BullDog69 | 15 Jan 2012 10:06 a.m. PST |
Bit a strange question, but one inspired by a programme I'm watching on the History Channel. It's some rubbish about Nostradamus and a bloke claimed to be his modern-day equivalent, a Dr Bueno de Mesquita. This chap uses mathematics to 'predict the future' and at one point claimed that wars can be predicted because 'they are rational acts – the vast majority of wars are won by the side that starts them'. Leaving aside any discussion on predicting the future, is this statement true? At first thought, I would disagree, certainly in the last century or so. Of course, there will always be some discussion on 'who started the war' (eg. Britain and France declared war on Nazi Germany, but I think most people will accept that WW2 was started by Germany), but off the top of my head, we have: The Boer War – started by the Boers and lost. First World War – bit difficult and messy to pick who started it, but from a Western point of view, Germany invaded Belgium and lost. Second World War – Germany started war with west (with caveat above) and lost. Germany started war with USSR and lost. Japan started war with US and lost. Korean War – North Korea attacked South Korea and lost (though was itself not defeated / occupied as such) Falklands War – Argentina started it and lost Invasion of Kuwait 1990 – Iraq started in and lost I know I have missed a few (one glaring omission being Vietnam) but would it be fair to say that – in terms of recent history – Dr de Mesquita's statement is incorrect? |
Angel Barracks | 15 Jan 2012 10:08 a.m. PST |
|
John the OFM | 15 Jan 2012 10:18 a.m. PST |
Let's see. In the War of the Slaveholders' Rebellion, the perfidious Rebs shelled Fort Sumter. That worked out well. |
Parzival | 15 Jan 2012 10:24 a.m. PST |
All I know is, Han shot first. |
Gary Kennedy | 15 Jan 2012 10:25 a.m. PST |
Well to prove the 'statement' by the 'history' channel 'programme', they'd need a statisical analysis. Something that identified at least say 500 conflicts over the past 100 years, clearly defined what counted as starting a war, and what counted as winning a war, then applied those criteria to obtain the results. In lieu of that, I'm pretty happy in myself to say NO, because of the list provided above, and a few others that come to mind (Korea, not exactly a resounding victory for anyone, Yom Kippur, Soviets in Afghanistan). Outisde of giggling my way through UFO hunters, I don't accrue many hours on their programming, in large part because of guff like that. If he's Nostradamus, tell us when the next big shooting war is, what day it starts and why, not tell us six months AFTER the event that he'd 'predicted' it. Gary |
raylev3 | 15 Jan 2012 10:34 a.m. PST |
Too simplistic. As you commented on in your initial statement, with a few exceptions it's difficult to determine who "started" the war. In fact, to even answer the question you have to define what you mean by "started" the war. |
Nashville | 15 Jan 2012 10:40 a.m. PST |
France declared war first in the Franco Prussian war
got toasted in a few weeks. As I recall the Russians attacked Germany first in WWI and were gone by 1917, The Russians started the Crimean War and lost. As for John's comment about the Late unpleasantness. "I think it's hard winning a war with words, gentlemen
I'm saying very plainly that the Yankees are better equipped than we
All we've got is cotton and slaves, and arrogance
I seem to be spoiling everybody's brandy and cigars and dreams of victory."Rhett Butler Seems like that is what the Loser-starts-the war stuff is all about. |
inverugie | 15 Jan 2012 10:48 a.m. PST |
'First World War – bit difficult and messy to pick who started it, but from a Western point of view, Germany invaded Belgium and lost.' No, Austria-Hungary issued an ultimatum to Serbia; when Serbia refused terms A-H invaded, setting off a series of mutual support alliances. 'Of course, there will always be some discussion on 'who started the war' (eg. Britain and France declared war on Nazi Germany, but I think most people will accept that WW2 was started by Germany)' Yes, I suspect the Poles would have a view on that!!! |
BullDog69 | 15 Jan 2012 10:53 a.m. PST |
