War - Did the "good guys" ever lose one?

[Deleted]

I just got to thinking about this when pondering future politics and the world shifting it's seat of power; Did the "good guys" ever lose a war?
I know there are plenty of "freedom fighters" who've been butchered throughout history, but what legitimate wars have there been that an aggressor ever won and the nation or people that got attacked just never got their due?
Is it the case of: the winner writes the history?

First thing that springs to mind is the Vietnam war, but was that really "lost" in that sense? Who the "good guys" where there was a bit ambigous.


And something else!
All you hear in history lessons and on TV is how well-known personalities through history conquered and did this and that, it's all so glorified and wonderful. Why do we consider Ghengis Khan to be such an admirable personality? Why do we so look up to Napoleon and call him great? Why do we so revere these mass murderers and butcherers when we at the same time despice any and all aggression in our own time? Are we so detached from our own history just because it's not we that went through it? Is that why we re-live history over and over with wars, "It wasn't me"?

Imagine all the people and all the nations that have been killed, changed or simply been wiped from the map in the last 1000 years of human history. Do we ever depict the story of the ones that lost? Do we take interest in them and revere what was lost?

[Bubbletrance]

I just got to thinking about this when pondering future politics and the world shifting it's seat of power; Did the "good guys" ever lose a war?
I know there are plenty of "freedom fighters" who've been butchered throughout history, but what legitimate wars have there been that an aggressor ever won and the nation or people that got attacked just never got their due?
Is it the case of: the winner writes the history?

There are never "good guys" in war. It's a facade.
As to "good guys" losing, Poland and France would like a word with you.

[Raylinn]

Everyone's the good guy in their own eyes, but if you're talking about us.. Vietnam and Korea really. Vietnam because we failed to stop the North's advance as we intended, and Korea because we really didn't do anything.. it was just a waste imo.

[anathama]

History is written by the victors.

[Temp name]

what anathama said, if X country won a war, then they're gonna tell the story of how Y country was evil and had to be defeated, and how they're always good and so on

[Arnan]

It is kind of hard to say "These are the good guys" in the majority of history's wars - Afterall, when France and England is beating on each other, there is hardly a Lawful Good regent on either side.

But, depending on your view, the Indian Wars arguably ended with the good guys loosing, so did the conquest of Africa.

[nyc81991]

I'm not sure there really were ever "good guys" to lose unfortunately. Other than the American revolution which out right fought for Freedom and some other wars after that. But if you look back over 300 years ago the world was pretty much ruled by tyranny, and almost all wars were one form of a tyranny against another. The strongest tyranny won and took over all others. Someone correct me if I am wrong but to my knowledge that is pretty much the way it was.

[Eats Compost]

No-one is the bad guy in their own eyes. History is written by the victor. Combine those two things, and it really makes no sense to think about who the good guy was because so much information is completely lost to us.

[Airwaves]

Everyone's the good guy in their own eyes, but if you're talking about us.. Vietnam and Korea really. Vietnam because we failed to stop the North's advance as we intended, and Korea because we really didn't do anything.. it was just a waste imo.

Vietnam you where the bad guys if you do not want to believe that you are free to. Still doesn't change the fact you were fighting a country trying to defend and take back what lands it owned. Communism isn't the bad guys from a bias point of view. Neither is Democracy. The fact that you were fighting in there country made you the bad guys. If they were fighting in America they would have been the bad guys.

As for Korea you were the good guys since you were fighting a dictatorship who would (And still do) suppress there own people. That is a war that still hasn't been won or lost since it is still going. So you can't say the good guys won there.

[Sargerus]

History is written by the victors.

This. The winner side is always the "good guy".

[Hypro]

History is written by the victors.

excatly this. The good guys are the people who won the war

[starlord]

i think the vast majority of them have been like this? its only in the 20th century anyone thought it was "immoral" to attack other countries lol.

[Easo]

Yes, of course good guys have lost. Also war leaders can and will be great.

[ciggy]

I think so, yeah.

I know history is written by the winners, in the blood of the losers. Not sure who said that, but it rings true. I think the allies were the good guys, that's really the last war you could say anything about good guys and bad guys. And I also know, it's varying degrees of good and bad there.

I watched something on the military channel (or mabbe the history channel) about how Germany's troops were freezing on the front lines with the Russians and folks were asked to donate to the war effort and alot of folks, gave their jackets, and coats and warm clothing so they wouldn't be so cold. That just makes you realize, both sides in any war think they are doing the right thing, that they are the good guys in their own minds. I don't know of a single "war" that either side thought they were the bad guys.

[Prokne]

Vietnam you where the bad guys if you do not want to believe that you are free to. Still doesn't change the fact you were fighting a country trying to defend and take back what lands it owned. Communism isn't the bad guys from a bias point of view. Neither is Democracy. The fact that you were fighting in there country made you the bad guys. If they were fighting in America they would have been the bad guys.

As for Korea you were the good guys since you were fighting a dictatorship who would (And still do) suppress there own people. That is a war that still hasn't been won or lost since it is still going. So you can't say the good guys won there.

You realize that the Korean War and the Vietnam War were fought for the same reason? The communist north country invaded the democratic south country. We fought to preserve the democratic country and succeeded in Korea. Im not sure how you can say we were good in one case and bad in the other when we did the same thing in both cases. Vietnam's communist dictatorship is nicer than Korea's but it is still a communist dictatorship.

The only war I would agree that he US was really just bad was the Indian Wars. Not for the fact that we took over their land but how we treated them afterward.

[THE Bigzoman]

You realize that the Korean War and the Vietnam War were fought for the same reason? The communist north country invaded the democratic south country. We fought to preserve the democratic country and succeeded in Korea. Im not sure how you can say we were good in one case and bad in the other when we did the same thing in both cases. Vietnam's communist dictatorship is nicer than Korea's but it is still a communist dictatorship.

The only war I would agree that he US was really just bad was the Indian Wars. Not for the fact that we took over their land but how we treated them afterward.

I would argue that Korea and Vietnam were not fought to defend the native people. More because of the paranoria of the Domino theory taking effect in Asia even though it didn't get nearly as bad as Geroge Kenean predicted. Therefore, the U.S wereb't the "good guys" or bad guys either. Just had our own foreign interests in mind. Buisness as usual

[Deleted]

Is it the case of: the winner writes the history?

this and only this.
as an example: imagine napoleon won his war for any reason and succressfully conquered whole europe and most of asia.
if this would have happened, he would most likely be a well sung hero nowadays, even though he gave the command to kill hundreds of thousands of people.
thats how wars work. the winner decides what "truely" happened.
In history, this grew increasingly more difficult because of "stronger", more influential media, but back in the past the number of recordings on everything was rather scarce and easier to control.


edit: i also want to add that there never was, is, or will be, the "good" and the "bad" guys.
its always just some groups of people that view others as enemies for some reason (most of the times caused by prejudices and fear)

[Ravenblade]

Aside from the usual "history is written blah" may be we could in fact try for a change. First we would have to establish what "good guys" would look like as a set of criterias applicable throughout the history of mankind.

Were they the peaceful shepherds and farmers who got overrun by the enemy, were they more advanced than those who attacked them in first place, did their leaders have an agenda which made them admired and supported by their own people? If so then we would have a barebone definition of good guys.

I would list a few candidates then:

The Persian Empire before the invasion of Alexander the Great.
Babylon before it got captured by the Persians.
The Byzantine Empire before it fell to the Ottomans.
The Aztecs before the fell to the Spains.

this and only this.
as an example: imagine napoleon won his war for any reason and succressfully conquered whole europe and most of asia.
if this would have happened, he would most likely be a well sung hero nowadays, even though he gave the command to kill hundreds of thousands of people.

He already was considered a hero here. For certain reasons. First off he exploited the fact that the HRE was divided and splintered into tiny states really all with their own systems and metrics making a progress impossible and while France enjoyed a more progressive society already there was a backward state here with deep-rooted feudal policies in place still, that and the Prussian army and their dance shows which were made a mockery of by Napoleon's well-trained army and its more flexible doctrines. His doings then forced tiny and small states to bundle up and to reform, he brought the code civil which served as exemplary how-to for various German state policians, his policy forced Prussia to undergo more strict reforms especially its army and then on social levels. Basically he came and beat up the bad guys, then left and eventually got defeated, but him being declared a bad guy doesn't negate the wake progressivism he left. If he hadn't been there then most of Europe would look different today and most inventions would not have happened already at this point of time, today.

[Herecius]

Absolutely. Plenty of dictators waged wars and genocides and all sorts of heinous things were done that nobody stopped or was able to stop.

[jahasafrat]

The Mongol Empire under the leadership of Genghis Khan could be thought of as a case where the "bad guys" won. The Mongols were the aggressors and they successfully conquered and ruled most of China and the Middle East.