I've often seen people point out that the United States has never (or has rarely) won wars against peer opponent(s) without the help of allies.While arguably true, I find it a strange thing to point to, when by my count only three European countries have done so in the past 250 years;>Denmark against the German Confederation in 1852>Bulgaria against Serbia in 1885>Italy against Turkey in 1912The Franco-Prussian War doesn't really count since it started as the German Confederation, which only formed the German Empire well after the conventional phase of the war (ie the Battle of Sedan) was over.Am I missing any or is this it?
>>18649921US v Mexico, US v Spain?
From the look of those wars, they're minor territorial squabbles that resulted in long-disputed territories changing hands. So the closest to that would be the Mexican-American War, which the US won easily, and to my knowledge with no material aid from anyone. I'd be interested to see your mental gymnastics routine about how Mexico at the time of the Mexican-American war was not a "peer nation" to the US, without resorting to base racism.
>>18649941>MexicoNot peer.>SpainHardly peer, also had Cuban and Filipino allies.>>18649949>I'd be interested to see your mental gymnastics routine about how Mexico at the time of the Mexican-American war was not a "peer nation" to the US, without resorting to base racism.Consensus is on Mexico having not been a peer power. They had no real governance of their northern territories to begin with and their weapons and powder were completely outdated.The burden of proof lies with the claimant; prove that Mexico was somehow a peer power to the United States in 1846, because as said consensus is on my side.
>>18649921Denmark only "won" because great power intervene
>>18649949>without resorting to base racism"without pointing out the obvious"
>>18649964what the fuck, so the condition is that your enemy has to be super powerful, but you have to beat him 1v1 and you can't have any allies? What even qualifies then, the 100 years war?
>>18649988>super powerfulMore like roughly equally powerful. Being somewhat weaker works so long as they're still generally on your level; it's why I counted the Italo-Turkish War.
>>18649964This is completely untrue. European observers thought Mexico with its on paper standing national army would put a much better fight compared to America which had on the onset a very small professional army in addition to a large group composed of unseasoned volunteers. Yet America didn’t just beat them in the North, but had obliterated Mexico in its own heartland.
>>18649996alright then King Philip's War.
>>18650015>This is completely untrue.Dude, you can pick just about any fucking source you want about the Mexican-American War, and it will almost certainly point out that Mexico didn't compare to the United States in strength. Their black powder was extremely low quality and a majority of their muskets were flintlock. You can cite your weird European exceptions you claim exist if you want, but even then they're still exceptions. You have to do better.>>18650017The United States existed before 1776?1675 was 250 years ago?
>>18650021Those sources reflect the thoughts afterwards of the conflict. Yet the first hand sources of the time saw Europeans expect Mexico to win, as they saw the American Volunteer Force + Small Professional Core backwards. Peer conflicts refer to what on paper are equal sides, whether one side eventually stomps is irrelevant to the initial matching.
>>18650026>Yet the first hand sources of the time saw Europeans expect Mexico to winThe first hand sources you're still refusing to cite.>Peer conflicts refer to what on paper are equal sidesMexico was not equal on paper to the United States in 1846 no matter how you look at it.
>>18650030Well if it has to be spooned, then so be it>Page 105-106, The war with Mexicoby Smith, Justin Harvey, 1857-1930>https://archive.org/details/warwithmexico01smit>“Indeed, as competent a judge as Captain Elliot, British minister in Texas — who knew the United States well, and in the spring of 1845 was in close touch with Mexican leaders at their capital — said that the greater their number, the greater would be the difficulty of invading Mexico. "They could not resist artillery and cavalry in a Country suited to thpse arms, " he believed ; "they are not amenable to discipline, they plunder the peasantry, they are without steadiness under reverses, they cannot march on foot." Nor did there exist in this country, added Elliot, either aptitude or adequate means for a regular military invasion.^>America, as an aggressive power is one of the weakest m the world ... fit for nothing but to fight Indians," declared Britannia, an important English weekly; and apparently the war of 1812, to which the Mexicans referred with peculiar satisfaction, had proved even more than this. The military operations in a war between Mexico and the United States would be "contemptible and indecisive," said the London Times.
>>18650172>Cont. The Mexicans, on the other hand, were deemed by many observers decidedly formidable. "There are no better troops in the world, nor l^etter drilled and armed, than the Mexicans," asserted Calderon de la Barca, the Spanish minister at Washington; and some of the generals were thought, even by foreigners, equal to the most renowned in Europe. The Americans would be at a vast disadvantage, was Captain Elliot's opinion, "in rapidity of movement" and ability to endure "continued fatigue on the hardest food." The soldiers of the tri-color "are superior to those of the United States," declared the Mexico correspondent of the London Times flatly in 1845.
