Page 4 of 4

PostPosted: Mon Aug 05, 2019 7:49 am
by Bears Armed
Liberimery wrote:
Imperium Anglorum wrote:You can't win a war by defending. At maximum, it would yield a white peace.


The US Revolutionary war, the war of 1812, and the Vietnam war were won by the team playing defense to name three wars. The Russo-Japanese war was a humiliating defeat for Russia, who declared war on the Japanese.
OOC
That's an oversimplified viewpoint -- to put it politely -- all three cases:
In the US Revolutionary War, both sides were the "defending" side to some extent: Don't forget that the British-run administration was not only actually the lawful government but also had the active support of a significant proportion of the colonials right through to the end. Then although the rebels mostly stayed at home (There were one or two attempts to seize Canada, and a small-scale naval raid on civilian shipping in one English harbour), their allies France and Spain and the Netherlands were actively attacking British colonies & ships elsewhere... and, of course, France sent troops overseas into America to fight alongside the rebels.
It's arguable whether the War of 1812 really had a winner at all: Despite what some Americans seem to think, Britain certainly wasn't trying to reconquer the colonies .(And, again, the American attack on Canada wasn't exactly a strictly "defensive" move...)
And in Vietnam the North started as effectively a separate nation from the South in which American forces were helping to suppress rebels, and only succeeded in taking over the South -- which they did by an offensive war -- after the American forces had been withdrawn.

PostPosted: Mon Aug 05, 2019 8:40 am
by Aclion
Imperium Anglorum wrote:You can't win a war by defending. At maximum, it would yield a white peace.

White peace is still victory if you get what what you want. Winning wars doesn't requiring conquering the other side.

PostPosted: Mon Aug 05, 2019 9:30 am
by Kenmoria
(OOC: Are we agreed that the clause should have ‘primarily ’ or similar wording instead of ‘exclusively ’?)

PostPosted: Mon Aug 05, 2019 9:41 am
by Marxist Germany
Araraukar wrote:
Liberimery wrote:The US Revolutionary war, the war of 1812, and the Vietnam war were won by the team playing defense to name three wars. The Russo-Japanese war was a humiliating defeat for Russia, who declared war on the Japanese.

OOC: Also Finland in 2nd World War. (Well, "winning" is always a bit relative, but not getting annexed by Russia - which was Russia's goal - is counted as a win, despite the loss of some areas and reparations required.)

OOC:Irish war of independence too

PostPosted: Mon Aug 05, 2019 11:30 pm
by Wayneactia
La Montevideo wrote:But Aren't You Forgetting About The National Security?


"I suggest you avoid the WA if you are concerned about National Security."

Wayne

PostPosted: Wed Aug 07, 2019 7:59 am
by Drystar
Bears Armed wrote:
Liberimery wrote:
The US Revolutionary war, the war of 1812, and the Vietnam war were won by the team playing defense to name three wars. The Russo-Japanese war was a humiliating defeat for Russia, who declared war on the Japanese.
OOC
That's an oversimplified viewpoint -- to put it politely -- all three cases:
In the US Revolutionary War, both sides were the "defending" side to some extent: Don't forget that the British-run administration was not only actually the lawful government but also had the active support of a significant proportion of the colonials right through to the end. Then although the rebels mostly stayed at home (There were one or two attempts to seize Canada, and a small-scale naval raid on civilian shipping in one English harbour), their allies France and Spain and the Netherlands were actively attacking British colonies & ships elsewhere... and, of course, France sent troops overseas into America to fight alongside the rebels.
It's arguable whether the War of 1812 really had a winner at all: Despite what some Americans seem to think, Britain certainly wasn't trying to reconquer the colonies .(And, again, the American attack on Canada wasn't exactly a strictly "defensive" move...)
And in Vietnam the North started as effectively a separate nation from the South in which American forces were helping to suppress rebels, and only succeeded in taking over the South -- which they did by an offensive war -- after the American forces had been withdrawn.


You forgot to mention Allied forces were restrained from crossing the border between north and south Vietnam by political decisions. That played a huge role in the North’s ability to outlast US participating.

PostPosted: Wed Aug 07, 2019 8:31 am
by Kenmoria
“For clause 5, many countries are in an almost perpetual state of war, especially if they are rather militaristic in nature. As these are the countries most likely to be using conscription, I suggest reworking the clause.”

(OOC: As an example, the USA has been at constant war since its founding, with only a few days of complete peace.)

PostPosted: Wed Aug 07, 2019 5:34 pm
by Araraukar
Kenmoria wrote:(OOC: As an example, the USA has been at constant war since its founding, with only a few days of complete peace.)

OOC: Which were the peace days? Or what year(s) anyway?

PostPosted: Wed Aug 07, 2019 11:02 pm
by Kenmoria
Araraukar wrote:
Kenmoria wrote:(OOC: As an example, the USA has been at constant war since its founding, with only a few days of complete peace.)

OOC: Which were the peace days? Or what year(s) anyway?

(OOC: My mistake, it should have been years not days. The US has been at war 222 of the 239 years it has existed.)

PostPosted: Thu Aug 08, 2019 3:33 am
by Araraukar
Kenmoria wrote:(OOC: My mistake, it should have been years not days. The US has been at war 222 of the 239 years it has existed.)

OOC: To be fair, that only counts entire years, so even if there was a one-day war (there have been shorter ones, just so you know :P), that year wouldn't count. EDIT: Still, amusing.

PostPosted: Thu Aug 08, 2019 7:25 am
by Bears Armed
Kenmoria wrote:
Araraukar wrote:OOC: Which were the peace days? Or what year(s) anyway?

(OOC: My mistake, it should have been years not days. The US has been at war 222 of the 239 years it has existed.)
OOC
Technically that's "been involved in armed conflicts" rather than "been at war", at least if being "at war" is taken to require a declaration of war: The USA hasn't actually declared itself to be at war very often...
Maybe this proposal needs to clarify whether it is only talking about declared wars, rather than conflicts in general?