@@timesthree5757 Um your a bit confused there because Congress is the only part of the US government that has the right to declare war. Congress is the part of the government that votes on rather or not to declare war. The President is just the one who announces the decision to the American people after Congress votes to declare war . Congress has only voted to declare war 11 times. The President does not have that power. And must go before Congress , lay out the case for war to be declared then Congress votes on the issue. So It is Congress that declares war. Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the Constitution states that Congress has the power to "declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water.". So try reading the Constitution It goes into detail about the powers of the branches of government.
Honestly it’s kind of a weird how the only real difference between whether or not it’s a war comes down to if both sides actually made an official declaration of war. So even tho many of these conflicts probably should be considered a war based on the amount of military power used and or length of time it lasted there not purely because war wasn’t officially declared.
@OriginalHuman I think the tanker was referring to when the US destroyed half of Iran’s navy. I could be wrong but I have seen The Fat Electrician’s video so many times I think I’m accurate in the statement.
idk i doubt if natives and americans worked together they would be any more powerful than the US is now tbh. im mostly native( 68 percent) but i also have a tiny bit black and scottish plus english in me. so ill say this. for those who called the americans genocidal, i need to defend my country here. 92 percent of all amerindian (native american) deaths came from disease. the other 8 percent were in actual battles/ wars and most of them were initiated by the natives, my tribe (the Mohawk) actually enjoed scalping and raping white women so i dont really care. i do believe we natives were barbarians in a time where the world was trying to leave that behind. im a proud american. love this country snd my father fought for it; i love it here. love u original human
well... you forget to mention stuff like sending diseased blankets on purpose to natives as gifts, and many wars that natives started also happened after they were kicked off of land that was given to them by US already. So while i agree its not black and white calling americans just genocidal its not like they are innocent of all they did to natives either. As for US being stronger if they were nicer to natives i doubt it as well, it woudl have taken them too long to integrate probably and there arent that many of them anyways as you say too many died to diseases main strength of US were always immigrants from europe that integrated way easier, and i guess slaves just because of extra population but free people are always gonna be more useful than slaves
@@olorin3815 no that wasnt on purpose. they didnt understand germs and disease as we know it. pls dont be offended for us man let US be offended if WE decide to be man. cmon. im a proud american and i also know we didnt understand germs very well until the early 1900s long after.
@@chrisvibz4753 you dont need to understand germs to know stuff about diseases, sure they didnt know exactly how they work but its not like they had no clue how they spread either, they knew enough for a long time to quarantine ares and stuff when there are diseases and that they can spread theough contact etc
@@chrisvibz4753 where do you stand on sports teams removing their names and culture which honor the native people? i find it unbelievable that anyone actually considers those racist monikers and not tributes to the people who originally claimed these lands. cleveland indians, florida state seminoles, washington redskins, chiefs, etc.
@@cellamuert i mean i like it if they name teams or make logos based on the warrior culture which is fine. i mean the US Army helicopters like attack helicopters are named after tribes so why cant a sports team be called “the redskins” i mean thst wasnt a slur way back when, it was just a way to identify between a native and a white guy or black guy. same as “Yellow” for asian, now theyre considered slurs which idk why but ig if theyre used that way enough then they technically become one (?)
Uh. Idk about in the UK, but we hear plenty about our involvement in WWI over here. When we joined we tipped the scales. Voluntarily leaving a country after occupying it for over 20 years doesn't constitute defeat. If we wanted to, we could go right back to occupying it. We just got tired of it. This video of theirs would have been a lot better if they'd done anything more than just list conflicts.
@@SearingNinja I was going to add something like that. Army's move on logistics. The one thing the US could provide plenty of while not participating directly was logistics. It's just that only the British understood what our measurements were while the rest of the world mocked our yards, feet, pounds, and gallons...And now they're paying per the liter at the pump like a bunch of goobers.
@@wellno7179 That's either an Anglocentric or French propaganda view. Both sides were on the verge of collapse, both sides had strained their resources, especially troops, to the max. There had been mutinies in the French forces. What the US did, in both WW I and WW II was to help the allies as much as possible, while neutral, without the US being attacked. What most people don't realize is that there are and were more US citizens of German and Irish descent than English or French. That means that people like my family [German and Irish] had to be motivated to fight against their relatives. Attacking American [i.e.US] ships and citizens and plotting against the US was a crucial element in getting the US to officially join the war, though the US was not an ally but a cobeligerent in WW I. Patriotism trumps a somewhat attenuated blood tie.
@@JMM33RanMAI agree, my family from Texas and and South Dakota were primarily Russian, and German. Both of my grandparents fought against the Axis in WW2
the US didnt lose afghanistan. our war goals were to topple al-qaeda in afghanistan and as a side mission destroy the taliban. we destroyed al-qaeda in afghan so thats a win, but even tho the taliban still exists, we occupied and had control of their counyry for 21 years. id say they lost Lol (i will say it wasnt pretty. im biased because i AM american, but as per the wargoals it was for sure a W)
The US didn’t lose in Afghanistan. The Afghan National Army lost Afghanistan. The Taliban waited until the US had almost completely withdrawn before launching their attacks back into Afghanistan.
their aim was to eliminate all terrorist organisations, which they failed to do so and taliban probably the biggest terrorist organization still exist heck even rule a country like afghanistan, they lost terribly.
Technically we won Vietnam, we forced North Vietnam to the negotiating table. It was only after American troops withdrew from south, and several years after North Vietnam submitted to a cease fire did they launch a surprise invasion of the south taking it over completely.
@@TKDragon75the point was to get to a treaty. That’s exactly what occurred. The mission was by all accounts complete and won. Just because some years later they pulled some bs doesn’t mean we didn’t accomplish the goal that was attained previously. You do understand that fighting and war is a constant that’s been going on for thousands and thousands of years. As far back as cave man tribes fighting. It’s rinse and repeat. So to expect NOTHING to EVER happen in a place after a time of peace is beyond foolish. But for the time a treaty was secured and therefore won.
@@TKDragon75 Military victory achieved with the signing of the 1973 Paris Peace Accords. Between the US and the North Vietnamese government at the time. Politically it was a shit show. Just like Afghanistan all military objectives were completed. However because politicians are idiots it was a political shit show in the end.
Our objective in Afghanistan was the demand for those responsible for 9/11 such as Osama bin Laden. When we left Afghanistan, all of those on our list were dead or in prison. The Taliban went and hid in Pakistan until we were done. I hardly consider it a defeat.
It can be argued both ways so its a wash/inconclusive. On one hand a major objective was to basically nation build and win hearts and minds in order to stop terrorism, which failed. On the other hand it was far from a military defeat considering we won nearly ever battle, insanely lop-sided K/D, were not pushed out militarily, and pretty much controlled the country for 20 years.
@@Nick-sx6jm Not so we won the war but our political idiots did a random 3 week move out for the reason of lining that money in democratic pockets instead of the Afghanistan people.
We accomplished our military goals but also had the civil goal of creating a free democratic government in the country as well which did not work. I would say inconclusive was more apt.
@@Nick-sx6jm The main goal was to setup a puppet government and cripple the Taliban which we did. We left because we accomplished our goals and can't stay there forever so we gave control to the new government, and they failed miserably
We did not loose the Korean war, you can see our victory from fucking space. Also didn't loose the Vietnam war, we won and went home and didn't bother going back when they violated the terms of surrender.
Bruh I can see your point with Korea, but you have to concede Vietnam. What do you mean you won and went home. Too many troops were dying without achieving anything, so you pulled out all troops from southern Vietnam, which then immediately fell to the Viet Cong. How on earth is that a win?
@@turtlesandmoreturtles The argument of who won Vietnam is not an easy one to answer. The answer depends on the definition of victory. The U.S. defeated communist forces during most of Vietnam’s major battles. The U.S. overall suffered fewer casualties than its opponents. The United States’ overall objectives and outcomes. But, the principal purpose of the war was the preventing a communist takeover of the region. In that respect, it failed. Furthermore, domestic unrest and the financial cost of war made peace-and troop withdrawals-a necessity, not a choice. I personally believe that we never should've gotten involved in the first place.
@@turtlesandmoreturtles they signed a peace treaty to say south Vietnam is its own government, then the USA left south Vietnam except for like the embassy, then north Vietnam broke the treaty and surprise attacked south Vietnam. That's not a loss since it would a separate conflict that they wouldn't even be apart of.
America's involvement in WW1 is considered to be BOTH "short" and "impactful". Time-wise: It was short due to entering in 1917, but that entry resulted in.... Impact: Basically helping to repel and destroy Germany's last "main push" to the point that Germany's ability to replace/train/arm a new army was basically IMPOSSIBLE, forcing Germany to seriously consider possible "peace talks" where they would hold onto capture grounds and DEMAND concessions from the UK/France/W-Europe in general. However, America's ability to keep flooding the area with men, arms and supplies allows the USA/UK/France forces to continue pushing the Germans back until their ability to "determine peace terms" was no longer possible. So, while not there as long as other countries, the USA did show up and turned the tide from a possible "German determined stalemate" into a "German defeat".
