Which nation do you think has the greatest track record when it comes to warfare throughout history?

Which nation do you think has the greatest track record when it comes to warfare throughout history?

UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68

Yakub: World's Greatest Dad Shirt $21.68

UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The United States.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      The USA lost most of its wars though.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        it won the important ones
        ie the ones it actually declared

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_United_States
        They won the vast majority of them. The few losses are either small conflicts that barely count as wars or were lost for reasons completely separate from military failure.

        >lost to rice farmers
        >lost to goat herders

        >>lost to rice farmers
        They dominated in combat there for nearly a decade and forced North Vietnam to surrender in 1972 by bombing Hanoi and Haiphong to rubble.
        >>lost to goat herders
        Took over the country in a few weeks and held it uncontested for 20 years

        Russia. Any other answer is pure cope.
        >literally defeated all of Europe by itself in WW2, and a Nazi EUrope, not some pussy liberals. Then made Japan collapse in 2 weeks just for good measure.
        NAFO pussies will seethe.

        AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

        Russia basically has 3 major victories from history. All 3 are cases where they had significant outside help and are all cases where they got destroyed on the battlefield and were saved by the enemy's inability to maintain logistics deep inside Russian territory. Russia has a terrible record when it comes to offensive wars not on their territory.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Russia and the US are superior from spec, like upgraded nation state dreadnoughts. It's not as impressive when they win.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >Russia has a terrible record when it comes to offensive wars not on their territory.
          Russians have a terrible record in offensive wars, because it goes against spirit of their nation. Nonetheless they have good record in liberating christians from the Turks.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_United_States
          They won the vast majority of them. The few losses are either small conflicts that barely count as wars or were lost for reasons completely separate from military failure

          Did you even read this? The vast majority of “victories” are against native americans and the vast majority are just small skirmishes.
          >puget sound war
          >cayuse war
          >rogue river wars

          Some of these are civil wars counted as a victory
          >the civil war
          >bleeding kansas

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Massacring the Opoopoopeepee tribe or putting down chief Tweaking Horse's rebellion a hundred times shouldn't count. If it did then there are hundreds of unreported victories from casino parking lots and liquor stores all over Oklahoma.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >lost to rice farmers
      >lost to goat herders

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      No chance. Not unless we filter by scale. But even then, the number of times the US beat the odds is quite small and mainly limited to the revolutionary war.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Russia. Any other answer is pure cope.
      >literally defeated all of Europe by itself in WW2, and a Nazi EUrope, not some pussy liberals. Then made Japan collapse in 2 weeks just for good measure.
      NAFO pussies will seethe.

      AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        how's that 3 day operation going, pidor?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Russia is "lose battles, win wars", but overal yes.

        Mongols are up there as well, but unlike Russians they faded into obscurity.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >Mongols are up there
          less than a century of dominance before fading away?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          That's kind of a shit take.
          If you think of the Second World War, then the Russians certainly did not reach Berlin with defeats, but with victories. There are colossal victories that decided the whole outcome of the war in which Russians won including Stalingrad, defense of Moscow and Kursk as well as Operation Bagration when they finally started pushing into Europe. The battles that they lost in the early stages of the war are also very heroic defenses like in the Brest fortress and when they held their own in Crimea for quite some time.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >If you think of the Second World War, then the Russians certainly did not reach Berlin with defeats, but with victories.
            They started with collosal, absolutely moronic defeats before getting their shit together. In none of their grand victories did they show operational/tactical supremacy on the scale Germans dominated them in e.g. Kiev 41.

            Russians are just the sort of people who are prone to both absolute brilliance and total moronation.

            >Mongols are up there
            less than a century of dominance before fading away?

            They raped their way through multiple civilizations over multiple centuries, but had trouble building stable empires.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >In none of their grand victories did they show operational/tactical supremacy on the scale Germans dominated them in e.g. Kiev 41.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Bagration was impressive, but they had quantitative advantage and the casulty ratio was not anywhere as one-sided as in Kiev.

            Germans just dont have any large "what the frick they were doing" operational moment. They have those on grand strategic level, like attacking SSSR because "Slavs are stupid monkeys, lmao".

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Unironically, the French.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Good at winning battles but terrible at winning wars

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Agreed.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Frontal charge: The country

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >pic
        >A battle fought between monarchs from the same French bloodline

        I won’t speculate too much but I know for a fact he wanted to involve the Nationalist Chinese; he literally wanted KMT boots on the ground in Korea. So I imagine he wanted a total showdown with the Communist bloc.