inverugie Re. WW1 – yes, I understand and agree with all that, but I didn't want to strip it all the way back to Serbian nationalists shooting Arch Dukes etc etc because where does one stop. As far as the British were concerned (and perhaps you'll forgive my Anglo-centric take on this), 'their' war was started by Germany invading Belgium. Either way, the fact remains that, as you pointed out, the Central Powers started it – and lost. Yes – I agree on WW2 too but while those in the UK (and presumably Poland) generally see the invasion of Poland as the start of WW2, you'll have others who say the Japanese invasion of China was etc etc. I was just trying to do a bit of a pre-emptive strike on any such pedants
Speaking of pre-emptive strikes
they certainly complicate the whole issue of 'who started it'. |
Connard Sage | 15 Jan 2012 10:53 a.m. PST |
Basil: "You started it" German guest: "No ve didn't" Basil: "Yes you did, you invaded Poland" |
flowerofbattle | 15 Jan 2012 11:03 a.m. PST |
Well, Bueno de Mesquita is a serious researcher but these kind of shows have a habit of framing people in sensational terms. There are datasets available that can approach these kinds of questions. The most notable are the Correlates of War and the Uppsala Conflict Data Program's Datasets. But as Gary says the results depends on your definitions. And not just how wars are defined, but also how victories are defined. When looking at civil wars since the end of the Cold War I seem to recall that according to some definitions rebel groups have lost in 2/3 of all minor conflicts and wars. (Operationally the UCDP defines a minor conflict as 25 or more deaths per year and a war as 1000 or more deaths a year.) I would however not expect de Mesquita to say something that's not warranted by statistics so I guess that whether he is correct or not depends on exactly what he said. |
BullDog69 | 15 Jan 2012 11:06 a.m. PST |
flowerofbattle Interesting post. Please note I quoted exactly what he said. |
Nashville | 15 Jan 2012 11:07 a.m. PST |
and while we are talking about wars and not battles i cant resist Custer's war on the Native Americans which he lost to a man.
|
flowerofbattle | 15 Jan 2012 11:13 a.m. PST |
Thanks for the clarification Bulldog. Well I guess he could have qualified his statement but that this never ended up in the final cut (and I would be surprised if something that tedious would ever be included in an entertainment show) |
vojvoda | 15 Jan 2012 11:19 a.m. PST |
I think not. The US has not lost a war in over 200 years almost always coming in as a result of something else. Vietnam could be consider tie or strategic defeat. But on the battlefield no contest. I can only speak about 1983 on to 2002 most of the time we went into already on going conflicts. Turned the tide and moved on. VR James Mattes |
mjkerner | 15 Jan 2012 11:37 a.m. PST |
My first wife started most battles, most of which I lost. But I won the war
I am happily remarried. Does that count? |
Frederick | 15 Jan 2012 11:39 a.m. PST |
Sometimes yes, sometimes no – Israel started the Six Days War and clearly won, Iraq started the Iran-Iraq War and arguably lost I think that, while the French technically declared war in the Franco-Prussian War, Bismarck played them like a violin – the Prussians were the ones who wanted the war! The US track record is pretty good, although I would put the War of 1812 down as a tie at best – and to be fair to the US, they didn't start most of the wars they wound up in (well, okay, the Gulf Wars and the Spanish American War) |
Last Hussar | 15 Jan 2012 11:40 a.m. PST |
Invasion of Kuwait 1990 – Iraq started in and lost I think you'll find Iraq won that. What they lost was the counter invasion which the Coalition started!I once read a new age book where the woman tried to prove
something about um something – it was all to do with the equator. Basically in a war between two countries the one furthest from the equator won, to do withit having height or something behind it (The one on top falling on the other, geddit). If it was Northern vs southern Hemisphere, then the north won. After Identifying 3 wars where she was talking (I was about 13 at the time) I put the book down.