When the fat electrician made the joke Dan daly video. In this is America. We've been a country for 124 years and we in haven't been armed conflict for all of 45 seconds. It really wasn't a joke
@@freeskierdude_ from 1775-1900 out of the 125 only 25 year that there wasnt armed conflict from the video. and yes i did quote his joke but that isnt really a joke just sad that we been in so much fighting for the first part of the nation as a whole..
Dude we been a country for like 251 years and we been at war with someone for probably over 200 years of that. That’s why we are so good at it. Bad part of it is all the wars we had with native Americans we actually got them to help us with our code transmissions bc the Navajo had no written language
@@Ace-mw9pmare you Shue about that? A ) it keeps those who would gladly invade us uncertain. B) by being so well versed in the aspects of warfare we understand the cosaquneses if it . C) granted it makes our violent crime sometimes resemble war zones but at the same time it makes u.s. citizens some of the best troops with or without formal training.
@@bobbombar6711 being at war for almost our entire existence as a country is a good thing? I failed to see how. We can have a strong military without constantly going to war. And no other country has the means to invade us except Canada and Mexico and their allies. Troops aren’t as important as you think, Technology and weapon systems are far more valuable and important to war in this day and age. Me personally I think we should stop sacrificing our citizens and killing random people across the globe just to keep up the Military Industrial Complex. And destabilizing countries who are no threat to us.
Ayo Where is 1971 Indo Pak War? Where Pakistan, USA, China, UK, Iran, almost whole west vs India, Solvet Union(Russia), Israel, Bangladesh The US provided diplomatic and military support to Pakistan, including sending the USS Enterprise into the Indian Ocean. The US also broke its arms embargo on Pakistan and allowed third countries, like Jordan, to provide air support.
US armed forces weren’t defeated in Iraq, Afghanistan or Vietnam. But you could absolutely say it was a political defeat and American withdrawal. But even then if it’s the will of the people that forces withdraw.. and the forces withdraw in accordance to the will of the people.. still a W. Compare that to current situation in Ukraine where Russia is experiencing both military loss, economic loss, political loss.. just all around loss. They are sending in their Sailors as infantry for crying out loud.
A lot of the battles and skirmishes against the native peoples were part of the larger “Indian Wars”. The first European settlers had scuffles as well, which are lumped in with the later wars. However, the ones that get the most attention were the ones that occurred after the US Civil War. That is when you get into the “Wild West”. There had always been tensions, but when the US proclaimed its Manifest Destiny, that's when everything exploded, with the rapid westward expansion. That is another dark chapter in our nation's history. When the Puritans first settled in North America in the 1600s, they had peaceful relations with the local natives for roughly 50 years. I forget exactly what happened, but one group offended the other and what should have been just an isolated incident, snowballed into the “Indian Wars”.
The war in afghanistan was definitely a military win but we took a fat L on nation building. The idea that the taliban overpowered the US military is laughable. From everyone I know in the service, they had strict goals of nation building and it just wasnt going to work. The culture has to be primed for change and having enough people to fight and die to that end wasnt available to the coalition. Thats why the afghan army fell within 36 hours of US pulling out. The taliban and isis were very smart in how they disguised themselves and ran a very successful internal smear campaign about US intentions. It was like fighting a hydra... every IS or Taliban militant that was eliminated turned into a recruiting drive. You'd have to kill everyone and its just not possible.
You did cover the Boxer Rebellion briefly when you watched the Fat Electrician video on Dan Daly, if you want to know more about the Barbary Wars go back to the Fat Electrician site and seach for the Barbary Wars their, its a great video that also goes into the Marine Corp. history.
The US was in WW1 for over a year and fought the Meusse-Argonne Offensive, credited with bringing an end to the war as a whole, we basically saved France from being destroyed by the Kaiserschlatt.
Also if you like reading books id suggest looking into reading some Texas Ranger memoirs if interested about native conflicts as well as Texas in conflict with Mexico, you can probably google certain ones you’d be more interested in.
I've heard it said that society's memory is only about fifty years long. Anything further back than that is so far away it doesn't feel real anymore. My parents are children of World War 2 veterans, those stories are strong in my mind, but I had to learn about World War 1 on my own. For children now, World War 2 is as far away from them as World War 1 is from me. That's the importance of historians. To keep our stories alive so that we can learn from them.
A lot of the indian events were just battles in the larger westward expansion of the time. A lot of fascinating history in those battles. Thr Battle at Wounded Knee is a great place to start. That was known as the Pine Ridge Campaign by the US Army
Technically the Seminole Indians weren't beaten. About 500 or so Seminoles held off the Union Army, to the point the president signed a truce with them and gave up trying to win...they are the original Seminoles that the current Florida Seminoles come from. It's why there is a statue of Chief Osceola, with "Unconquered" at the base.
@@zeroneg okay for one, read the very first fkn sentence I wrote.....read it 3 or 4 times just to be sure. For two, go read the history of the Seminole Wars and how the truce between the US and Seminoles was struck. They 110% weren't beaten....and that history was written by white man to boot. Ignorance isn't bliss....just makes you look dense, and un educated.
@@zeroneg As someone dating a Seminole woman. youre vastly misinformed. they have their main reservation near the Fort Lauderdale airport next to the Hard Rock in Brower County. Its the other way around. Some were relocated to Oklahoma but the majority are still in Florida.
@@shinon748 I would also argue that while the Florida tribe has recognition, before it did have said recognition, the Seminole Nation signed a peace treaty in the Treaty of 1866. The Seminole Tribe of Florida gained recognition in 1957. So they operated under the same treaty until that time. Pride is the only thing keeping the oral history from reflecting that fact. In fact, if the federal government can come in and order anything at all from the tribe, it is a protectorate of the US and therefore they lost. No peace treaty is needed for a group that didn't exist until 1957 and at the time wasn't at war. We don't need a peace treaty with South Africa if we were never at war with them, thus we don't have one. =0)
I saw a comment once on one of these video's, saying that in America's 250 years, we've NOT been at war or involved in some armed conflict for all of like 14 years.
America is THE modern warrior culture. We have never lost a war. Yes, that includes Vietnam and Afghanistan where the US met every goal it set out and then the host country went on to lose the country after the US withdrew almost all its forces.
@@victorchen9170 Wasn’t a loss, in ANYBODYS book who has studied it. It was a draw in popular opinion but an American win if you take in the totality of elements, like the fact that during the war of 1812 the US Navy completely ran over the Barbary pirates while simultaneously ending Britains blockade of America from European trading by fighting the two biggest warships in the world owned by England to a draw with MUCH smaller naval ships. The US kicked Britain out of New York and ran all British troops back to Canada. The only win Brit’s can point to during the War of 1812 was the burning of the White House while the US was kicking the redcoats out of New York. In the end, the Treaty of Ghent resulted in a return to Status Quo from before the war. So on paper it was a draw, in practice the youngest nation in the world beat the largest military in the world, on multiple fronts, again.
@@7y2oN Well that's not what our textbooks said. Y'all tried to invade, failed, and got beaten back. Successful defence. If Ukraine managed to push Russia back to their original borders, that would be a Russian loss no?
@@victorchen9170the war of 1812 is more complicated than that. Basically the US got very mad because Britain was commandeering US ships and forcing the ship and their crew to fight against Napoleon’s France. The US began a military campaign in response. When Britain sent an invasion force, the US invaded Canada as a strategic move to spread out British forces. The US capital got burned down, the British commanding general was killed, and the war ultimately ended with Britain agreeing to stop pressing American citizens into its military. Then, after the war was already over, Andrew Jackson led a ragtag group of militiamen, native Americans, and pirates to slaughter the British at New Orleans. This happened because news of the treaty had not arrived yet to either party. In the end, the US both won and lost because it resulted in Britain ceasing pressing Americans into its navy, but they also got their capital burned down. Britain both won and lost because they were able to defend their Canada territory successfully and burn down the White House, but they also lost a bunch of men and had to agree to stop pressing Americans into service. Canada is really the only faction that had a pure victory in that they didn’t lose anything. Everyone else both won and lost.
I didn’t know honestly there was only a few times like four or five years periodically of a gap that we were not fighting. I love history. I have to say thank you for this information. Unfortunately we’re still fighting today. I don’t see it an end to it ever 😢
there was a statistic i heard somewhere that said since the founding of the united states that the country has only ever experienced 20 years without being involved in some kind of conflict which is crazy since the country is about to turn 250 years old
There's a number of "was that a war or a battle" moments. Like John Browns raid. Its even in the title. John Browns RAID. Just something that occurred to me.
As far as Afghanistan is concerned, we accomplished our military goals. And we attempted to prop up a government there for 2 decades while getting shot at and blown up the whole time. After 2 decades and Billions of dollars they couldn't put together a functioning government and military that wouldn't crumble at thought of conflict. Glad were out of that mess now.