        For what reason? To snuff out the commies in China would be my guess

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          That’s right. I’m sure he wanted to do to China what they had just done to Japan.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      This but even more unironically

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >italy above spain
        Que?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        https://i.imgur.com/hU8pfy7.jpg

        He’s an Anglophile who doesn’t want to show #1

        https://i.imgur.com/27RoO4v.jpg

        England

        Colonial powers are overindexed on battles because they were fighting many small different peoples.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Do the UK and Italy count battles against itself?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          for the UK they 100% conted their battles against Scotland and Ireland

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      https://i.imgur.com/132ViKs.png

      This but even more unironically

      Reddit stat

      >italy above spain
      Que?

      Spain numbers are deflated because of their non participation in both world war

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      This. Astonishingly good track record that's marred by some big recent conflicts and British propaganda.
      Still, France has traditionally been one of the most populous countries of Europe (usually the most outside of Russia). I'd like to know the most successful per capita.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        If the kingdom of France had the same policy towards numbers in the military as the Russian empire or Prussia I think we'd have noticed by now. Monarchs after the HYW did try to organize like that with their "legions" but the Habsburgs still bested them.

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The bigger the coutnry the more wars they usualy have been involved in, but with that, also comes a long list of shameful losses.

    Most of tiny countries exist because of some incredible victory over a much stronger opponent, but usually, there's another large power supporting them.

    UK perhaps. Made big gains, was a superpower, gave up it's territories before anyone coudl take them from them.

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    france obviously

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Statistically speaking, it's France

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >most important battles
      Aka cherrypicked garbage

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Not what cherrypicked means, if they held France to a different standard than other European powers then it would be cherrypicked, but if they had the same criteria for "important battle" for every participant, thats not cherrypicking even if its poor standard

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          How do you define important battles?

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    It's not fair to count wars one per each like that. World War 2 expended more energy and resources than many wars before it put together and the lion's share was on the eastern front.
    Doing the most with what you got award goes to Germany, Britain.
    Best odds going into any given battle is probably the Mongols until they started fighting each other.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Which Mongol group did the best? Probably Timur and his sons, right?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        No, I think conquering China puts Genghis and his sons on top. Didn't Tamerlane croak just when he was about to invade Europe or something?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          No, he was trying to invade China. I guess we're talking war performance here, but I still think the Mughals did better in terms of administration than the Yuan did, both in terms of length of rule and stability. They didn't let a hobo come to power, at least.

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    For me, it's Portugal travelling half the world away, conquering some important cities and dominating a whole ocean out of nowhere

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >conquering and buying fishing villages is indicative of competence in warfare

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Goa was certainly not a mere fishing village

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          It basically was. Not even him just telling the honest truth.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        It basically was. Not even him just telling the honest truth.

        >Loses to Oman

        Seething Monkeyzilians
        Porutgal defeated nation 10 times bigger than them countless times

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >Loses to Morocco and get buckbroken for century

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Morocco and the Ottoman*

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Loses to Oman

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Japan had a pretty good run from 1894-1942

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Yeah but that was only for 50 years and then they got MOGGED by the Brakku Shippu Hwaitu Piggus

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        not so fast

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          https://i.imgur.com/n0lI9oF.jpg

          Yeah but that was only for 50 years and then they got MOGGED by the Brakku Shippu Hwaitu Piggus

          Wait just a minute pal

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            based

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            https://i.imgur.com/EdtGGoO.png

            [...]
            Wait just a minute pal

            kek

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Was MacArthur genuinely moronic? Did he really think the world wouldn't rape America if they used nukes willy nilly?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          you see the picture, he was a white Black person deployed against the japanese for that very quality. His usefulness ran out against China.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >Did he really think the world wouldn't rape America
          how does the world get past the US’s gorillion ships and ten gorillion planes to the US coastline?
          The US was pummeling and mogging Japan at a steady rate for 3 years before the nukes.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Why would they need to? The Russians were already working on nuclear bombs as soon as they knew about them. Chances are, even Mexico and Canada would've joined the cubans for wiping out the Americans off the earth by staging the soviet nukes on their land

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >duuuh the world would rape america if it didn’t have nukes
            >how though
            >they’d use their own nukes
            come on man you can do better than that

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            First soviet atomic test was in 1949. They acquired the knowledge to build bombs from American defectors. Seriously, are you Americans stupid? The world would caught up and would've had an enormous axe to grind if your general had his way. Like the other guy said, communism would also find more followers

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >First soviet atomic test was in 1949
            Uh huh. And the US got to it first.

            Yeah, no kidding, a nuclear state wins struggle against a non-nuclear one. Thanks for parroting what I’m saying right back at me in reverse without a shred of irony. Are you russoids stupid or something?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Bait or moronic. Call it

            MacArthur wasn’t fired for advocating the use of nukes; all pentagon psychos, Eisenhower included, considered nukes legitimate tactical weapons. MacArthur was fired for repeated acts of insubordination, particularly unauthorized public statements. Truman had enough of his showboating, that’s all. Now, it is true that MacArthur was a bit of a nut and actually proposed carpet nuking the Yalu river to produce a “radioactive” border, of sorts. But that’s another story.

