What are some humiliating losses revisioned as victories in history?

Nobody claims this as a victory, simply as overcoming defeat as the British were able to bring soldiers home to be able to repel the German invasion. Evacuating was the best thing to do as France was done. Over 200,000 French soldiers were also evacuated.

Nobody claims this as a victory, just represents the British holding the line while outnumbered

Nobody claims this as a victory, period.

The protestant population (majority) of Britain wanted the Protestant Dutch prince to overthrow the Catholic king.

How comes Veeky Forums knows shit about history?

>I don't know how British historiography depicts 1066

1066, the year the British conquered Britain.

England*

Britain was never conquered

He thinks England won 100yw, doesn't he?

t. Dimitrios

Winter war

It was a defensive victory for Finland as Russia could not annex Finland which damaged Russian reputation and was one of the reasons why Hitler thought his eastern offensive would be successful.

they did, also nobody used swords, horses were used only in transport, and not in actual battle.

British Naval guns can shoot down the moon if they want to and the English longbow is way more accurate than a modern sniper rifle.

if you don't agree you're a frog and probably Napoleon too (because Napoleon is literally Hitler)

>Second Persian invasion of Greece.
>google this
>aaaand there goes my morning reading about the greek city states vs persians

fuggin love this board.

Because Veeky Forums is /int/ with dates. Country dickwaving is WAY more important than history.

>we won because the enemy didn't annex us
at last i truly see. thank you for correcting the record jorma

don't forget /pol/ posting, and Arabic tripfags

If you're talking about Sir Shoutsalot, he's Mexican, not Arabic.

Tet offensive

aren't there more tripfags around ?, or is this all the Mexican ?

>hurr Thermopylae, ignores Salamis and Plataea
>hurr why Athenians let their city burn?

I guess you're just a little meme-plastering faggot but not getting annexed is a very good goal for a defensive war of that magnitude. Finland had shit compared to the soviets.

This is a good example.

Maybe the War of 1812 considering how so many Americans think that we won that war.

>accomplish all objectives
>doesn't count because they didn't win every battle

Keep crying, Spiros

What were the objectives of the invasion, pray tell?

>doesn't count because they didn't win every battle
Those military victories forced Xerxes' army to abandon Greece.

Fuck sake it wasn't viewed as a victory, but more the avoidance of a catastrophe.

Are you really this retarded?

The same French guy keeps posting the same thing about Dunkirk all over Veeky Forums, insisting that France aren't cowards and Britain is the reason France fell to the Nazis.

>What were the objectives of the invasion, pray tell?
See

The invasion was a complete failure then because Persian influence in Greece actually eroded due to Xerxes' invasion. The Persians also failed to punish Sparta and Athens militarily, and on top of the failed invasion, Ionians revolted against Persian soon after.

Battle of Hastings
You know why.

still not a victory

>We

You aren't American stop pretending.

it looks like this board really doesn't like britain

no one claims any of these were victories

>act like you're a major military power
>completely fail to defend your own country
>blame a real military power for not defending your country hard enough

>what is a strategic victory

Dunkirk could have been a catastrophe that led to the loss of the entire British Expeditionary Force and almost every single trained soldier in the British army. Instead they lost a lot of material, but relatively few soldiers, all of whom were able to return and train the next cadre for the campaigns ahead.

>the rest of your post

Oh never mind, this is a butthurt frogpost by a person who has no idea what the fuck they're talking about. I'll bite.

>without much fighting at all
Apart from the German army encircling the French and British armies and threatening their total annihilation

>entire allied country falls fighting to keep the entirety of your military alive

The French barely lost any of their territory before surrendering, don't pretend that they got very far at all. It was their strategic position that made an allied victory untenable.

>cowardice having accomplished nothing
If by nothing, you mean stopping the war ending in an Axis victory in 1940 and France forever under German occupation until the death of its culture.

>Call the French cowards years later

You're conveniently forgetting the thousands of French soldiers who were evacuated at the expense of many Brits, who then proceeded to immediately go back home and surrender to the Germans once they were back on the European mainland.

Holy fuck is this a joke?

Not only did Xerxes get humiliated at Salamis personally, but his massive army got blown the fuck out in a pitched battle at Plataea. Thermopylae and Artemesium managed to give the southern Greeks time to get out of their surrender-funk and then trash the Persians.

Oh, and you're pretending that the Persian Wars weren't a Greek victory since you likely have never actually read writers like Thucydides, who outright talks about the Greek counterattack in Asia Minor leading to the total demolition of the Persian fleet and the liberation of not only the conquered Greek states in Greece proper, but the poleis of Ionia, the conquest of which had been what led to the Persian Wars in the first place.

Read a book, kid.

PERFIDY
E
R
F
I
D
Y

>Be tiny poor irrelevant country of 3,000,000 people
>Massive country next door with more troops than you have adult male population invades you
>Kick their ass
>Preserve your independence and make them look a laughing stock
>Not a victory

This

Why is it that even in 2017 people still don't go completely and wholly by the saying "history is written by the victors, and the enemy is the one that lost"???

Because it's demonstrably untrue? Haven't you ever seen stuff like the Lost Cause southerners, the Stab-in-the-back myth for the end of WW1, or the entire Old Testament?

