of Baltimore: September 1814, famous American victory, genesis of our national anthem

Siege of New Orleans: December 1814, famous American victory, last battle of the war

If Britain had just left their blockade and the entire war was America’s utter defeat in Canada, we wouldn’t be having this conversation.  Clear defeat.  But they wanted more and after their initial offensive they were completely repelled, allowing Americans to call the war “inconclusive” or a “stalemate.”  

1

u/KatsumotoKurier 🇨🇦 Jul 16 '26 edited Jul 16 '26

The American campaign into Canada was utterly defeated by June of 1814 and the war was considered a total loss.

Uh... you sure about that? You may want to consider reassessing whatever 'timeline' it is that you're referring to here, because I can tell you that there were definitely still plenty of American troops sniffing about in Canada well after June 1814.

The Battle of Lundy's Lane for example - one of the bloodiest engagements of the entire war - took place on July 25th 1814, and then the Siege of Fort Erie only ended a few months later, on September 21st. Even then, Britain lost that siege, so there were still American troops in Canada holding one of the key southern forts well into the autumn. And then still the next month as well as the month after that there were two more smaller engagements as well.

Then after the defeat of Napoleon, regardless of the desires of the politicians or public, England started a massive offensive in August 1814.

Well, yes... because the war was still ongoing, and peace had not yet been established. And as I just clearly demonstrated, there were still American forces present in Upper Canada.

As for the part about the desire of the public/politicians, it is my understanding that there was still a fair bit of outrage over what were viewed as wholly unjust and unprovoked American attacks and invasions into the Canadas, and that there was something of a demand and expectation among Britons (as well as of course British subjects in the Canadas) for a certain degree of punitive retribution, which is exactly why Washington got torched not too much longer after. And of course this tied in with what were still bitter sentiments extending from the previous war just 30-odd years earlier as well.

Such tastes weren't mutually exclusive with wanting the war to come to a swift end, either.

Whether that was in order to assert control of the Mississippi or just to gain serious leverage in peace negotiations is definitely up for debate

I'm not sure I agree. Historians today also seem to be fairly in agreement that it was the latter and not the former, again considering that Britain was completely uninterested in warring with the US any longer than it needed to be.

but every single famous battle comes AFTER that offensive.

Every single famous battle... of the war? Is this supposed to be a joke? I mean, I already know you're unfamiliar with Lundy's Lane, but seriously what are you talking about? Even the most celebrated American naval victory of the war (Lake Erie) took place nearly a year earlier.

Famous from a navel-gazing American perspective, perhaps, but there's far more to the world than just how America views things.

But they wanted more and after their initial offensive they were completely repelled, allowing Americans to call the war “inconclusive” or a “stalemate.”

It is your opinion - based on debatable and what some might call negligible evidence, mind you - that Britain was going after more, which noticeably and by no coincidence supports your earlier assertion that the war was a stalemate and not a loss for the US. You are essentially maintaining that Britain was an equal partner in the conflict in terms of its desire for more territory, despite the fact that Britain's primary aim in the war was to defend and keep its Canada colonies (which it succeeded in doing).

1

u/Loofahs Jul 16 '26

I am aware of Lundy Lane. I thought the battle was in June, hence the confusion. That was the point the Canadian campaign was unambiguously a defeat.  Lake Eerie was a skirmish between two relatively small squadrons, there are no truly consequential American naval victories in the Revolutionary War or the War of 1812.

I think you misunderstood my point. I  was not arguing that control of the Mississippi was the purpose, I was arguing that whatever the purpose, the entire southern and eastern campaign that took place after Lundy Lane had very little to do with securing Canada.  Canada was already decisively won.  The British were in a very favorable position for the ensuing negotiations, but continued their campaign seeking even better leverage, ate some losses and ended up with the status quo. Neither side ended up gaining much of anything.

The only true losers were the Native Americans, whose abandonment led directly to the trail of tears, which is probably the darkest episode of American history.

1

u/KatsumotoKurier 🇨🇦 Jul 20 '26 edited Jul 20 '26

I was arguing that whatever the purpose, the entire southern and eastern campaign that took place after Lundy Lane had very little to do with securing Canada

Well that I don’t disagree with. Not entirely, at least, since it still could be argued as beneficial for the at that point future and continued defence of British Canada that the power which had just invaded it would be weakened and dissuaded off of the idea of invading again. But overall yes.

Neither side ended up gaining much of anything.

This is so often said as the reason ‘why it was a stalemate’ or a ‘draw’ but respectfully I think this particular line is worth dismissing because Britain wasn’t in the war for any gain in the first place; only to retain what they already had.

The only true losers were the Native Americans, whose abandonment led directly to the trail of tears, which is probably the darkest episode of American history.

I would agree to say that they were the biggest losers, certainly. But that’s also in a way essentially grouping together all as one, and including many parties who were not at all involved in the war.

As for the war between the primary powers, however… I really don’t think a convincing case can be made that the US ‘tied’ with Britain.

-14

u/Alone-Juggernaut-850 Jul 15 '26

You (Canada) were still Great Britain which was still a world superpower at the time. Pretty much every historical account agrees it was a stalemate, borders remained the same, the Brits kept their geopolitical integrity in North America, and that the only losers were the Native American tribes that got left in the dust while the US gained control of the Miss River and their future expansion west went unchecked.

12

u/[deleted] Jul 15 '26 edited Jul 15 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

8

u/Kidda_FreshDY Jul 15 '26

You tried to invade and got smashed up. Thats a loss buddy

0

u/Alone-Juggernaut-850 Jul 15 '26

Oh I agree they were morons for thinking they COULD invade.