>>18650172>spoonedYou're trying to argue against the status quo with only a "trust me bro." Citing your sources is the bare minimum you can do.You're missing the forest for the trees with your source. Britain had been trying to thwart Texas' annexation and were (obviously) deeply opposed to it and in support of Mexico, due in part to their abolitionism. One of the sources your source cites is Captain Charles Elliot, who was directly involved in attempts to thwart Texas' annexation (Bauer, K. Jack, The Mexican War, p. 9). Another is Benjamin Ogle Taloe, a slave plantation owning businessman recollecting conversations he had with Richard Pakenham (British) and Ángel Calderón de la Barca y Belgrano (Spanish). Aside from Britain's overall bias against the United States and in favor of Mexico, I'm unsure if I should have to mention that Spain had lost the Mexican War of Independence 25 years before (when he would have been 31), and how Calderón could have considered the United States handily beating an enemy his own country was bested by as inconceivable due to reasons of national honor rather than logic or paper strength?The only observer whose opinion I'd consider of relevance would be Friedrich von Gerolt (Prussian), but of course Taloe recalls the least of him,>Baron Gerolt told me nearly the same thing preparing me to expect defeat, saying, "he knew Mexico well."https://www.google.com/books/edition/In_Memoriam_Benjamin_Ogle_Tayloe/TpMEAAAAYAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PA114&printsec=frontcoverThat's one man's opinion, hardly consensus, and it's worth noting Prussia was a signatory of the Treaty for the Suppression of the African Slave Trade, so it's possible his opinion could have been based on biased cope much like Elliot's, and Pakenham and Calderón's reportedly were.Do you recall how prior to the 1991 Gulf War, people were speculating that it would be like a Vietnam War? A meat grinder for the United States? Does that mean that Iraq was a 'peer power' too?
>>18650172>>18650222I should add, Friedrich von Gerolt seemed to have been receiving false information from Mexico at around the time. Bauer, K. Jack, The Mexican War, p. 19,https://archive.org/details/mexicanwar0000kjac/page/18/mode/2up>In early August an attack of jitters struck Washington. The Prussian minister, Baron Gerolt, relayed a report from Mexico that 3,000 men had been ordered to the Rio Grande with another 10,000 to follow. The administration sent 10,000 muskets to Galveston to arm Texas volunteers. The reported proved to contain little fact. A more accurate view was seen from Corpus Christi. By August 12 Taylor knew that the Matamoros garrison numbered but 500 men and the reinforcements numbered only 1,000 soldiers.Him getting his information on Mexican strength likely from Mexico explains a lot.Here's the source Bauer cites so you can see Gerolt's report based on information from an unnamed informant yourself,https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc2.ark:/13960/t70v8b15c&seq=246&q1=GeroltBasically, Europe didn't think Mexico was our equal; Britain hoped Mexico was, and a misled Prussian believed somebody (likely Mexican) who told him the same.I should add these are all politicians and not military strategists.
>>18650222>>18650232I think you’re having to much tunnel vision over the war’s conclusion, and not how it was at the start. Iraq faced an American Superpower, clearly different from 1850s America. US was deemed a Mexican equal because it barely spent money for the armed forces, its doctrine Europeans felt was wholly inadequate for war and they had full expectation it would be exposed. This is why Europeans made those statements, and they shouldn’t be waved away for merely bias. Definitely not Charles Elliot, since he was familiar with the on the ground situation and reflected Texan Deficiencies at attempting to control just Texas proper to likely extending to the entirety of America’s volunteer military force. The performance of Taylor and Scott caught everyone by surprise by just how well Americans organized logistics that had so badly undermined the Texans. I suppose in this way it’s analogous to the Gulf War, yet the Gulf War the final result wasn’t in doubt while casualties were expected higher. Meanwhile at the start many thought Mexico would succeed in blunting US attacks.
Even if it is technically true that US doesn’t have ebin 1vs1 solo victories, does it matter? Real wars are not about chivalric duels or competitive sports, military is an extension of politics, and diplomacy is politics (duh).Reminds me of naziboos going all ”waa it’s not fair that Germany had to face all those nations at once, Germany would have won them if it was 1vs1”. Perhaps, but so what? Military power doesn’t exist in void free of politics, and entering war with allies is military wisdom in the same sense that trying to take on a stronger alliance is a military error.
>>18651502thishonor is for retardswars are won on bullets, industry and diplomacy, not martial courage
>>18649921I think the person worded it wrong.The metric should be nations which:>declared war>spearheaded the war effort>wonEngland, Spain, France, Austria, Russia, all of these are nations which accomplished this multiple times. Germany isn't, but Prussia is. The USA's largest victory was probably the Mexican-American War I guess, other than the initial War of Independence of course.Other than that I guess it's Vietnam and Afghanistan, both of which it lost.