Thank you for pointed that out most non American think we just wiped out the tribes which is not true at all I mean I’m like 25%cherokee we didn’t die out like you said we came together pretty well especially relative to the times
Many of these aren’t really US wars, more military operations. For example the one listed as “Tanker” would be escorting tanker ships in the Persian Gulf until the USS Samuel B Robert’s hit a mine in international waters. What followed was something you’ve reacted on. US obliterates half of Iran’s navy in 8 hours. Much of it also appears to be international aid as well, and skirmishes with Native Americans.
Afghanistan vet here, I was in Kabul and had talks with the prime minister almost everyday about establishing a strong military and government. In my personal opinion, Afghanistan was a loss because had we committed for just a few more years and pulled out slowly over the span of those years instead of a matter of weeks, their own military might’ve held their ground when the taliban came knocking. However, I also believe because of the aforementioned reasons that it’s not the US army who lost that war but the politicians instead.
Had to comb through the victories, but here's a loss. The Battle of Aranas saw 14 Airborne along with ~14 Afghan Patrols fight groups of Taliban Militants. The team were supposed to meet with elders at the village of Aranas, but Lt. Matthew Ferrara became suspicious of the elders and ordered a withdraw. 20 mins down the mountain, both Airborne and Afghans were caught in a three-prong ambush that resulted with 6 U.S and 3 Afghan losses and the rest wounded. Supported by U.S artillery and Air Forces, the survivors were evacuated in the dead of night 4 hours after the battle began. For his valor during the battle, Sergeant Kyle White (who took command during the battle) was awarded the Medal of Honor.
@@silentmagician9386well you have educated me today. Obviously I took the time to research your response and indeed you are correct I would count that as a loss for that particular battle. I’m assuming you were also an educated individual as you took the time to research that so I’m going to also assume that you understand my overall point to that statement. No matter what wars people may say that the American people may have lost, the American soldier does not lose. I am speaking from personal experience.
Since becoming our own nation and gaining independence from England, we've only had something like 27 total years of peace to the present day. And I know we withdrew from the middle east, but I'm almost 100% positive that we still have servicemen in some sort of conflict somewhere.
Many of the conflicts shown in that timeline were against the indigenous peoples of North America and, at least in my area, are commonly grouped into a single conflict that spanned the continent from the Mississippi River to the Pacific Ocean.
WW1 was strange. America more or less tap out the russians so its influence is often downplayed. It was very much the german veterans from the easter front getting to the west around the same time the first American waves got to France to balance things out.
The reason the wars with the native americans are split up like that are because they were with different tribes. I'm not nearly qualified enough to explain Native American politics, but they weren't one group. And I guess you could think of them sort of like revolts or uprisings, in the sense that they aren't exactly wars or battles. Even though they absolutely weren't revolts. It was the US government trying to force Native Americans out to take their land. The US also didn't lose in Korea, Vietnam, or Afghanistan. They definitely didn't lose in the military sense. Korea is the only one that is really debatable. That was extremely complicated, and we absolutely could have completely destroyed North Korea if we wanted to, but we didn't want to start WW3 with China and the USSR so we let them stay and got them to sign the armistace deal. We won in Vietnam, got out, and then a few years later the NVA attacked again and won. We were not involved with Vietnam loosing. We were long gone by that point. Afghanistan is tough, just because they don't really have an actual government that means anything to sign a peace treaty with, and we didn't want to acknowledge al-qaeda in that sense because America doesn't negotiate with terrorists. So we killed Bin Laden and any other leader we could find, and they just kept running away and hiding in other countries where they recruited a bunch more morons to die for them. American involvement in WW1 was very significant. I'm not going to say it won the war, but it was a huge contributing factor. Germany seriously underestimated the American ability to move people and resources across the Atlantic, and as a result an extra 2 million soldiers reinforced the western front well before Germany expected them to. It was pretty much the nail in the coffin for Germany. America getting involved properly ended the war a year or 2 earlier than it otherwise would have, and it saved countless lives. For example, Paris very easily could have been assaulted directly if it wasn't for the US Marines at Belleau Wood. It probably wouldn't have fallen (even though giving up seems to be a theme with the French) but it still would have been devastating.
The US came in late to WW1. Our timing was critical because we came in just as Russia was dropping out. Germany, France and the UK were exhausted but the US was fresh and had millions of fresh troops. The ironic thing is that in 1917, the German Kaiser finally authorized unrestricted submarine warfare on all ships going to the UK. This is what pushed the US to declare war in April, just 6 months before Russia would drop out.
Yeah, people forget the French Military had already mutinied once by then and weren't afraid to do so again after the butchering French Generals had subjected them to, for numerous battles in which many were pointless in the end; and that manpower was so low even Old men in their 50's were being drafted/mobilized by the French. Many English Generals had equally butchered their men just as bad, and though their troops hadn't mutinied their morale was just as low. Then hundreds of thousands of young (And Old), happy, fresh faced A.E.F. and USMC troops started arriving non-stop by the ship-load and despite being ill-prepared for this kind of "Modern War" and so ill-equipped to the point many were entirely supplied with either British or French weapons and ammo (Such as the Lee-Enfield or Berthier rifles, Lewis Guns (Ironically designed by an American, but was refused by the Ordnance Department) or 8mm Chauchat Automatic Rifles, Vickers Guns or M1914 Hotchkiss Machineguns, the fabulous "French 75" rapid fire 75mm field cannon which suprisingly the M3 Lee and M4 Shermans M2 and M3 75mm Guns are actually derivatives of, based on the M1897 cannons the US adopted in WWI which were US produced copies of the "French 75" and would later equip the emergency stop-gap M3 GMC TD's in WWII. Even with all our naivety, our mere arrival raised morale all across the Western Front, even if for some it was just the thought maybe we'd be shoved through the meat grinder instead of them. We went on to prove ourselves in the Infamous "2nd Battle of the Marne", "The Meuse-Argonne Offensive", and the "Battle of Belleau Wood" which is where the USMC got its Infamous "Retreat? HELL we just got here!" After the French retreated to Paris after they and the Marines had successfully defended a major German Offensive as the French didn't want to be there when the Germans retaliated to make an example of them, the USMC said "Bet" donned gas masks and for a month brutally fought on even in horrific close quarters trench warfare. But in the end a single short Telegram was sent "Woods. Now Marine Corps Entirely." And where the USMC got their "Devil Dogs" Nickname for viciously fighting and hanging on like hounds from hell; Hell Hounds if you will. As for why we joined, Close, but no. American casualties had been increasing for years due to submarines, whether it was US cargo and ammunition ships transporting war supplies to the Entente; or Ocean Liners suspected of hiding War Goods in their holds like the famous RMS Lusitania (Which did NOT have enough munitions on board to be considered a legitimate target under international law at that time) or even ships that the Germans thought were disguised Warships becauseof the UK. (Fun Fact: Germany started the war with U-Boats surfacing and allowing Merchant vessel crews to escape in their life rafts before sinking the cargo ships with their deck gun, it wasn't until the British abused this trust by making "Q-Ships" [Merchant ships covered in deck guns, hidden behind drop doors and whatnot to look like a regular unarmed vessel), which were made so that when a U-Boat surfaced and asked ships to submit to being searched to determine if they were transporting war material, if it was a Q-Ship they'd immediately expose their weapons mounts and open fire without warning, often sinking the U-Boat. However, not always, so when Germany learned about these "Q-Ships" that was when the "real" *Unrestricted* Submarine warfare started, and they decided to just torpedo everything and any ship deemed "suspect" and blow them out of the water without warning or time to escape as they decided they weren't gonna let themselves be sunk instead.) We [The US] were selling weapons and supplies to damn near EVERYONE, as we were the only arms dealer not getting bombed on the regular or under a blockade. Demand was SO high even the US government got put on hold in a few instances as gun companies were like "Dude, we're already tooled up and manufacturing 1,500,000 Rifles for "X" country, you're gonna have to get in line". For instance, you can find Remington Mosin-Nagants, and Old Remington Rolling Blocks were bought and used by France and Russia for 2nd line rifles so they could free up the more modern stuff for the "Front". So while a BIG part, unrestricted submarine warfare was NOT enough to allow Pres. Wilson to declare war or even convince the US people war was worth it or necessary, especially as there was actually a lot of Pro-German sentiment at the time still. What DID was British Intelligence wire tapping the undersea telegraph lines that almost all naturally formed a hub in the UK as the starting point as they all crossed the Atlantic. This allowed them to intercept the "Zimmerman Telegram" which they slyly slid to the US. As the Telegram was proof of Germany asking if Mexico could invade the US and that they should reclaim the land of California, New Mexico, Texas, etc, that they lost in the Mexican-American Warships and MASSIVELY disrupt our industry while completely distracting us from anything in Europe so we wouldn't join the war against them, and they'd help fund/supply it and later maybe give the Mexicans a big payday. Now THIS, Ironically, is what pushed the US to finally declare war and join WWI on the side of the Entente; EXACTLY the opposite of what Germany wanted. *Then* things lime "Remember the Lusitania!" Were used in propaganda to drum up support for the war amongst the more isolationist minded majority of Americans.