|
vtsaogames | 15 Jan 2012 11:51 a.m. PST |
Latin America: War of the Triple Alliance, started by Paraguay. They lost. War of the Pacific, started by Chile. They won. Chaco War, started by Bolivia. They lost. North America: War of 1812, started by US. A stalemate at best. Mexican American war, started by US (or Mexico, depending on your point of view). US won, big time. Red Cloud's War, started by US. US lost. |
BullDog69 | 15 Jan 2012 11:57 a.m. PST |
Last Hussar I meant the First Gulf War which was sparked by Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. I cannot see that the 'counter invasion' was a seperate war – that would be like saying the liberation of France or of the Falklands were separate wars to their initial invasions? But I guess this all comes back to definitions. |
Peter Constantine | 15 Jan 2012 12:09 p.m. PST |
Nashville wrote: and while we are talking about wars and not battles i cant resist Custer's war on the Native Americans which he lost to a man. Surely Little Bighorn ('Custer's Last Stand') wasn't a war but just one action in the Great Sioux (or Black Hills) War? The conquest of the American west and eradication of Native American resistance might be an example of a war in which those who started it ended up winning. |
charon | 15 Jan 2012 12:11 p.m. PST |
He must have read some Asimov – Shades of Harry Seldon perhaps? Steve (who hasn't read the books in ages). |
Femeng2 | 15 Jan 2012 2:25 p.m. PST |
Iran-Iraw War – Iraq lost. and so did Iran. Balkan Wars of 1990s Serbia started and lost. China Pakistani War. China started but tied. Russo-Japanese War Japan started and won. WWII Japan started in 1931 and lost (who said Germany started it?) Italo-Ethiopia War Italy started and won. Sudanese War. Sudan won in west, but lost the south. Oops, this one is really still going on. |
Korvessa | 15 Jan 2012 3:05 p.m. PST |
Nashville wrote: and while we are talking about wars and not battles i cant resist Custer's war on the Native Americans which he lost to a man. Please. He was a Lt.Col. and not even in command of his own regiment. He was hardly on the National Policy making level. |
Griefbringer | 15 Jan 2012 3:52 p.m. PST |
Second World War – Germany started war with USSR and lost. However, before that USSR itself started wars with Poland and Finland, and occupied Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Bessarabia. Italy also did its own share of starting fights in WWII, and the end results are quite well known. |
Sparker | 15 Jan 2012 4:02 p.m. PST |
In the War of the Slaveholders' Rebellion Is that the Conflict Formerly Known As 'THe War of Northern Aggression'? As far as WW2 goes, did the military outcome reflect the true economic and political results of the war? If Britain and France's war aims were to maintain the freedom and independence of Poland, how far did they achieve these? Conversely, if Germany's war aims were to overthros the treaty of Versailles and become a major economic superpower, then did it really fail to achieve them? There is a train of thought that Britain did not win the peace, that is to say that Germany emerged far stronger economically and socially
Counter intuitive I know, but read Correlli Barnett's 'Audit of War' for a well reasoned argument as to how Britain actually lost the war in any objective measure of economic or geopolitical strength. And yes, I agree with Connard for once, Germany did by any sensible measure start the war. A lawyer could tell you anything, but in my book crossing someones border with half a dozen Panzer divisions carrying a full war load constitutes an act of war, no matter how much it may be considered the national sport
. |
Connard Sage | 15 Jan 2012 4:12 p.m. PST |
For God's sake Sparker, don't mention Barnett on the Napoleonics boards. He gives the Napoleophiles apoplexy. However, as you say, 'Audit of War' is worth a read – along with his 'The Lost Victory' and 'The Verdict of Peace' – for a detailed view of Britain's scrambling for a place in the post-war world. |
Sparker | 15 Jan 2012 4:26 p.m. PST |