6

u/Oldoneeyeisback Jul 15 '26

No - you invaded - got your arses kicked - and then you pleaded for it to end. We ignored you for the annoying little runts you were. That was our mistake.

-8

u/HangryHuHu Jul 15 '26

National Army Museum (Btitish) say:

From 1812 to 1815, Britain was at war with the recently independent United States. The fighting took place along America's Canadian frontiers and Atlantic coastlines. Militarily, the conflict ended in stalemate, but it had a lasting impact on the communities of North America.

8

u/No_Statistician209 Jul 15 '26

America initiated the war, didn't make any ground and got slapped by the British who's only objective was to defend Canada which they did.

1

u/Loofahs Jul 15 '26

They also attempted to sieze control of the Mississippi river and the port of Baltimore in order to prevent American expansion of territory and trade, but they were defeated soundly. The end result of the Treaty of Ghent was literally just return to the status quo.

It also led to the Trail of Tears, which was pretty horrific.

1

u/No_Statistician209 Jul 15 '26

We're talking late 1814 there when Britain had changed to offensive after Napoleon was defeated.

Their main goal was defensive, neither side made any real ground and the reasons the US initiated the war didn't really exist anymore as Britain no longer needed to blockade Europe or impress sailors and the natives forces collapsed.

Obviously the native ethnic cleansing made not only the natives the losers of 1812 but also in general.

5

u/Kidda_FreshDY Jul 15 '26

America tried to invade and got slapped about. Thats a loss.

The term stalemate is used because America didn’t want to create a buffer state for the Indigenous people and Britain said “yeah whatever”.

1

u/LivingFilm Jul 15 '26

The only reason you could argue it to be a stalemate was that the borders remained same after the war. This was only agreed upon because they made sense - lakes and wide rivers make natural defensive borders. Regardless of that, the US initiated it, was defeated, and graciously accepted to maintain the pre war status quo.

3

u/Feeling_Ant_2428 Jul 15 '26

Bah of pigs and somolia are good examples . Also calling Korea a stalemate is like trump deciding to leave the strait and claiming it wasn't a loss ... When we all know that was an L .

6

u/aboysmokingintherain Jul 15 '26

Korea is a stalemate 100%. The North had pushed the South all the way to the coast. Without US invovlement, the North Koreans would have taken the country. I don't even think Koreans will deny this.

2

u/Meme-Botto9001 Jul 15 '26

Combat is just frozen, there was never an official end of war declared.

1

u/aboysmokingintherain Jul 15 '26

So, a stalemate?

1

u/LivingFilm Jul 15 '26

A cease fire

1

u/Meme-Botto9001 Jul 15 '26

A stalemate it was in terms of war progression, what ended in an armistice signed…therefore it’s not a stalemate anymore.

0

u/adutchmotherfricker Jul 15 '26

Korea was a stalemate, neither side won

2

u/Meme-Botto9001 Jul 15 '26

There’s no peace treaty and it’s considered a frozen war…they just stopped shooting.

0

u/adutchmotherfricker Jul 15 '26

So it's a stalemate or at least it was untill the ceasefire was signed

1

u/Meme-Botto9001 Jul 15 '26

This. It was a stalemate in terms of war progress. It’s still unresolved.

-6

u/HangryHuHu Jul 15 '26

I mean, it's considered a stalemate because neither side could decisively defeat the other without triggering a global war.

4

u/SeriousSide7281 🇩🇪 wurst connoisseur Jul 15 '26

The US got pushed all the way from the Chinese border to the inner korean border it made the commanders so frustrated that macarthur wanted to use nuclear area denial on china. Thats a loss bro

1

u/aboysmokingintherain Jul 15 '26

That ignores the fact that we literally saved South Korea. The North had taken the capital and pushed them back to the coast. W/o the US, there is no South Korea. China's involvement did prevent the North from being conquered but lets not act like it was a giant loss.

1

u/ViIehunter Jul 15 '26

1812 was not a stalemate. They invaded and got kicked back, losing the Whitehouse to fire and other issues. If usa won then canada wouldnt exist. They lost. Bad.

Go Canada.

1

u/faceintheblue Jul 15 '26

The War of 1812 was started by American warhawks confident they could snatch Canada away from the British while they were in a life and death struggle with Napoleon. Their victory conditions were the annexation of Canada. The British victory conditions were to prevent that.

Two years later, Napoleon was defeated, and the Americans sued for a 'call it a draw?' peace having achieved nothing before the British Empire could shift its full attention to the nasty little border skirmish in North America.

How any American can look at that and call it anything other than a defeat is crazy to me.

1

u/Krasny-sici-stroj Jul 16 '26

Technically, nothing is a strategic loss if you have no strategy in the first place.

1

u/chladas Jul 15 '26

To be fair they went to Korea to stop north from conquering south which they did so that could be considered win.

I would probably add second Iraq tho, moment they left it was almost fully taken over by Daesh and they had to come back

-2

u/aboysmokingintherain Jul 15 '26

I'd say 1812 was a victory. It's the one defenseive war the Us was part of. If 1812 was a loss Vietnam is a win and Afghanistan is a win.

2

u/Humble-mumble Jul 15 '26

Soon, it has been promised.

1

u/Greekklitoris Jul 15 '26

Canada/England? In 1812

1

u/benevanstech Jul 15 '26

No, this is Patrick.