@@pyro1047 You should have said, "close, but their is more". Yes, I agree the Zimmerman telegram probably pushed it over but the submarine warfare was the main cause. The British had the telegram for a while but waited to tell us about it until it would have move impact. I am also aware of everything we were shipping over. I just so happen to have a Remington M1891 rifle. The one I think would really be neat is the Winchester Model 1895 in 7.62x54r.
Really puzzled by the depiction of the "Cherokee vs American" conflicts as being in Texas to Missouri. That wasn't the area. It was in the Cherokee territories of eastern Tennessee, western North Carolina, western Georgia, and my home turf of western South Carolina. ( I think parts of modern Kentucky, Virginia, and Alabama were also involved.) I've been to the grave of Gen. Andrew Pickens over in Clemson, SC, who was one of the leaders in that series of conflicts, which ran concurrent to the American Revolution. Very odd that they got the territory off by hundreds of miles.
If you want to know about the dmz conflict at 12:03 watch the Fat Electricians world war tree video. Its basiclly the entire conflict from start to fhe finish.
Japan's involvement in WWI was actually pretty substantial if you read about it, taking into consideration they repelled the German and Austro-Hungarian empire out of the eastern hemisphere and denying them superiority in the Pacific
The "Korean War" war went from 1950 to 1953. That is "the war" that separated North and South Korea, and established the De-Militarized Zone (DMZ). This was the first ever conflict the United Nations participated in after its establishment, hence British, French, etc. involvement. The "DMZ Conflict" Between 1966 and 1969 was a series of low-level skirmishes between the North Korean, South Korean, and American militaries. Technical Historical gripe. The US didn't lose the Vietnam Conflict, the South Vietnamese lost. The US forced the NVA to sign a peace agreement in 1973. The Paris Peace Accords were ratified and they outlined Vietnam being reunified via negotiation between North and South, without foreign intervention. The US withdrew from Vietnam. The NVA immediately began open hostilities again, conquering South Vietnam. As per the Accords, the US would not intervene, despite the North's violations of it.
Look at Flanders Fields that graveyard as 10s of thousands American soldiers interned there. The US was big at the end of WW1 as they came is fresh and helped with the big push out of the trenches
Keep in mind this video only starts with the war for independence. Before it was known as the U.S. the colonist where also wagging war all the time before this time, either against each other and/or against/with the natives. But keep in mind this wasn't an American exclusive because Europe was doing the same at this time and for many years before colonizing the Americas. Remember there are many thousands of years of constant wars in the world before America helped create the longest time of major global peace with the exception of smaller local conflicts.
Some of these that you say that you don't know about, but you do through movies. 13:14 First Somali is when and where the movie Black Hawk Down took place in.
The Utah War was when some pissed off people went back from Utah, which at the time was a Territory and almost it's own little country, kinda like Texas was, and made those in Washington DC think the LDS(Mormons) were in full rebellion against the US and attacking wagon trains that passed through and nearby. This after they had fled to, settled and established what became Utah Territory after widespread persecution back east and a actual Kill on Sight order written and declared by Governor Boggs of Missouri. Missouri Executive Order 44 (known as the Mormon Extermination Order) and it wasn't officially repealed till 1976.
America beating the Barbarie states is why Europe is still around. Tripoli is where the Marines showed their mettle and freed all of Europe from paying extortion moneys to these states. That is just one of the many times The USA has come to the aid of Europe.
Using the US army to nation build is like asking a plumber to build a roof… they can probably do it, but there is a more effective group to perform that task.
The dominican republic in haiti may share an island but they're two separate countries and because of they're in different time periods.Yeah, they wouldn't be listed as the same war
the only defeat was thinking we could stay there and occupy and turn it into something and turn their army into capable fighters. we were just wrong. we won battles and the overall army vs army confrontations, but you could say Defeat in the war only because we chose to abandon once it was no longer beneficial....
Vietnam was a resounding American victory because we forced North Vietnam to surrender under a ceasefire. They waited until the US pulled the majority of American troops out of Vietnam and then broke their surrender and attacked the South Vietnamese army which crumbled. The Fall of Saigon was not a defeat of the American military. It was a literally a few dozen US Marine Diplomatic Security officers evacuating American diplomats and Vietnamese civilians.
MAJOR disagreement over Vietnam. The USA FORCED the N. Vietnam forces to come to a cease fire, and only AFTER the USA started to withdraw (basically 2 years later) did the N. Vietnam forces take over the S.Vietnam areas. So the USA "won" that war in regard to forcing the other side to AGREE TO CEASE OF HOSTILITIES. Only to have the opponents BREAK the agreement AFTER the USA withdrew their forces, leaving only a small "security element" in their embassy in Saigon, which was then overwhelmed and you had the "panic withdraw" of people at the embassy as the North invaded ..... TWO YEARS after the "cease fire" had been agreed to, and the vast majority of USA assets (military) had left the country.
In people like to say Afghanistan was a defeat think of it this way. Uncle Sam came into the terrorists house in whoop their ass for 20 years plus. The withdrawal yes that was a defeat but that whole war we literally whooped their asses for 20 years. If you want to consider a loss go right ahead I will say that the pull out was shitty. It is really complicated but no America technically just got tired of whooping a bunch of terrorists who decide to run.
It certainly is a complex issue, I'd like to think that the thousands of allied lives lost in that place died for something? Back to square one, with nothing but debt for the taxpayer and an empty place at the dinner table where father/brother/son won't be coming home. There will never be enough 'whoop ass' to replace those men and women, and the civilians being hunted door to door because they bought into the dream of a future better than the Taliban could offer them.
@@s3p4kner yeah most definitely but I'm saying it's not really losing in a sense because it really wasn't like your average war like world war II. It was completely different I don't know if you want to say we lost just because we had a shitty withdrawal from there it definitely wasn't a win but it definitely wasn't a loss either. The withdrawal was a loss but fighting wise I think we won that. That make sense?
Technically the USA has officially declared war 11 times. This really is a timeline of US involved conflict, not declared war.
That’s why it says military history and not list of wars……
@@aj897I agree with you except the thumbnail proposes the question: ALWAYS AT WAR?
No they were all conflicts. Approved by congress which is the job of Congress and Congress doesn't have to write we declare war.
@@timesthree5757 Um your a bit confused there because Congress is the only part of the US government that has the right to declare war. Congress is the part of the government that votes on rather or not to declare war. The President is just the one who announces the decision to the American people after Congress votes to declare war . Congress has only voted to declare war 11 times. The President does not have that power. And must go before Congress , lay out the case for war to be declared then Congress votes on the issue.
So It is Congress that declares war.
Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the Constitution states that Congress has the power to "declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water.".
So try reading the Constitution It goes into detail about the powers of the branches of government.
Honestly it’s kind of a weird how the only real difference between whether or not it’s a war comes down to if both sides actually made an official declaration of war. So even tho many of these conflicts probably should be considered a war based on the amount of military power used and or length of time it lasted there not purely because war wasn’t officially declared.
@OriginalHuman I think the tanker was referring to when the US destroyed half of Iran’s navy. I could be wrong but I have seen The Fat Electrician’s video so many times I think I’m accurate in the statement.
Buh...
I think that was later in the 2000s
I was looking to see if someone else made the comment. Yes the tanker is related to Operation Praying Mantis.
@@DMetallicat81 thought so wasnt sure
@@DevilSlayer502no yhay was 1988
idk i doubt if natives and americans worked together they would be any more powerful than the US is now tbh. im mostly native( 68 percent) but i also have a tiny bit black and scottish plus english in me. so ill say this. for those who called the americans genocidal, i need to defend my country here. 92 percent of all amerindian (native american) deaths came from disease. the other 8 percent were in actual battles/ wars and most of them were initiated by the natives, my tribe (the Mohawk) actually enjoed scalping and raping white women so i dont really care. i do believe we natives were barbarians in a time where the world was trying to leave that behind. im a proud american. love this country snd my father fought for it; i love it here. love u original human
well... you forget to mention stuff like sending diseased blankets on purpose to natives as gifts, and many wars that natives started also happened after they were kicked off of land that was given to them by US already. So while i agree its not black and white calling americans just genocidal its not like they are innocent of all they did to natives either. As for US being stronger if they were nicer to natives i doubt it as well, it woudl have taken them too long to integrate probably and there arent that many of them anyways as you say too many died to diseases main strength of US were always immigrants from europe that integrated way easier, and i guess slaves just because of extra population but free people are always gonna be more useful than slaves
@@olorin3815 no that wasnt on purpose. they didnt understand germs and disease as we know it. pls dont be offended for us man let US be offended if WE decide to be man. cmon. im a proud american and i also know we didnt understand germs very well until the early 1900s long after.
@@chrisvibz4753 you dont need to understand germs to know stuff about diseases, sure they didnt know exactly how they work but its not like they had no clue how they spread either, they knew enough for a long time to quarantine ares and stuff when there are diseases and that they can spread theough contact etc
@@chrisvibz4753 where do you stand on sports teams removing their names and culture which honor the native people? i find it unbelievable that anyone actually considers those racist monikers and not tributes to the people who originally claimed these lands. cleveland indians, florida state seminoles, washington redskins, chiefs, etc.