For God's sake Sparker, don't mention Barnett on the Napoleonics boards. He gives the Napoleophiles apoplexy. Well I didn't even know he had written on that period, but you and google have educated me. I simply adore 'The Desert Generals'; a great antidote to Monty's self canonization; so must get his 'Bonaparte'
How has he upset the grognards – don't tell me he insists the British DID fight at Waterloo or something! |
Connard Sage | 15 Jan 2012 4:27 p.m. PST |
He is less than complimentary about their hero :) The last TMP catfight where Barnett cropped up TMP link |
Last Hussar | 15 Jan 2012 4:43 p.m. PST |
Bulldog
But I guess this all comes back to definitions Comic effect mostly, but I am going to argue, anyway, that the Liberation of Kuwait was a reaction to a war that was over, where Liberation of France was a continuation of the War FRANCE had declared in 1939! The Falklands are UK soveriegn territory, so it was merely resisting an invasion. |
macconermaoile | 15 Jan 2012 5:08 p.m. PST |
The Boer War – started by the Boers !! ? |
14Bore | 15 Jan 2012 5:29 p.m. PST |
Most of the time the aggressor is the one taken down, One of the few times it did not happen I can think of was the 6 Day War, but that was preemptive to a Arab strike. Wars are not started often by democratic states, and I'm leaving a little wiggle room open to debate. |
Mal Wright | 15 Jan 2012 6:24 p.m. PST |
Frederick the great won the Prussian part of the War of Austrian Succession. He invaded and kept Silesia. The best he could achieve with the Seven Years War was a draw. WW1 was quite clearly started by the Central Powers because although other nations mobilized too
.the German mobilization required the occupation of sections of Belgium at the rail heads. Crossing the border in armed force was the first actual act of war. WW2 was started by the Nazi's. Pretty clear on that one. But its interesting that they claimed they were only counter attacking against Polish incursions into Germany
and some people believed it. The Vietnam war was lost by the French. Followed by a spectacular loss by the USA. Who wins the battles during a war is not as important as who wins the LAST battle and holds power that is important. |
darthfozzywig | 15 Jan 2012 6:43 p.m. PST |
My psychohistorical analysis predicted a 97.45% probability of someone reference Dr. Seldon's work in the first twenty posts. |
14Bore | 15 Jan 2012 7:31 p.m. PST |
Thinking about it the aggressor looses much more often. One exception I can think of was the 6 day War when the Israelis pre-empted the Arab forces and attacked first but had they not the Arabs would have been the aggressor and lost all the same. Democratic states rarely are the aggressors but I will leave myself some wiggle room for that debate. |
14Bore | 15 Jan 2012 7:39 p.m. PST |
|
Grizzlymc | 15 Jan 2012 9:02 p.m. PST |
Could be argued that in Vietnam: The French lost and left; The Vietcing lost; The Americans won; The NVA finally defeated the ARVN. Certainly, if you allow the yanks to lose in Vietnam, you must allow the Brits to lose in WWII. |
BullDog69 | 15 Jan 2012 10:00 p.m. PST |
macconermaoile Yes. Invading other people's territories (in this case, Natal and Cape Colony) is generally considered to be starting a war. Do you disagree? Last Hussar I would say the invasion of Kuwait was the same war as Gulf War 1 (or whatever it's called) but I guess it's all a matter of opinion. |
Karpathian | 15 Jan 2012 11:42 p.m. PST |
Your response to this question comes down to whether you think War an Art or a Science. If the latter, you may wish to postulate formulas, if the former you will not see such clear patterns. Personally, I go for a third category and think War is chaos. |
Sparker | 16 Jan 2012 12:52 a.m. PST |
Personally, I go for a third category and think War is chaos. Whereas the states of war and peace went through a period of chaos, in the Early Modern, I think in the 18th, 19th and early mid 20th Centuries it was usually pretty clear whether war or peace was in force. But latterly? Is Iraq at peace? Is Israel at peace? Has Afghanistan ever been at peace? Perhaps we are moving into a period of 'Low Intensity perpetual war' where the best the West can do is keep the war at arm's length? |
Karpathian | 16 Jan 2012 3:03 a.m. PST |
Sparker: thought-provoking questions. Primitive peoples usually lived in perpetual, low-level endemic war with their neighbours. It just shows we aren't as civilised as we like to think. |
BullDog69 | 16 Jan 2012 3:36 a.m. PST |
Karpathian + Sparker Interesting points indeed – given the farcical murder rate here (50 a day on average) I have heard South Africa described as a nation at war with itself. |
CooperSteveOnTheLaptop | 16 Jan 2012 4:25 a.m. PST |
"But its interesting that they claimed they were only counter attacking against Polish incursions into Germany
" Truer than you might think, The Poles were right militaristic little horrors in the 1920s & completely took advantage of Germany's weakness. So the Germans had some genuine grievances against the poles in 1939, although that does excuse their behaviour. |
Tgunner | 16 Jan 2012 4:58 a.m. PST |
Frederick: (well, okay, the Gulf Wars and the Spanish American War) Nah. GW 2 yes, but not GW 1. Saddam started Gulf War 1 by invading Kuwait. He just sat around and twiddled his thumbs and let us build up for the counterattack. Think WWII with the invasion of Poland but with the allies invading Poland in 1940, beating Hitler, and Hitler, after losing most of his army, signs a peace treaty and you've got GW1. Then after 10 years of sanctions not working the allies invade
that's GW 2. As for the SAW, the US thought Spain really did mine the Maine which was a reasonable excuse for a war. They didn't know better until the whole thing was over and then they were able to examine the wreckage. So yes, we did start the SAW, BUT, with the understanding that the US THOUGHT that the Spanish made an aggressive act against a neutral vessel during peace time. Okay, I'm done slicing hairs! |
Tgunner | 16 Jan 2012 5:07 a.m. PST |
"Who wins the battles during a war is not as important as who wins the LAST battle and holds power that is important." Yeah, but that's the funny thing. The NVA/VC DID'T win any "battle". They just convinced the US citizenry that it wasn't WINNING, or that they couldn't win. So really it's more about who gives up first loses! |
BullDog69 | 16 Jan 2012 5:21 a.m. PST |
Tgunner Yes – good point. What was the old story about the American general who met a Vietnamese General years after the war. The American said: 'we won all the battles'. The Vietnamese replied: 'that is true, and it is also irrelevant'. Did the Soviet's lose battles during their time in Afghanistan? I actually have no idea, but my 'gut feel' is that they simply gave the thing up as un-winnable, despite not losing battles as such. But then, do you even get 'battles' as such in a modern war? I can't name a battle during either Gulf War or the US/Western 'invasion' of Afghanistan, whereas we could all come up with plenty from WW2, Korea or even the Falklands. |
Some Chicken | 16 Jan 2012 5:34 a.m. PST |
Certainly, if you allow the yanks to lose in Vietnam, you must allow the Brits to lose in WWII. Come again? |
Tgunner | 16 Jan 2012 5:36 a.m. PST |
Actually there were several battles in GW2. Two in Fallujah, two in An Nasiriyah, Karbala, Baghdad, and some more that I just can't think of off the top of my head. After 2004 the true battles were pretty much over. Then it became series of linked raids and skirmishes that became campaigns which were named after US or Iraqi military operational plans. But yes, at least from 2003 to 2004 there were a number of easily identifiable battles in GW2. |
BullDog69 | 16 Jan 2012 5:44 a.m. PST |
Tgunner What were they called? Or just the names of the places you mentioned? Any in Afghanistan that you can think of? I can't name a battle that the British fought during the capture of Basra. It just seemed to be several days of skirmishing and patrolling etc. Would you consider that as 'The Battle of Basra' for example? But we're getting off subject in any case. |
macconermaoile | 16 Jan 2012 5:52 a.m. PST |
Bulldog69 Jan C. Smuts wrote in 1906, "The Jameson Raid was the real declaration of war. . . . And that is so in spite of the four years of truce that followed . . .[the] aggressors consolidated their alliance . . . the defenders on the other hand silently and grimly prepared for the inevitable." Also Chamberlain's ultimatum. |