Have the US ever won a war on their own?

Question

American Revolution-Helped by the French
WW1&2-Allied victory
Vietnam-Lost

No one won the war of 1812, it was a stalemate. fact.

why do you all assume that we be all German if not for the US. The Uk was brave enough to stand alone from the beginning.

oh answerman, the French did help..they provided ships, supplies even men..so if thats not help what is it? Yeah let us get on with it, probably be a better place. Bail us out? you come when the time is right...cowards

Answer 1

Nobody ever wins when it comes to war

Answer 2

You lot are just a big bunch of ignorant A.....H....ls ! You know NOTHING about French military or even less about French people and you can't help to slag us down. I'll have you to know that French is the ONLY people who EVER fought to the end against all odds and like Indochina, totally outnumbered 25 to 1. And in WW2, if it wasn't for the French, ALL the Brits would have died on the beaches of Dunkirk where they went to coward from the Germans. And, if the politicos had surrendered, the people kept on fighting a bitter guerrilla war against the Germans while the women, children and elderly got murdered by the Gestapo.
You Americans and British puke NEVER had such atrocities in your own country, so SHUT UP !

Answer 3

Hmmm, let's see -- The American Civil War for one -- in fact, the UK provided material assistance to the Confederacy, and they ended up losing. Ooops, so sorry Mr. "Britain is so freakin' invincible".

The War with Mexico -- no help from any of the rest of the world there.

The Spanish-American War -- no help from outside there, either.

Granada, Panama -- but those hardly count as wars, do they.

Any reasonably intelligent being recognizes that the US did not win either WW1 or WW2 all by themselves. But neither did the Brits, nor the French, nor the Russians. And think of all the support we sent before actively joining in the fighting -- the Brits might have been starved into submission if it weren't for all the supplies the US sent over there, as well as all the anti-submarine screening and convoy support we gave. And in the Pacific we pretty much carried the entire load -- yeah, there was some help from the UK (Aussies, New Zealand, India), but it was pretty much our show because you Brits were completely tied in knots with little Germany and Italy.

And now, a counter-question -- Have the Brits won a war in the past century without assistance? WW1, WW2? Anywhere? And don't try and claim that you had no help at all in the Falklands . . . we may not have sent troops, but we provided other material assistance.

I'm getting really tired of arrogant UK children/@$$holes who continue to try to belittle the efforts of the US in the World Wars, and alienate the natural partnership between the US and UK. So get off your freakin' soapbox rant and recognize that without the partnership, the world would be a very different place today.

Answer 4

Not a fair question. The French didn't come into the Revolution until they were sure that the Continental Army showed they were in a position to win the war. In other word started making a good accounting of themselves.
We were dragged into the First and Second World Wars in part because we were supplying the British and Russia with war fighting equipment and materials. Even in the War in the Pacific, we had Australians and British fighting with us.
Viet-Nam was a continuation of what the French couldn't finish, and it was a political defeat, not a military defeat.
Bottom line is that we, as well as the British should be grateful that we are allies and continue to support each other.
Enough with the bashing. Russia is trying to balance the playing field militarily, and playing war games with the Chinese. There is Iran building nuclear facilities, and no one knows what North Korea is up to. They change with the breeze.
So, other than making making an insinuation about the U.S.'s lack of war fighting capabilities (bashing?) what is the real question you want to ask. Are we worthy of supporting? If so break it down like this: Are we worth supporting militarily or Politically? One is not necessarily the same as the other.

Answer 5

And I suppose the Cold War doesn't count. The U.S. won that one economically, forcing the Soviet Union to collapse uder the pressure we put them under.
As it has been pointed out by others, the U.S. has provided the majority of war fighting materiels to our allies for over a century now. I suspect a certain level of jealousy from those who bash our warfighting prowess. The reason coalitions are formed these days is so that credit for victories can be shared but look closely at the numbers involved. Desert Storm (a hugely successful war) was over a dozen countries working together but the U.S. provided the vast majority of the troops and supplies and would have had the same result without a few dozen untrained third world soldiers sent to "help".

Answer 6

The question you ask is actually more complex than you may guess. There are two kinds of war total and limited. WWII is an example of total war. Iraq is a limited war. Additionally, you must understand that winning battles is different that wining wars. To truly win a war, you must leave the opposing side politically open to surrender. Nobody in the world is better at fighting and wining battles than the US. Unfortunately, we are not so competent at the political side of the game. We soundly defeated Iraq but had no political plan to take advantage of the win. Thus, the terrorist, who are very politically savvy, used the opening. Now, Iraq is a lost cause.