@@cellamuert i mean i like it if they name teams or make logos based on the warrior culture which is fine. i mean the US Army helicopters like attack helicopters are named after tribes so why cant a sports team be called “the redskins” i mean thst wasnt a slur way back when, it was just a way to identify between a native and a white guy or black guy. same as “Yellow” for asian, now theyre considered slurs which idk why but ig if theyre used that way enough then they technically become one (?)
Uh. Idk about in the UK, but we hear plenty about our involvement in WWI over here. When we joined we tipped the scales.
Voluntarily leaving a country after occupying it for over 20 years doesn't constitute defeat. If we wanted to, we could go right back to occupying it. We just got tired of it.
This video of theirs would have been a lot better if they'd done anything more than just list conflicts.
also we were giving supplies and food throughout the war
@@SearingNinja I was going to add something like that. Army's move on logistics. The one thing the US could provide plenty of while not participating directly was logistics. It's just that only the British understood what our measurements were while the rest of the world mocked our yards, feet, pounds, and gallons...And now they're paying per the liter at the pump like a bunch of goobers.
Yeah US involvement shortened WW1, but the entente still would’ve won without US intervention, some of you act like the US won WW1 single-handedly.
@@wellno7179 That's either an Anglocentric or French propaganda view. Both sides were on the verge of collapse, both sides had strained their resources, especially troops, to the max. There had been mutinies in the French forces. What the US did, in both WW I and WW II was to help the allies as much as possible, while neutral, without the US being attacked. What most people don't realize is that there are and were more US citizens of German and Irish descent than English or French. That means that people like my family [German and Irish] had to be motivated to fight against their relatives. Attacking American [i.e.US] ships and citizens and plotting against the US was a crucial element in getting the US to officially join the war, though the US was not an ally but a cobeligerent in WW I. Patriotism trumps a somewhat attenuated blood tie.
@@JMM33RanMAI agree, my family from Texas and and South Dakota were primarily Russian, and German. Both of my grandparents fought against the Axis in WW2
the US didnt lose afghanistan. our war goals were to topple al-qaeda in afghanistan and as a side mission destroy the taliban. we destroyed al-qaeda in afghan so thats a win, but even tho the taliban still exists, we occupied and had control of their counyry for 21 years. id say they lost Lol (i will say it wasnt pretty. im biased because i AM american, but as per the wargoals it was for sure a W)
and we even still now 💀🪦 there leaders lol so we still winning
You are right
The US didn’t lose in Afghanistan. The Afghan National Army lost Afghanistan. The Taliban waited until the US had almost completely withdrawn before launching their attacks back into Afghanistan.
their aim was to eliminate all terrorist organisations, which they failed to do so and taliban probably the biggest terrorist organization still exist heck even rule a country like afghanistan, they lost terribly.
@@JodioJoestar-by8sn that’s ABSOLUTELY not what the goal was. Why did you just make that up?
we won iraq per our war goals. our war goals were to topple saddam and we did do its a dub
Korean DMX conflict might be a reference to what "The Fat Electrician" has a vid on. No its not the Korean War. That was in the 50s.
And yes the Indian wars were all separate wars with different tribes
Technically we won Vietnam, we forced North Vietnam to the negotiating table. It was only after American troops withdrew from south, and several years after North Vietnam submitted to a cease fire did they launch a surprise invasion of the south taking it over completely.
Uh no we really did not like at all. To say we won, and still the North also won is stupid. We gotta learn to take losses.
@@TKDragon75 how did we not at all can you explain?
@@TKDragon75 But we didn't lose any territory and we had way less deaths. So how do you determine who wins and loses?
@@TKDragon75the point was to get to a treaty. That’s exactly what occurred. The mission was by all accounts complete and won. Just because some years later they pulled some bs doesn’t mean we didn’t accomplish the goal that was attained previously. You do understand that fighting and war is a constant that’s been going on for thousands and thousands of years. As far back as cave man tribes fighting. It’s rinse and repeat. So to expect NOTHING to EVER happen in a place after a time of peace is beyond foolish. But for the time a treaty was secured and therefore won.
@@TKDragon75 Military victory achieved with the signing of the 1973 Paris Peace Accords. Between the US and the North Vietnamese government at the time. Politically it was a shit show. Just like Afghanistan all military objectives were completed. However because politicians are idiots it was a political shit show in the end.
Our objective in Afghanistan was the demand for those responsible for 9/11 such as Osama bin Laden. When we left Afghanistan, all of those on our list were dead or in prison. The Taliban went and hid in Pakistan until we were done. I hardly consider it a defeat.
It can be argued both ways so its a wash/inconclusive. On one hand a major objective was to basically nation build and win hearts and minds in order to stop terrorism, which failed. On the other hand it was far from a military defeat considering we won nearly ever battle, insanely lop-sided K/D, were not pushed out militarily, and pretty much controlled the country for 20 years.
Your mission was to destroy Taliban. You failed.
@@Nick-sx6jm Not so we won the war but our political idiots did a random 3 week move out for the reason of lining that money in democratic pockets instead of the Afghanistan people.
We accomplished our military goals but also had the civil goal of creating a free democratic government in the country as well which did not work. I would say inconclusive was more apt.
@@Nick-sx6jm The main goal was to setup a puppet government and cripple the Taliban which we did. We left because we accomplished our goals and can't stay there forever so we gave control to the new government, and they failed miserably
"What are you thinking about?"
"...a John Brown farm."
the movie blackhawk down was samolia
We did not loose the Korean war, you can see our victory from fucking space. Also didn't loose the Vietnam war, we won and went home and didn't bother going back when they violated the terms of surrender.
lmao
Bruh I can see your point with Korea, but you have to concede Vietnam. What do you mean you won and went home. Too many troops were dying without achieving anything, so you pulled out all troops from southern Vietnam, which then immediately fell to the Viet Cong. How on earth is that a win?
@@turtlesandmoreturtles The argument of who won Vietnam is not an easy one to answer. The answer depends on the definition of victory. The U.S. defeated communist forces during most of Vietnam’s major battles. The U.S. overall suffered fewer casualties than its opponents. The United States’ overall objectives and outcomes. But, the principal purpose of the war was the preventing a communist takeover of the region. In that respect, it failed. Furthermore, domestic unrest and the financial cost of war made peace-and troop withdrawals-a necessity, not a choice. I personally believe that we never should've gotten involved in the first place.
@@turtlesandmoreturtles they signed a peace treaty to say south Vietnam is its own government, then the USA left south Vietnam except for like the embassy, then north Vietnam broke the treaty and surprise attacked south Vietnam. That's not a loss since it would a separate conflict that they wouldn't even be apart of.
The Korean War is technically still ongoing. There has been a ceasefire since the 50's but there has never been a peace agreement of any sort.
America's involvement in WW1 is considered to be BOTH "short" and "impactful".
Time-wise: It was short due to entering in 1917, but that entry resulted in....
Impact: Basically helping to repel and destroy Germany's last "main push" to the point that Germany's ability to replace/train/arm a new army was basically IMPOSSIBLE, forcing Germany to seriously consider possible "peace talks" where they would hold onto capture grounds and DEMAND concessions from the UK/France/W-Europe in general. However, America's ability to keep flooding the area with men, arms and supplies allows the USA/UK/France forces to continue pushing the Germans back until their ability to "determine peace terms" was no longer possible.
So, while not there as long as other countries, the USA did show up and turned the tide from a possible "German determined stalemate" into a "German defeat".
When the fat electrician made the joke Dan daly video. In this is America. We've been a country for 124 years and we in haven't been armed conflict for all of 45 seconds. It really wasn't a joke
my dude where in the world is your math coming from?
@@freeskierdude_ from 1775-1900 out of the 125 only 25 year that there wasnt armed conflict from the video. and yes i did quote his joke but that isnt really a joke just sad that we been in so much fighting for the first part of the nation as a whole..
Dude we been a country for like 251 years and we been at war with someone for probably over 200 years of that. That’s why we are so good at it. Bad part of it is all the wars we had with native Americans we actually got them to help us with our code transmissions bc the Navajo had no written language
It’s not really a good thing
@@Ace-mw9pmare you Shue about that?
A ) it keeps those who would gladly invade us uncertain.
B) by being so well versed in the aspects of warfare we understand the cosaquneses if it .
C) granted it makes our violent crime sometimes resemble war zones but at the same time it makes u.s. citizens some of the best troops with or without formal training.
@@bobbombar6711 being at war for almost our entire existence as a country is a good thing? I failed to see how. We can have a strong military without constantly going to war. And no other country has the means to invade us except Canada and Mexico and their allies. Troops aren’t as important as you think, Technology and weapon systems are far more valuable and important to war in this day and age. Me personally I think we should stop sacrificing our citizens and killing random people across the globe just to keep up the Military Industrial Complex. And destabilizing countries who are no threat to us.
@@Ace-mw9pm how little you understand about history . From ancient times to modren .
