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

[Lore Lord]

There are really two things going on here. The first is that the winner writes the history so they appear to be the good guy. The second is that being the aggressor, who in hindsight is usually seen as the bad guy, is much harder than being the defender. To truly win the aggressor has to not only have military superiority but be able to either win the hearts and minds of the majority of the people they just invaded (obviously incredibly difficult) or kill a huge majority of the native population so that they can remove their occupation while still calling it their territory. Also, even when aggressors do win, they usually aren't content with what they have and go for more until they eventually lose which is recorded as a loss as a whole. All the defender has to do is not surrender until the aggressor just decides to leave. If they do that the only way for the aggressor to win is to kill the entire defense, which if their goal is to rule the defense, would be pointless.

[Woebegone]

The American Indian Wars were won by the bad guys. Or atleast most modern descriptions of the war portray the European colonizers as 'bad guys'.

[Seegtease]

History is written by the victors.

There is no reason for the thread to continue past this post. Every facet of what the OP is trying to discuss is completely covered in this short truth.

[Deleted]

Off course many wars have been won by the aggressors and "bad guys". Take the Mongol occupation of half the world, Djingis khan wasn't too nice. Then theres the roman empire, aggressive as hell and not all that nice either. The European colonisations and Conquest in South America almost wiped the poor natives out.

Hell, I would say all wars fought by nations with the purpose of the occupation of another nation should be considered "bad guys".

[Tars]

Everyone's the good guy in their own eyes, but if you're talking about us.. Vietnam and Korea really.

You forgot Iraq and Lybia.

[Drihan]

"History is written by the victor".


EDIT:

Great minds think alike. I had no idea someone else posted that exact quote >.<

[4KhazModan]

Nope. "good guys" never lose. You know why? Because history is written by the victor. So no matter what, the winning side is interpreted as "good".

[Gerrin]

Good question.

1) The first war that comes to mind that was lost by the 'good guys' was the American Civil War. It was not fought over slaves, it was fought over economics and states rights. Slavery in western culture was already on its way out. Lincoln wanted control over state governments and from what we have today he certainly got it.

2) WW2, the allies lost this war because they did not continue into the Soviet block. Decades of repression, internal and external strife, the threat of nuclear annihilation and institutionalized corruption. The implementation of the UN; the foremost source of bloodshed, international corruption, human trafficking and slave trade in the last thousand years. The relocation of Jews to Israel which started one of the longest international and bloody conflicts in the history of mankind by putting mortal enemies at arms length. WW2 might have been one of the worst victories.

3) Korea, allowance of the Chinese to flex their military strength and realize the rest of the world didn't care. Everyone on the north side of the peninsula has suffered for decades and the world is still and increasingly at the mercy of the next Chinese offensive.

4) Vietnam; The French then American governments wouldn't acknowledge the Chinese presence in the field of battle and gave up the lives of French, American, Vietnamese and eventually Cambodian lives to their offensive. Tens of thousands of Vietnamese and over six million Cambodians died due to American cowardice.

5) Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. The western world, especially the United States helped this country liberate itself from the Soviets then let it fall into ruin do to political cowardice. It is very possible that if the west had helped Afghanistan build a stable, and very much obtainable, country during the 1980's and '90s the west would never have had to move back in. The anit-western sentiment from that region is directly related to western abandonment.

---------- Post added 2012-05-05 at 07:09 AM ----------

The American Indian Wars were won by the bad guys. Or atleast most modern descriptions of the war portray the European colonizers as 'bad guys'.

Most Native American tribes were no less warlike than any prehistoric tribes. Rome defeated Europe in the same way.

---------- Post added 2012-05-05 at 07:10 AM ----------

Nope. "good guys" never lose. You know why? Because history is written by the victor. So no matter what, the winning side is interpreted as "good".

Ignorant comment. Modern techniques in discovering historic information often trumps catch phrases.

[Woebegone]

There is no reason for the thread to continue past this post. Every facet of what the OP is trying to discuss is completely covered in this short truth.

Modern-day historians have the freedom to study and describe past events as accurately as possible, without fear of censorship or persecution, as long as the events are old enough.

[AbsolutePitch]

History is written by the victors.

Also: "Half of writing history is hiding the truth" - Cpt. Malcolm Reynolds

Other than the various examples provided thus far of wars being won by those contemporarily perceived to be 'bad', it should be noted that whoever controls the present controls the past, and whoever controls the past controls the future.

Edit: It should be noted I'm addressing public opinion and not scholarly inquiry, which quite often conflicts with public opinion.

[Deleted]

every political direction (doesn't matter if communism, capitalsim, fascism, monarchy etc.) is a form of social evolution. the nazis came up with the idea of killing the jews and to get rid of all non-aryans in europe (simplified). it's not that nice, but as long as there are enough followers, every theory and belief is viable. everyone get's the ideology he deserves.

The more radical an ideology is, the greater the chance of a (global) conflict.

Then the ideology has to prove itself. Is it strong enough to survive a massive war? Are the followers powerful enough to defeat the people on the other side? The ideology that wins the war, is "the right one" for that time. Until a new challenger rises.

It's called darwinism - survival of the fittest. There is no good or bad side.


To clarify: Economical reasons are also viable reasons to wage war for a nation.

[Airwaves]

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.

No they were not. What you just said shows how little you know about the subject. You have also taken a bias view on the subject. I didn't take a bias view. Korea and Vietnam were not the same reason as much as all other wars are not the same reasons. Democratic and Communism are both not bad. The side that invaded a country based on the idea that they want to run it different yet peacefully (Ho chi minh) makes the invading force (America and allies) the bad guys. As for Korea they were lead by a dictatorship (Kim Il-sung) that sort to suppress its own people. To invade a Country (America and allies)to free a suppressed population makes you the good guys. Yes they were both communist but they are nothing alike. Much like China was nothing like Russia in the cold war yet they were both communist.