Answer 7

NO THEY HAVE NOT 1812 tech we won more Americans were killed than English, Madison sent an envoy to ask for peace then attacked new Orleans,
we ended with what we had,

theanswerman63 great britain has so put that were the sun dont shine, who carrys cards to tell troops not to drink fight or gamble with the british because you will lose,????
not the dutch - not canada, not even the french, oh i know THE AMERICANS (LOL)

Trucky are you on drugs????/

Answer 8

If you're asking a serious, non-political question, I can think of two. The Mexican War and the Spanish-American War. You may think of these as petty, but Mexico did attack the Republic of Texas and also invaded border towns. President James K. Polk (I think) did what was necessary without overreaching. The dispute with Mexico was finally settled in the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, which resulted in the Southwest becoming U.S. territories. This is from memory, but that was roughly 1848. The Spanish-American War is not without its share of controversy. There is still a suspicion that we blew up our own ship, The "Maine", in the harbor of Havana to force us into war. Whatever the truth is about that, we won the war largely on our own, although there were many Native sympathizers in Spanish colonies like Cuba and the Philippines that joined us in an active guerrilla Resistance that aided the U.S. Any assistance we received from Native peoples were largely due to the brutality of Spanish rule rather than friendship with the U.S.

Answer 9

answerman you are way off the mark and it was in the USA's interest to become involved in the european ww1 and ww2, if not they would have had to deal with opressive japan and nazi europe both trying to claim north america as their own. Mind you i suppose you would have nuked the bloody hell out of europe and its people as well if that had happened. Some call that gutless.

Answer 10

You forget one minor detail here. We did not start those wars but, came and bailed everyone else out in them. And if you call what the French did in the revolutionary war help, you need to re-read the history books.
Personally, I think we need to bring all our troops home from every other country in the world and let you snivelling litttle babies solve your own problems. We could just close down our borders and put our troops to work cleaning the illegals out and sending them back from whence they came. We can stop selling weapons to all the whining, sniveling people who beg for our help and then try and stab us in the back when we do and stockpile them in our country.
I figure it will take about 5 years for the rest of the world to fall apart and then we can change the name of the world to America.
What would you do without us?
One last question. Has any country ever one a war on their own?

Edit: "oh answerman, the French did help..they provided ships, supplies even men..so if thats not help what is it? Yeah let us get on with it, probably be a better place. Bail us out? you come when the time is right...cowards"

The French arrived as the war was ending and brought in their troops to help mop up the Brits who were foolishly still trying to fight. And if we hadn't bailed you out you would be speaking german and you "bloody well know it"
Where I live when you call a man a coward, you better be ready to fight so I say put up or shut up.
I am sorry that you are so miserable in your little country and wish you were here but, don't let your petty jealousy ruin your life. Try and get over it.

One last comment, If the brits are so mighty, why did they get waxed by Afghanistan and Africa and everybody else who they tried to take over?

Answer 11

knownow't you are wrong the Americans did not save Europe Russia did more than the US did to save Europe (although US did help considerably in taking back Europe). We would definitely not be speaking German, as Hitler had just lost the Battle of Britain, and scrapped his plans to invade Britain because of Russia attacking him from the East. So there was no way Hitler would have been able to defeat Russia to the East whilst keeping control of all the European countries he was controlling, they would have all fought back and regained control of themselves and no European countries would be speaking German today. (Hitler's priority would have been defending Germany from Stalin not keeping control of Western Europe.) The European countries would have rebelled and retaken control (with Russia attacking from the East) without US help. It would have taken longer and with more casualties but it would have been done.

EDIT: The US is NOT the best at fighting wars, Britain is far more experienced. We have been fighting wars on our own throughout our history, against the French and Spanish were the main ones. We maintained control of a massive empire around the world on our own (the reason we don't have it anymore is because we gave them independence). Back in Britain's prime there was no UN to bail you out. As a fellow Brit once remarked "I was with some American friends as they celebrated their 200 years independance, and I smiled to myself as i thought 'I think we stopped counting at 1000' ".

Even recently we fought the Falklands war thousands of miles from home on our own and retook the islands.

So wars can be won on your own and no US aren't the best country in the world.

EDIT again for 'wayne h':
wayne h: "asshole, alright so what we had people help us...tell me another war where it was one country vs another country

exactly"
Ok then: Argentina vs the UK 1982 theres one country vs another country. Argentina (massive country compared to the UK) tried to take control of some islands rediculously close to them and the UK tried to regain control miles from home. One country vs another sure the UK couldn't win? But they did. Does that answer your question wayne h?