Ayo Where is 1971 Indo Pak War?
Where Pakistan, USA, China, UK, Iran, almost whole west vs India, Solvet Union(Russia), Israel, Bangladesh
The US provided diplomatic and military support to Pakistan, including sending the USS Enterprise into the Indian Ocean. The US also broke its arms embargo on Pakistan and allowed third countries, like Jordan, to provide air support.
The only conflicts in this video were ones where the US sent troops, no US troops were involved in the 1971 Indo Pak war.
US armed forces weren’t defeated in Iraq, Afghanistan or Vietnam. But you could absolutely say it was a political defeat and American withdrawal. But even then if it’s the will of the people that forces withdraw.. and the forces withdraw in accordance to the will of the people.. still a W. Compare that to current situation in Ukraine where Russia is experiencing both military loss, economic loss, political loss.. just all around loss. They are sending in their Sailors as infantry for crying out loud.
The US withdrew from Vietnam because they knew they couldn’t win, they just wanted to end the war on their own terms.
A lot of the battles and skirmishes against the native peoples were part of the larger “Indian Wars”. The first European settlers had scuffles as well, which are lumped in with the later wars. However, the ones that get the most attention were the ones that occurred after the US Civil War. That is when you get into the “Wild West”. There had always been tensions, but when the US proclaimed its Manifest Destiny, that's when everything exploded, with the rapid westward expansion. That is another dark chapter in our nation's history. When the Puritans first settled in North America in the 1600s, they had peaceful relations with the local natives for roughly 50 years. I forget exactly what happened, but one group offended the other and what should have been just an isolated incident, snowballed into the “Indian Wars”.
The war in afghanistan was definitely a military win but we took a fat L on nation building. The idea that the taliban overpowered the US military is laughable. From everyone I know in the service, they had strict goals of nation building and it just wasnt going to work. The culture has to be primed for change and having enough people to fight and die to that end wasnt available to the coalition. Thats why the afghan army fell within 36 hours of US pulling out.
The taliban and isis were very smart in how they disguised themselves and ran a very successful internal smear campaign about US intentions. It was like fighting a hydra... every IS or Taliban militant that was eliminated turned into a recruiting drive. You'd have to kill everyone and its just not possible.
You did cover the Boxer Rebellion briefly when you watched the Fat Electrician video on Dan Daly, if you want to know more about the Barbary Wars go back to the Fat Electrician site and seach for the Barbary Wars their, its a great video that also goes into the Marine Corp. history.
The US was in WW1 for over a year and fought the Meusse-Argonne Offensive, credited with bringing an end to the war as a whole, we basically saved France from being destroyed by the Kaiserschlatt.
The intervention in Somalia had a movie made about it. You may have seen it, Black Hawk Down, was the title of the movie.
You should react to ww1 1914 it goes through what happens year by year throughout the entire war
0:17 There was a 20-year period where the U.S. wasn't at war, but yeah, for the most part
Also if you like reading books id suggest looking into reading some Texas Ranger memoirs if interested about native conflicts as well as Texas in conflict with Mexico, you can probably google certain ones you’d be more interested in.
The Korean Conflict was 1950-1953. The DMZ Incident was just along the DMZ separating North and South Korea.
I've heard it said that society's memory is only about fifty years long. Anything further back than that is so far away it doesn't feel real anymore. My parents are children of World War 2 veterans, those stories are strong in my mind, but I had to learn about World War 1 on my own. For children now, World War 2 is as far away from them as World War 1 is from me. That's the importance of historians. To keep our stories alive so that we can learn from them.
A lot of the indian events were just battles in the larger westward expansion of the time. A lot of fascinating history in those battles. Thr Battle at Wounded Knee is a great place to start. That was known as the Pine Ridge Campaign by the US Army
some my favorite bit of history is the quotes about U.S. marines in ww1 at the battle of Belleau wood
Technically the Seminole Indians weren't beaten. About 500 or so Seminoles held off the Union Army, to the point the president signed a truce with them and gave up trying to win...they are the original Seminoles that the current Florida Seminoles come from. It's why there is a statue of Chief Osceola, with "Unconquered" at the base.
Tell me more about how they weren’t relocated to Oklahoma with a few holdouts remaining behind. Winners don’t give up land.
@@zeroneg okay for one, read the very first fkn sentence I wrote.....read it 3 or 4 times just to be sure. For two, go read the history of the Seminole Wars and how the truce between the US and Seminoles was struck. They 110% weren't beaten....and that history was written by white man to boot. Ignorance isn't bliss....just makes you look dense, and un educated.
@@zeroneg As someone dating a Seminole woman. youre vastly misinformed. they have their main reservation near the Fort Lauderdale airport next to the Hard Rock in Brower County. Its the other way around. Some were relocated to Oklahoma but the majority are still in Florida.
@@shinon748 I simply challenge your use of the word "majority". =0)
@@shinon748 I would also argue that while the Florida tribe has recognition, before it did have said recognition, the Seminole Nation signed a peace treaty in the Treaty of 1866. The Seminole Tribe of Florida gained recognition in 1957. So they operated under the same treaty until that time. Pride is the only thing keeping the oral history from reflecting that fact. In fact, if the federal government can come in and order anything at all from the tribe, it is a protectorate of the US and therefore they lost. No peace treaty is needed for a group that didn't exist until 1957 and at the time wasn't at war. We don't need a peace treaty with South Africa if we were never at war with them, thus we don't have one. =0)
Yea with the amount of native american conflicts mentioned, it is worth reviewing 'Bleeding river'
Check out the movie danger closes out “long tan” for more on New Zealand in Vietnam. It’s not half bad.
You and we would probably be surprised if the same video was done on GB.
I saw a comment once on one of these video's, saying that in America's 250 years, we've NOT been at war or involved in some armed conflict for all of like 14 years.
America is THE modern warrior culture. We have never lost a war. Yes, that includes Vietnam and Afghanistan where the US met every goal it set out and then the host country went on to lose the country after the US withdrew almost all its forces.
We've never lost a war, we do sometimes lose the political will to fight. However we were fought to a draw in Korea
1812?
@@victorchen9170 Wasn’t a loss, in ANYBODYS book who has studied it. It was a draw in popular opinion but an American win if you take in the totality of elements, like the fact that during the war of 1812 the US Navy completely ran over the Barbary pirates while simultaneously ending Britains blockade of America from European trading by fighting the two biggest warships in the world owned by England to a draw with MUCH smaller naval ships. The US kicked Britain out of New York and ran all British troops back to Canada. The only win Brit’s can point to during the War of 1812 was the burning of the White House while the US was kicking the redcoats out of New York. In the end, the Treaty of Ghent resulted in a return to Status Quo from before the war. So on paper it was a draw, in practice the youngest nation in the world beat the largest military in the world, on multiple fronts, again.
@@7y2oN Well that's not what our textbooks said. Y'all tried to invade, failed, and got beaten back. Successful defence.
If Ukraine managed to push Russia back to their original borders, that would be a Russian loss no?
@@victorchen9170the war of 1812 is more complicated than that. Basically the US got very mad because Britain was commandeering US ships and forcing the ship and their crew to fight against Napoleon’s France. The US began a military campaign in response. When Britain sent an invasion force, the US invaded Canada as a strategic move to spread out British forces. The US capital got burned down, the British commanding general was killed, and the war ultimately ended with Britain agreeing to stop pressing American citizens into its military. Then, after the war was already over, Andrew Jackson led a ragtag group of militiamen, native Americans, and pirates to slaughter the British at New Orleans. This happened because news of the treaty had not arrived yet to either party. In the end, the US both won and lost because it resulted in Britain ceasing pressing Americans into its navy, but they also got their capital burned down. Britain both won and lost because they were able to defend their Canada territory successfully and burn down the White House, but they also lost a bunch of men and had to agree to stop pressing Americans into service. Canada is really the only faction that had a pure victory in that they didn’t lose anything. Everyone else both won and lost.
I didn’t know honestly there was only a few times like four or five years periodically of a gap that we were not fighting. I love history. I have to say thank you for this information. Unfortunately we’re still fighting today. I don’t see it an end to it ever 😢
there was a statistic i heard somewhere that said since the founding of the united states that the country has only ever experienced 20 years without being involved in some kind of conflict which is crazy since the country is about to turn 250 years old
1st intervention in Somalia, there is a movie about it, Black Hawk Down.
Honestly, I think the attitude is much more we are the bouncer so yeah, always fighting
Fun fact the courthouse in Lexington Missouri has a cannon ball on of the pillars from the civil war.
There's a number of "was that a war or a battle" moments. Like John Browns raid. Its even in the title. John Browns RAID. Just something that occurred to me.
Just watched the Roy Benavidez react video…you need to do a deep dive into MACV-SOG if you haven’t. Absolutely bonkers
Korean War was early 50s , the DMZ conflict was little fights along the DMZ
As far as Afghanistan is concerned, we accomplished our military goals. And we attempted to prop up a government there for 2 decades while getting shot at and blown up the whole time. After 2 decades and Billions of dollars they couldn't put together a functioning government and military that wouldn't crumble at thought of conflict. Glad were out of that mess now.
