Why should you never get involved in a land war in Asia?

Why should you never get involved in a land war in Asia?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=uK-UjS4ntao
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Its a cold war axiom.

Since Mainland Asia is pretty much the turf of communist powers at the time.

idk OP

too many competing interests?

Inhospitable terrain outside of urban centers. Willingness of its inhabitants to participate in partisan/guerilla actions.

Because you can spend years killing slaughtering them and still lose

Because the only way for an outsider to win is by going Full Mongol.

cause they ain't never gunna run outta gouks

care to join me?

Why is that a reason to not start a land war in Asia?

roi

...

I got involved once and it was completely fine.

But mongols werent outsiders in asia.

The Japanese were highly successful in conquering Asia during WW2, even with the US heavily involved in the pacific.

it was only when Germany's defeat was assured that Japan started losing territory to bolstered British/Commonwealth/US forces, and even victories were hard won if not Pyrrhic for the Allies.

The only decisive defeat Japan suffered was at Midway, and that was because the US intercepted Japanese naval codes.

It's very very big, when it doesn't consist of mountains, jungle or desert, it consists of endless plains that are ridiculously difficult to hold.

Asia in this case basically means the great steppes from the Altay mountains to Ukraine.

No. The attack on Pearl Harbor was made on the premise that the US would sue for a quick peace.

Even if the war in Europe was prolonged for two years, the US would've still had gobbled up the Japanese Empire by clever island-hopping and encirclement.

>they only decisive defeat japan suffered was at midway

>what is the battle of the Philippine sea
>What is Leyte gulf

Nah, it's just something that Montgomery said to bait Americans.

youtube.com/watch?v=uK-UjS4ntao

triggered

Yeah good luck protecting a island empire without a navy.

>t turkoid