The same goes from democracy no countries are alike they all run differently.

[Banawani]

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.

There are good guys and there are bad guys. Direct your attention to WWI and WWII as prime examples. Now recent wars, such as the wars in the Middle East, it's debatable which is the good and bad sides.

NATO did restore power to the people, but in the process killed many civilians (it's war, people die, but still).

[Gerrin]

It's called darwinism - survival of the fittest. There is no good or bad side.

Genetic darwinism has no good or bad side because its not based on conscious choice. Societal and political evolution (dawinism) does have a moral and ethical component. Don't forget that while humans are a part of nature we also have risen above nature in several ways. That requires we take more responsibility than 'the average bear'.

[Deleted]

The bad guys won the Spanish Civil War and victory brought a dictatorship to Spain lasting 40 years. The war to preserve freedom and the Second Republic was tragically doomed, mostly because of infighting on the loyalists' side.

Stalin beat Trotsky in the political struggle for the Soviet Union (a big part of why the Spanish Republic fell).

History is written by the victors.

That phrase is really only poignant in a totalitarian state, there are plenty of decent accounts of history written by the losers and preserved for future generations to view. The Revolution Betrayed, for example.

[Deleted]

It's terrible that gaming/television/big-screen made you think about wars as good-guys vs bad-guys.

[Ravenblade]

"History is written by the victor".

There is a more precise African proverb which goes like "Until the lions have their own storytellers the story of the hunt will always glorify the hunter."

Which is a phrase beside the point of good and bad. It is meant to characterize the fact that history can be used as propaganda and emphasizes on dealing with portraying the views of the victor as the only one with rightful/divine mandate. If it were meant to characterize the morale implications of methods used or arguments used to start the conflict the quote would look different.

Even long before someone has written this fact into a quote or proverb it was not rare that leaders who wanted to usurp, conquer or overthrow not always had the most solid reasons so they accepted personal writers (much like some politicians are doing these days) in order to write down their personalized version and have a 2nd background yet obedient voice whispering soothing ad-hoc justifications into their ears and thus strengthening their resolve.

[Deleted]

I think the allies were the good guys, that's really the last war you could say anything about good guys and bad guys.

- Allied terror bombing.
- Allies allying with the Soviet union.
- Allies fought to hold colonies, not to liberate them.
- Allies tried to keep out Jews - in the words of the Canadian PM: "none is too many", regarding how many Jewish immigrants were welcome in Canada.
- Allied internment camps for US citizens of Japanese descent, who had all their posessions taken.

To look for good guys in war is to delude yourself.

---------- Post added 2012-05-05 at 09:42 AM ----------

It's terrible that gaming/television/big-screen made you think about wars as good-guys vs bad-guys.

Perhaps, but it's only natural.

Propaganda is a necessary part of war: If you want to win, you need to keep popular support going, and that means glorifying your own side and demonizing the enemy. It helps this is the natural human state of mind - children always think in black/white. Only when people mature intellectually can they start to see shades of grey, but it requires mental discipline.

[Deleted]

every political direction (doesn't matter if communism, capitalsim, fascism, monarchy etc.) is a form of social evolution. the nazis came up with the idea of killing the jews and to get rid of all non-aryans in europe (simplified). it's not that nice, but as long as there are enough followers, every theory and belief is viable. everyone get's the ideology he deserves.

The more radical an ideology is, the greater the chance of a (global) conflict.

Then the ideology has to prove itself. Is it strong enough to survive a massive war? Are the followers powerful enough to defeat the people on the other side? The ideology that wins the war, is "the right one" for that time. Until a new challenger rises.

It's called darwinism - survival of the fittest. There is no good or bad side.


To clarify: Economical reasons are also viable reasons to wage war for a nation.

This is a good example why people need to stop associating survival of the fittest with darwinism. Darwin didn't like that phrase, which was coined by his friend - Herbert Spencer, because it distorted people's idea about what Darwin was trying to convey.

I won't debate whether or not this mechanism you're describing takes place, but I need to adress the fact that you stage this as a sort of right of passage. The effect of war on the sociological evolution is definetly there but it's nothing short of collateral damage.

Propaganda is a necessary part of war: If you want to win, you need to keep popular support going, and that means glorifying your own side and demonizing the enemy. It helps this is the natural human state of mind - children always think in black/white. Only when people mature intellectually can they start to see shades of grey, but it requires mental discipline.

and that's precisely what I find terrible about the concept.

[Deleted]

There are good guys and there are bad guys. Direct your attention to WWI and WWII as prime examples.

There are plenty of bad guys in war - that's the nature of war.
Good guys? Few, if any.

I already disproved your example of WWII.

WWI... That was just stupid. A complicated network of alliances, guarantees and mobilization plans cascaded into all-out war. The German Kaiser has been made scapegoat for WWI, but the fact is he went on holiday with his yaught to the coast of Norway, while events developed. He had to hurry back when it became clear war was imminent. In short: he wasn't in control, and he was just as surprised as everyone else.

NATO did restore power to the people, but in the process killed many civilians (it's war, people die, but still).

The problem is, there was no "the people": NATO created a power-vacuum, which different factions are now fighting to occupy.

---------- Post added 2012-05-05 at 10:07 AM ----------

and that's precisely what I find terrible about the concept.

Fair enough, just don't blame a natural human tendency on gaming/television/big-screen.

That's like blaming people for having sex on porn.