www.ditl.org

It is a defeat. But not one in war, its a defeat in battle. A minor difference in terms from across the pond I guess.

I'd call failing to achieve the primary objectives of the entire war and losing parts of your own country to be a bit more than "losing a battle".

But at the end of the war things went back to status quo. Seems a draw.

No, at the end of the war both sides agreed to reset the borders to the way they were before the war. That doesn't mean the war itself was draw, particularly when the US failed to achieve its primary objectives for the whole war, and had parts of itself invaded.

Neither side gained anything of real value during that war. Parts were invaded but were also the invaders were being driven out.

I think we will have to agree to disagree on this matter.

Look, let's look at the objectives of both sides during the war:

USA: seize parts of Canada.

Canada: defend against US invasion.

Seems like Canada achieved its objectives just fine to me, as the US invasion was driven out.

Rochey wrote:Look, let's look at the objectives of both sides during the war:

USA: seize parts of Canada.

Canada: defend against US invasion.

Seems like Canada achieved its objectives just fine to me, as the US invasion was driven out.

Didn't the Canadians capture US territory during their 'counter-attack'? And then gave it back? Seems like they lost too. I'd say it's a draw.

The goal was to try and make England and France respect the US as a world power. If anything, that would be a defeat for the US. Not lossing the grab at Canada. The Canadian Offensive never should have happened anyways.

Didn't the Canadians capture US territory during their 'counter-attack'? And then gave it back? Seems like they lost too. I'd say it's a draw

Not really, as they weren't forced out of it. They gave it back voluntarily.

The goal was to try and make England and France respect the US as a world power. If anything, that would be a defeat for the US.

That may have been the eventual overall political goal, but the objectives of the military war itself was to seize land from Canada.

The Canadian Offensive never should have happened anyways.

Quite true.

If a war is a draw simply because nobody gains territory from it, then wouldn't World War 2 be a draw too? Germans went back to it's original borders, didn't it?

GrahamKennedy wrote:If a war is a draw simply because nobody gains territory from it, then wouldn't World War 2 be a draw too? Germans went back to it's original borders, didn't it?

Nope - they lost a lot of land to Poland (which, in turn, lost a lot of land to the Soviet Union). A better comparison would probably be France, which went back to its 1789 borders after Waterloo. By Deep's standards, therefore, Waterloo was a draw.

Thanks for the correction.

Similarly, Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1991 should probably be regarded as a draw I guess. So should the Falklands conflict.

I am no student of history, but it seems to me that very few wars are fought on the basis of "you will conquer my country or I will conquer yours". In many cases a result of sticking to the original borders would be a very clear victory for one side.

Nope - they lost a lot of land to Poland (which, in turn, lost a lot of land to the Soviet Union). A better comparison would probably be France, which went back to its 1789 borders after Waterloo. By Deep's standards, therefore, Waterloo was a draw.

Gain doesn't have to be land. Matters of gain come in whatever form the attacker reaches for. Should they fail then they are defeated. A draw is when neither side gains or losses anything. A real shame you're unable too grasp at such a simple idea.

If a war is a draw simply because nobody gains territory from it, then wouldn't World War 2 be a draw too? Germans went back to it's original borders, didn't it?

Again, gain isn't always territory.

That may have been the eventual overall political goal, but the objectives of the military war itself was to seize land from Canada.

Wars are coded by one of the goals that was or was not gained. It is in the end result that matters.

Deepcrush wrote:Gain doesn't have to be land. Matters of gain come in whatever form the attacker reaches for. Should they fail then they are defeated.

Glad you agree. The US was reaching for the conquest of Canada. They failed. Therefore they were defeated.

Similarly, Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1991 should probably be regarded as a draw I guess. So should the Falklands conflict.

Wrong, the attacking goals were to gain new territory. There for if you fail to achive your goal you have been defeated. Very poor examples.

I am no student of history, but it seems to me that very few wars are fought on the basis of "you will conquer my country or I will conquer yours". In many cases a result of sticking to the original borders would be a very clear victory for one side.

Victory isn't a yes or no matter. Student of history or not, its not a football game. Both sides have their goals. The mission is to achive your goals while stopping your enemy from achiving theirs.