            Well it's a good thing that knuckledragger was fired even if it was for insubordination if not sheer moronation about long term political ramifications

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Yes, MacArthur was a very dangerous man. The basic thrust of his argument is this: Look, we are already at war with China; why should we not expand the war onto Chinese territory? It’s fine military doctrine, but so was Germany violating Belgiums neutrality in WWI. MacArthur wanted to precipitate WW3 at a time when it was to their advantage. Psychotic.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            even in the early 60s the US nuclear arsenal outnumbered the Soviets by six fold lmao, the one plane carried bomb the Soviets could have produced would have just gotten shot down over the atlantic if they tried it (which they wouldn't lol)

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >t. moronic burger eating beer swillling amerimutt who will die of obesity

            Yes, MacArthur was a very dangerous man. The basic thrust of his argument is this: Look, we are already at war with China; why should we not expand the war onto Chinese territory? It’s fine military doctrine, but so was Germany violating Belgiums neutrality in WWI. MacArthur wanted to precipitate WW3 at a time when it was to their advantage. Psychotic.

            >t. reasonable American citizen
            How did Eisenhower justify firing him? Didn't MacArthur have his fan boys in government who mightve tried to cause trouble for the president?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Truman, not Ike. Anyway it was a huge scandal, and contributed to Truman’s unpopularity. Truman could have ran in 1952 but had the lowest approval rating ever (around 25%) so decided not to.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I see. What were MacArthur's plans after bombing the Chinese? What did he think they should demand from them? Apart from total withdrawal from Korea? A regime change?

            https://i.imgur.com/qbNUPQk.png

            >muh fat
            pure cope Boris

            I'm not a slav, fatboy

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I won’t speculate too much but I know for a fact he wanted to involve the Nationalist Chinese; he literally wanted KMT boots on the ground in Korea. So I imagine he wanted a total showdown with the Communist bloc.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >muh fat
            pure cope Boris

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          imagin if WW3 happened in the 50s and the US fully committed with nuclear weapons in east asia. The french at Dien Bien Phu asked for nukes too. Lots of countries would join a communist alliance to stop us.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Lots of countries would join a communist alliance to stop us
            the ONE thing which the UN coalition that the US put together for the war in Korea was critically antsy about was nukes.

            Even without using nukes, the only contributions from other countries for the US’s war in Vietnam were a substantial amount from the ROK and a small handful of troops from the Phillipines, Australia, and New Zealand.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            the french indochina war was really unpopular too. It's a Red Dawn tier idea, but could've happened if governments were a little more tyrannical.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          MacArthur wasn’t fired for advocating the use of nukes; all pentagon psychos, Eisenhower included, considered nukes legitimate tactical weapons. MacArthur was fired for repeated acts of insubordination, particularly unauthorized public statements. Truman had enough of his showboating, that’s all. Now, it is true that MacArthur was a bit of a nut and actually proposed carpet nuking the Yalu river to produce a “radioactive” border, of sorts. But that’s another story.

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Russia and France

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Not fair. Russia has territorial advantages far beyond France, they're like the US

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Obviously France, the achetypal nation
    their mere existence forced Britain to git gud, and Britain went on to dominate all lesser races. They would've preferred to remain miserable in their fog islands. France is what Britain, the creditor of all, can never be.

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Which nation do you think has the greatest track record when it comes to warfare throughout history?
    Britain because they amassed the largest empire in the history of the world and won both World Wars, albeit with help for those.

  12. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    England

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      why does the list start at 2?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        He’s an Anglophile who doesn’t want to show #1

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          sequential filename though? rused!

  13. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Sweden lost Lutzen

  14. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    French bvlls

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Gauls aka white bantu getting uppity because of gay cherrypicked stats
      Stop this. Only the cold hard reality of genetic matter.
      go pay your bill to mahmud or he'll bully you again on your way to school today

  15. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Try it this way. List the wars in order of size and importance, and then write down the winners and losers.

    WWII: USA and Britain win, Germany and Japan lose.
    WWI: Britain and USA win, Germany and Turkeys lose. France loses frick you they lost their part of the war
    Iran-Iraq War: Iraq wins
    Korean war: A draw between USA and China
    Napoleonic Wars: A tie between France and everyone else

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >WWI
      >France loses
      Lmao, the frogs were so much losers that Foch was the Allied supreme commander, and the Americans so important that they weren’t even involved in signing the Armistice

  16. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The israelites.

  17. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Britain.
    >island nation, can avoid most wars
    >colonial empire, can fight a bunch of primitive peoples for easy victory

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *