The Best Enemy the US ever Fought

[Nua Corda]

Addendum to my previous post:

The War for Independence against the British Empire was perhaps the only war in which every requirement for a philosophically just war was arguably met. As such, that would also make Britain the "best" enemy from the standpoint of just war doctrine. Oh, and for the record, George Washington was not really a very good general.

I'd call WWII pretty damn justified.

[Mike the Progressive]

Vietnam.

Any American who can't appreciate and respect the People's Army of Vietnam is way too patriotic for their own good. They were the most adaptive, responsive enemy which we've ever fought and likely we'll never fight another like them again.

So yeah, all points to the Great South.

But battle for battle they could not really match the US, and its not really thier fault. They simply lacked the equipment and resources we had. Most of their victories were media or moral victories where we just lost the will to fight them. Even the TET Offensive was a huge defeat militarily, but it turned out a huge media victory for them.

Actual battlefield success against the US, several other poll options do way better.

Interestingly enough, most confrontations between the US military and the NLF and/or NVA ended with American victories. Even the Tet Offensive, which many people thought and still think was an American defeat, was a tactical US victory. Something even the Vietnamese admitted. The problem was the images of itweakened public morale in the US and that's what lost the war. It's debatable if we could have won the war, because since our involvement there as early as 1945, it wasn't until 1969 did we actually have a clear plan. Before that it was a nuisance. Truman and Eisenhower involved us with the hopes of getting France to join the EDC, Kennedy favored containment and Johnson didn't want anything to affect his Great Society.

I still think that with Nixon and his strategy, we could have at least maintained a South Vietnam.

[L Ron Cupboard]

The Seminole.

[The Rebel Alliances]

Addendum to my previous post:

The War for Independence against the British Empire was perhaps the only war in which every requirement for a philosophically just war was arguably met. As such, that would also make Britain the "best" enemy from the standpoint of just war doctrine. Oh, and for the record, George Washington was not really a very good general.

Are we talking tactical genius? Then I agree.
He did however manage to keep his army together when it seemed defeat was certain and won th war.

That has got to count for something.

[The Rebel Alliances]

But battle for battle they could not really match the US, and its not really thier fault. They simply lacked the equipment and resources we had. Most of their victories were media or moral victories where we just lost the will to fight them. Even the TET Offensive was a huge defeat militarily, but it turned out a huge media victory for them.

Actual battlefield success against the US, several other poll options do way better.

Interestingly enough, most confrontations between the US military and the NLF and/or NVA ended with American victories. Even the Tet Offensive, which many people thought and still think was an American defeat, was a tactical US victory. Something even the Vietnamese admitted. The problem was the images of itweakened public morale in the US and that's what lost the war. It's debatable if we could have won the war, because since our involvement there as early as 1945, it wasn't until 1969 did we actually have a clear plan. Before that it was a nuisance. Truman and Eisenhower involved us with the hopes of getting France to join the EDC, Kennedy favored containment and Johnson didn't want anything to affect his Great Society.

I still think that with Nixon and his strategy, we could have at least maintained a South Vietnam.

Only enemy to defeat the United States by losing.
Must be great.

[Mike the Progressive]

1812 was a win, in a way.

...to a point.
Considering how the US started it as an assault on British Canada and were repelled all the way back to Washington, it's really a thin point.

Not really. The assault on Canada was with the hopes of ending the war quickly. They thought if captured, they could have the upperhand in the peace negotiations. But as most wars are judged as a result of the outcome, we kept all of our land in tact (status quo ante bellum), the British stopped impressing our sailors, and most important of all, the British supported Indian confederacy under Tecumseh in the Midwest which they hoped would act as a bulwark against American expansion into the West was no more. If anything that was our victory right there.

... But in reality, released documents from the Russians, as well as the Vietnamese, shows that they were on the edge. It's debatable, if we would have continued with Nixon's approach to the war, there still might very well be a South Vietnam.

Well, old General Giap was quite persuaded they couldn't have resisted for much longer. Expecially the terror bombing campaigns on North Vietnam was quite effective.

The point is that a war is a political issues, and you need to be winning on both the military side and on the internal side... the US couldn't sustain politically the war anymore, and they were inching back on the ground. And in my book, if a foreign force must leave under military and political pressure, they've lost.

I agree, but that also makes you wonder if they defeated us or we defeated ourselves. I mean keep in mind by the time Watergate happened, we had North Vietnam at the peace table, all troops out of Vietnam, and used the bombing of Hanoi as well as the HCM trail to keep NV from going south. If watergate didn't happen, we may very well have won in a way. Of course it did, so there's no point in bothering about the metaphysicals.

[Nazis in Space]

The Moon Nazis, of course. 70 years on and the war is still going strong.

We

Shall be

VICTORIOUS

[Mollary]

The most undefeatable enemy the US has ever fought are the Republicans.

[The Batorys]

I'm gunna go with the Vietnamese, since they're the only ones on that list who beat us.

They did. And they played to their strengths. But they won almost no direct engagments. They really just outlasted us.

And? They won.

It doesn't matter how many direct engagements you win unless doing so wins the war. You win wars by playing to your strengths, not to your enemy's.

[The Batorys]

Like the OP pointed out. I voted Confederate. I mean they took on the US head on and had none of the advantages.

A stupid rebellion, then.

[Esternial]

Obesity is a pretty formidable enemy of the US.

As is bigotry.

[Pope Joan]

Vietnam handled us much in the same way that we handled the British.

It worked well both times.

[Tropical Scandinavia]

The Germans were the only ones who could put up a real fight.

[L Ron Cupboard]

Vietnam handled us much in the same way that we handled the British.

It worked well both times.

Mel Gibson even made another historically inaccurate film about it.

[Machtergreifung]

By far Japan.

The sheer fact that a nation that had been an industrial power for around fifty years or so could take on a nation that was the premier industrial nation in the world at the time, and actually resoundly beat them back for nearly a year is fantastic.

What makes it better as it just wasn't America alone, but Britain, the Dutch as well as the Austrailians and New Zealanders.

What makes it even better is that despite the Allied powers being commited to Europe first, Japan was simmilarly handicapped by having almost all of it's military tied down in China and Manchuria.

The simple fact that a war so stacked against Japan in terms of resources, population and availaible troops actually lasted for four years is a testament to the Japanese, as is the fact that it took a wonderweapon to end it.

[Ziegenhain]

I'm biased towards the Second and Third Reich.

But the Brits, Confederates, and Vietnamese are also up there.

[Russian people of america]

I'm gunna go with the Vietnamese, since they're the only ones on that list who beat us.

true and they used pungi stakes
and other vicouse weapons so ill go with vietcong

[Russian people of america]

The Germans were the only ones who could put up a real fight.

debatable because we lost to the vietnamese and beat the germans

[Machtergreifung]

The Germans were the only ones who could put up a real fight.

And with 9/10ths of the Whermacht in Russia.

[Songhia]

The Vietnamese take an obvious first place, followed by the British in distant second. Vo Nguyen Giap was the greatest soldier of the 20th century; he resisted the US at almost the height of its power, with nothing more than ingenuity and gumption. In terms of their strategic objectives, they got them all and the US got none. Only time I think that has ever happened - unconditional surrender.

[Saiwania]

Changed it how? It still would've been stone age cultures against guns.

It was somewhat common for native American tribes to trade with or do raids against White settlers to obtain their own firearms and ammunition, but yeah- the US government would still have the advantage of being able to manufacture guns and have the latest weaponry while Native Americans could only use what they had a limited supply of.

[The Whispers]

By number of fatalities, the answer is "disease", by a long stretch.

[Fireye]

The Moon Nazis, of course. 70 years on and the war is still going strong.

Wow, you just reminded me to watch Iron Sky. It's out right?

I watched it on Wednesday. It's atrocious. And not in the good way.

I tried, I really tried.

I found it less enjoyable than Mega Shark v Giant Octopus.

And I enjoy poorly made schlockfests. (Just saw Black Sheep [the horror film] last night. Funny as hell)

[Napkiraly]

Had almost no navy. Killed more American Soldiers than any other.

That would be the Germans actually. Most Civil War casualties were disease related, not battle related.

I'd say the Germans. Or the Soviets if they count.

[Samuraikoku]

Red Skull, obviously.