The Somalia intervention I believe is essentially the events of the Black Hawk Down movie
A lot of stuff on there we’re just little scrimmages and not wars.
Hey, the vid actually posted up Thailands flag in WW2, Korea, and Vietnam wars, nice. Most don’t even realize they were active participants in those.
I'm American native Chippewa and we have all come together lol
Thank you for pointed that out most non American think we just wiped out the tribes which is not true at all I mean I’m like 25%cherokee we didn’t die out like you said we came together pretty well especially relative to the times
The Iran tanker was the incident that I saw you react to from a fat electrician story
Keegan wrote a good one volume history of ww1
They were substantial to be sure the Apaches and the Comanches were no slouches on the battle field
Many of these aren’t really US wars, more military operations. For example the one listed as “Tanker” would be escorting tanker ships in the Persian Gulf until the USS Samuel B Robert’s hit a mine in international waters. What followed was something you’ve reacted on. US obliterates half of Iran’s navy in 8 hours. Much of it also appears to be international aid as well, and skirmishes with Native Americans.
There is an old saying, "Those who do not know history are condemned to repeat it". 😎
Afghanistan vet here, I was in Kabul and had talks with the prime minister almost everyday about establishing a strong military and government.
In my personal opinion, Afghanistan was a loss because had we committed for just a few more years and pulled out slowly over the span of those years instead of a matter of weeks, their own military might’ve held their ground when the taliban came knocking.
However, I also believe because of the aforementioned reasons that it’s not the US army who lost that war but the politicians instead.
Pershing's memoirs would give you a good idea of America's input into WW1
We may have lost politically in Afghanistan, but name, one battle where our soldiers lost… go ahead. I’ll wait.
Had to comb through the victories, but here's a loss. The Battle of Aranas saw 14 Airborne along with ~14 Afghan Patrols fight groups of Taliban Militants. The team were supposed to meet with elders at the village of Aranas, but Lt. Matthew Ferrara became suspicious of the elders and ordered a withdraw. 20 mins down the mountain, both Airborne and Afghans were caught in a three-prong ambush that resulted with 6 U.S and 3 Afghan losses and the rest wounded. Supported by U.S artillery and Air Forces, the survivors were evacuated in the dead of night 4 hours after the battle began. For his valor during the battle, Sergeant Kyle White (who took command during the battle) was awarded the Medal of Honor.
@@silentmagician9386well you have educated me today. Obviously I took the time to research your response and indeed you are correct I would count that as a loss for that particular battle. I’m assuming you were also an educated individual as you took the time to research that so I’m going to also assume that you understand my overall point to that statement. No matter what wars people may say that the American people may have lost, the American soldier does not lose. I am speaking from personal experience.
I imagine the Korean DMZ Conflict is the World War Three video I'm sure you watched :) DMZ is DeMilitarized Zone
@ Kovitiac - WW "Tree"
Since becoming our own nation and gaining independence from England, we've only had something like 27 total years of peace to the present day. And I know we withdrew from the middle east, but I'm almost 100% positive that we still have servicemen in some sort of conflict somewhere.
Many of the conflicts shown in that timeline were against the indigenous peoples of North America and, at least in my area, are commonly grouped into a single conflict that spanned the continent from the Mississippi River to the Pacific Ocean.
The Somali intervention is one you probably don't realize you know about. Events of the film "Black Hawk Down" took place during that.
5:09 and maybe i missed it but he (mushroom guy) didnt mention or perhaps notice how often some Native group was allied with the States.
13:21 The movie "Black Hawk Down" is based on this conflict.
WW1 was strange. America more or less tap out the russians so its influence is often downplayed. It was very much the german veterans from the easter front getting to the west around the same time the first American waves got to France to balance things out.
John Browning's trench shotgun made its debut too
They didn't mention Poncho Villa (1916-1917).
The reason the wars with the native americans are split up like that are because they were with different tribes. I'm not nearly qualified enough to explain Native American politics, but they weren't one group. And I guess you could think of them sort of like revolts or uprisings, in the sense that they aren't exactly wars or battles. Even though they absolutely weren't revolts. It was the US government trying to force Native Americans out to take their land.
The US also didn't lose in Korea, Vietnam, or Afghanistan. They definitely didn't lose in the military sense. Korea is the only one that is really debatable. That was extremely complicated, and we absolutely could have completely destroyed North Korea if we wanted to, but we didn't want to start WW3 with China and the USSR so we let them stay and got them to sign the armistace deal. We won in Vietnam, got out, and then a few years later the NVA attacked again and won. We were not involved with Vietnam loosing. We were long gone by that point. Afghanistan is tough, just because they don't really have an actual government that means anything to sign a peace treaty with, and we didn't want to acknowledge al-qaeda in that sense because America doesn't negotiate with terrorists. So we killed Bin Laden and any other leader we could find, and they just kept running away and hiding in other countries where they recruited a bunch more morons to die for them.
American involvement in WW1 was very significant. I'm not going to say it won the war, but it was a huge contributing factor. Germany seriously underestimated the American ability to move people and resources across the Atlantic, and as a result an extra 2 million soldiers reinforced the western front well before Germany expected them to. It was pretty much the nail in the coffin for Germany. America getting involved properly ended the war a year or 2 earlier than it otherwise would have, and it saved countless lives. For example, Paris very easily could have been assaulted directly if it wasn't for the US Marines at Belleau Wood. It probably wouldn't have fallen (even though giving up seems to be a theme with the French) but it still would have been devastating.
Korean DMZ Conflict 1966-1969 was a series of small skirmishes on the DMZ while the actual Korean war was... well the Korean War in 1950 lol
The US came in late to WW1. Our timing was critical because we came in just as Russia was dropping out. Germany, France and the UK were exhausted but the US was fresh and had millions of fresh troops. The ironic thing is that in 1917, the German Kaiser finally authorized unrestricted submarine warfare on all ships going to the UK. This is what pushed the US to declare war in April, just 6 months before Russia would drop out.
Yeah, people forget the French Military had already mutinied once by then and weren't afraid to do so again after the butchering French Generals had subjected them to, for numerous battles in which many were pointless in the end; and that manpower was so low even Old men in their 50's were being drafted/mobilized by the French. Many English Generals had equally butchered their men just as bad, and though their troops hadn't mutinied their morale was just as low.
Then hundreds of thousands of young (And Old), happy, fresh faced A.E.F. and USMC troops started arriving non-stop by the ship-load and despite being ill-prepared for this kind of "Modern War" and so ill-equipped to the point many were entirely supplied with either British or French weapons and ammo (Such as the Lee-Enfield or Berthier rifles, Lewis Guns (Ironically designed by an American, but was refused by the Ordnance Department) or 8mm Chauchat Automatic Rifles, Vickers Guns or M1914 Hotchkiss Machineguns, the fabulous "French 75" rapid fire 75mm field cannon which suprisingly the M3 Lee and M4 Shermans M2 and M3 75mm Guns are actually derivatives of, based on the M1897 cannons the US adopted in WWI which were US produced copies of the "French 75" and would later equip the emergency stop-gap M3 GMC TD's in WWII. Even with all our naivety, our mere arrival raised morale all across the Western Front, even if for some it was just the thought maybe we'd be shoved through the meat grinder instead of them. We went on to prove ourselves in the Infamous "2nd Battle of the Marne", "The Meuse-Argonne Offensive", and the "Battle of Belleau Wood" which is where the USMC got its Infamous "Retreat? HELL we just got here!" After the French retreated to Paris after they and the Marines had successfully defended a major German Offensive as the French didn't want to be there when the Germans retaliated to make an example of them, the USMC said "Bet" donned gas masks and for a month brutally fought on even in horrific close quarters trench warfare. But in the end a single short Telegram was sent "Woods. Now Marine Corps Entirely." And where the USMC got their "Devil Dogs" Nickname for viciously fighting and hanging on like hounds from hell; Hell Hounds if you will.
As for why we joined, Close, but no. American casualties had been increasing for years due to submarines, whether it was US cargo and ammunition ships transporting war supplies to the Entente; or Ocean Liners suspected of hiding War Goods in their holds like the famous RMS Lusitania (Which did NOT have enough munitions on board to be considered a legitimate target under international law at that time) or even ships that the Germans thought were disguised Warships becauseof the UK. (Fun Fact: Germany started the war with U-Boats surfacing and allowing Merchant vessel crews to escape in their life rafts before sinking the cargo ships with their deck gun, it wasn't until the British abused this trust by making "Q-Ships" [Merchant ships covered in deck guns, hidden behind drop doors and whatnot to look like a regular unarmed vessel), which were made so that when a U-Boat surfaced and asked ships to submit to being searched to determine if they were transporting war material, if it was a Q-Ship they'd immediately expose their weapons mounts and open fire without warning, often sinking the U-Boat. However, not always, so when Germany learned about these "Q-Ships" that was when the "real" *Unrestricted* Submarine warfare started, and they decided to just torpedo everything and any ship deemed "suspect" and blow them out of the water without warning or time to escape as they decided they weren't gonna let themselves be sunk instead.)
We [The US] were selling weapons and supplies to damn near EVERYONE, as we were the only arms dealer not getting bombed on the regular or under a blockade. Demand was SO high even the US government got put on hold in a few instances as gun companies were like "Dude, we're already tooled up and manufacturing 1,500,000 Rifles for "X" country, you're gonna have to get in line". For instance, you can find Remington Mosin-Nagants, and Old Remington Rolling Blocks were bought and used by France and Russia for 2nd line rifles so they could free up the more modern stuff for the "Front".
So while a BIG part, unrestricted submarine warfare was NOT enough to allow Pres. Wilson to declare war or even convince the US people war was worth it or necessary, especially as there was actually a lot of Pro-German sentiment at the time still.
What DID was British Intelligence wire tapping the undersea telegraph lines that almost all naturally formed a hub in the UK as the starting point as they all crossed the Atlantic. This allowed them to intercept the "Zimmerman Telegram" which they slyly slid to the US. As the Telegram was proof of Germany asking if Mexico could invade the US and that they should reclaim the land of California, New Mexico, Texas, etc, that they lost in the Mexican-American Warships and MASSIVELY disrupt our industry while completely distracting us from anything in Europe so we wouldn't join the war against them, and they'd help fund/supply it and later maybe give the Mexicans a big payday. Now THIS, Ironically, is what pushed the US to finally declare war and join WWI on the side of the Entente; EXACTLY the opposite of what Germany wanted.
*Then* things lime "Remember the Lusitania!" Were used in propaganda to drum up support for the war amongst the more isolationist minded majority of Americans.
@@pyro1047 You should have said, "close, but their is more". Yes, I agree the Zimmerman telegram probably pushed it over but the submarine warfare was the main cause. The British had the telegram for a while but waited to tell us about it until it would have move impact. I am also aware of everything we were shipping over. I just so happen to have a Remington M1891 rifle. The one I think would really be neat is the Winchester Model 1895 in 7.62x54r.
It was more of a cameo in WWI and the Bay of Pigs was more of a failed coup than it was a war.
Really puzzled by the depiction of the "Cherokee vs American" conflicts as being in Texas to Missouri. That wasn't the area. It was in the Cherokee territories of eastern Tennessee, western North Carolina, western Georgia, and my home turf of western South Carolina. ( I think parts of modern Kentucky, Virginia, and Alabama were also involved.) I've been to the grave of Gen. Andrew Pickens over in Clemson, SC, who was one of the leaders in that series of conflicts, which ran concurrent to the American Revolution. Very odd that they got the territory off by hundreds of miles.
If you want to know about the dmz conflict at 12:03 watch the Fat Electricians world war tree video. Its basiclly the entire conflict from start to fhe finish.
Japan's involvement in WWI was actually pretty substantial if you read about it, taking into consideration they repelled the German and Austro-Hungarian empire out of the eastern hemisphere and denying them superiority in the Pacific
The "Korean War" war went from 1950 to 1953. That is "the war" that separated North and South Korea, and established the De-Militarized Zone (DMZ). This was the first ever conflict the United Nations participated in after its establishment, hence British, French, etc. involvement. The "DMZ Conflict" Between 1966 and 1969 was a series of low-level skirmishes between the North Korean, South Korean, and American militaries.
Technical Historical gripe. The US didn't lose the Vietnam Conflict, the South Vietnamese lost. The US forced the NVA to sign a peace agreement in 1973. The Paris Peace Accords were ratified and they outlined Vietnam being reunified via negotiation between North and South, without foreign intervention. The US withdrew from Vietnam. The NVA immediately began open hostilities again, conquering South Vietnam. As per the Accords, the US would not intervene, despite the North's violations of it.
all of the conflicts with the native americans are grouped together as the Indian Wars.
Look at Flanders Fields that graveyard as 10s of thousands American soldiers interned there. The US was big at the end of WW1 as they came is fresh and helped with the big push out of the trenches
Keep in mind this video only starts with the war for independence. Before it was known as the U.S. the colonist where also wagging war all the time before this time, either against each other and/or against/with the natives. But keep in mind this wasn't an American exclusive because Europe was doing the same at this time and for many years before colonizing the Americas. Remember there are many thousands of years of constant wars in the world before America helped create the longest time of major global peace with the exception of smaller local conflicts.
Regarding WWI, look up Alvin York or Dan Daly. Fat Electrician did a video on Dan Daly.
Devil dog was from WW I at Belleau Wood
Some of these that you say that you don't know about, but you do through movies.
13:14 First Somali is when and where the movie Black Hawk Down took place in.
The Utah War was when some pissed off people went back from Utah, which at the time was a Territory and almost it's own little country, kinda like Texas was, and made those in Washington DC think the LDS(Mormons) were in full rebellion against the US and attacking wagon trains that passed through and nearby. This after they had fled to, settled and established what became Utah Territory after widespread persecution back east and a actual Kill on Sight order written and declared by Governor Boggs of Missouri. Missouri Executive Order 44 (known as the Mormon Extermination Order) and it wasn't officially repealed till 1976.
9:19 All of it!!! or so ive heard. Im on the edge of my seat to see what Google tells him.
The Cambodian Civil War had many players, but none of them were supposed to be there. Cold War antics of everyone fighting without admitting it.
America beating the Barbarie states is why Europe is still around. Tripoli is where the Marines showed their mettle and freed all of Europe from paying extortion moneys to these states. That is just one of the many times The USA has come to the aid of Europe.
Perfect opportunity to visit oversimplified world war I
Using the US army to nation build is like asking a plumber to build a roof… they can probably do it, but there is a more effective group to perform that task.
The Indian Wars is pretty much the battles from 1600s-1920s
YES SIR ANOTHER GOATED REACTION FROM LUKE❤️❤️❤️
Your Royal Marines were in Chosin with our Forces.
The wars with natives after tecumseh in my personal experience tend to just be called The Indian Wars
you missed the apache one 1851-1900 - 49 YEARS!
The dominican republic in haiti may share an island but they're two separate countries and because of they're in different time periods.Yeah, they wouldn't be listed as the same war
For U.S. and WW1 look up Trench Sweeper
the only defeat was thinking we could stay there and occupy and turn it into something and turn their army into capable fighters. we were just wrong. we won battles and the overall army vs army confrontations, but you could say Defeat in the war only because we chose to abandon once it was no longer beneficial....
people wont learn to stop messing with our boats
Oh wow, they included the Arikara War.
Vietnam was more inconclusive than anything it was most definitely not a defeat
Vietnam was a resounding American victory because we forced North Vietnam to surrender under a ceasefire. They waited until the US pulled the majority of American troops out of Vietnam and then broke their surrender and attacked the South Vietnamese army which crumbled.
The Fall of Saigon was not a defeat of the American military. It was a literally a few dozen US Marine Diplomatic Security officers evacuating American diplomats and Vietnamese civilians.
@@7y2oN i agree with you i was only saying inconclusive cause i really didnt feel like people attacking me today lol not really in mood for it
MAJOR disagreement over Vietnam. The USA FORCED the N. Vietnam forces to come to a cease fire, and only AFTER the USA started to withdraw (basically 2 years later) did the N. Vietnam forces take over the S.Vietnam areas. So the USA "won" that war in regard to forcing the other side to AGREE TO CEASE OF HOSTILITIES.
Only to have the opponents BREAK the agreement AFTER the USA withdrew their forces, leaving only a small "security element" in their embassy in Saigon, which was then overwhelmed and you had the "panic withdraw" of people at the embassy as the North invaded ..... TWO YEARS after the "cease fire" had been agreed to, and the vast majority of USA assets (military) had left the country.
funny thing to note is we learned how to delete 100k-1M people faster than we learned how to resuscitate someone lol. (not joking either)
In people like to say Afghanistan was a defeat think of it this way. Uncle Sam came into the terrorists house in whoop their ass for 20 years plus. The withdrawal yes that was a defeat but that whole war we literally whooped their asses for 20 years. If you want to consider a loss go right ahead I will say that the pull out was shitty. It is really complicated but no America technically just got tired of whooping a bunch of terrorists who decide to run.
It certainly is a complex issue, I'd like to think that the thousands of allied lives lost in that place died for something?
Back to square one, with nothing but debt for the taxpayer and an empty place at the dinner table where father/brother/son won't be coming home.
There will never be enough 'whoop ass' to replace those men and women, and the civilians being hunted door to door because they bought into the dream of a future better than the Taliban could offer them.
@@s3p4kner yeah most definitely but I'm saying it's not really losing in a sense because it really wasn't like your average war like world war II. It was completely different I don't know if you want to say we lost just because we had a shitty withdrawal from there it definitely wasn't a win but it definitely wasn't a loss either. The withdrawal was a loss but fighting wise I think we won that. That make sense?
New USA motto for world wars.
"You start them, we end them."
The is called humor for the keyboard warriors who are wandering.