>Call the French cowards years later

Hey now, be fair. The French fought valiantly for several years to defend their Nazi occupiers as soon as the British had evacuated the last Frenchman from Dunkirk.

Because this isn't true. For example, captured German commanders formed the foundation of western historiography on the European theater of WW2, it was they who came up with memes like "if only Hitler listened to his Generals" and "Russians only won by sending a human wave after a human wave".

Highland Division never forget

>wear skirts
>call yourself men

>Dunkirk could have been a catastrophe that led to the loss of the entire British Expeditionary Force and almost every single trained soldier in the British army.

>I'M STUPID!

cgsc2.leavenworth.army.mil/CARL/nafziger/940BIEA.pdf

Goal was to punish Athens. Sparta joined the fight.

Though Persia accomplished their goal in burning down Athens, they suffered heavy fucking losses despite the fact there were an infinitely higher number of Persian troops than Greek ones. It was a Pyrrhic victory for Persia at best. It isn't like Athens is the only city-state in Greece.

xD

Not an argument

>Persians literally got kicked out of Europe, despite Greece not giving a shit before when they invaded Thrace
>Ionia and coastal cities mostly re-captured
>Persians forced to sign a treaty to end further wars
>makes Persians look like bitches, Egypt continues to routinely revolt knowing that they aint shit

> Greeks celebrate this as a glorious victory

Erm, because it was?

The Persians were beaten both at land and sea;

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Plataea

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Salamis

and their hold of Greece is completely lost.

What you are stating is like saying the Ottomans won the Great Turkish War because they still held Bosnia.

Or that Napoleon's invasion of Russia was successful.

> What are some humiliating losses revisioned as victories in history?

The entire Great Patriotic War;

> have the largest army on the planet
> by a LONG shot
> murder most of your own officers
> ally with an insane dictator
> dictator who openly says he’ll invade you
> get you ass kicked by… Finland?
> sit around with your thumb up your ass
> get invaded by insane dictator
> get absolutely wrecked despite huge numerical advantage
> spend the next 4 years zerg rushing into the teeth of enemy firepower
> get everything from shoes to ammo to food to planes handed to you by America
> meanwhile the Western allies starve and bomb Germany to shit
> continue to get absolutely wrecked
> lose 10 million military dead
> lose another 17 million civilian dead

Za Rodina!

it wasn't the largest army on the planet "by a long shot" though, the Germans actually had a numerical numerical advantage in their attacks in Operation Barbarossa

Just because the USSR made a big mess trying to defend Ukraine

Not him, but da fuck? No, at the outset of Barbarossa, June 22nd, 1941, the Germans and their allies had about a million more men at the front than the Soviets did. That is well, well before the Kiev debacle, which is what I assume you're talking about.

Top kek

Can't let facts get in the way of a good /int/posting session.

The War of 1812
>But we burned the White House!

This invasion is what got me into ancient history in the first place

“When Germany invaded the Soviet Union in June 1941, in Operation Barbarossa, the Red Army's ground forces had 303 divisions and 22 separate brigades (6.8 million soldiers), including 166 divisions and 9 brigades (3.2 million soldiers) garrisoned in the western military districts.

The Axis forces deployed on the Eastern Front consisted of 181 divisions and 18 brigades (3 million soldiers). Three Fronts, the Northwestern, Western, and Southwestern conducted the defense of the western borders of the USSR. In the first weeks of the Great Patriotic War the Wehrmacht defeated many Red Army units.

The Red Army lost millions of men as prisoners and lost much of its pre-war matériel. Stalin increased mobilization, and by 1 August 1941, despite 46 divisions lost in combat, the Red Army's strength was 401 divisions.”

Soviet tank production alone from 1932-40 was over 26,000 tanks, more then the rest of the planet combined, which puts the lie to Soviet claims that the Red Army was purely defensive...

Shhh, don't break the narrative.

>I will completely ignore that the Axis offensive was not composed entirely of ethnic Germans, and thus ignore all of their troops. For that matter, I will also ignore all the troops that Germany had mobilized everywhere else. I will ALSO ignore the fully mobilized forces of the British commonwealth, which despite mostly being posted to backwater areas, is actually larger than either.

>Soviet tank production alone from 1932-40 was over 26,000 tanks, more then the rest of the planet combined, which puts the lie to Soviet claims that the Red Army was purely defensive...

How exactly does that "put it to the lie"? The British built more heavy bombers than the rest of the world combined before 1938; does that mean they were also planning an offensive war? (Against whom?)

Pearl Harbor.

>sink four obsolete battleships
>two of them get repaired anyway
>fail to cause any significant damage to your enemy's critical infrastructure
>avoid sinking the ships that actually matter
>give your enemy a 100% perfect motivation for its people to devote themselves to your destruction thus solving literally the only problem that their war plan had

It was a far bigger victory for the Americans in general than anything they did on the battlefield. Because America was basically unstoppable; the ONLY question was if they'd see through a war with the Axis through to the end. Pearl Harbor in all its perfidy confirmed that they would.

>avoid sinking the ships that actually matter

Which were which ones exactly? You'd have a hard time making a case that any of the Pacific Fleet ships represent a critical point of failure for the USN.

>The British built more heavy bombers than the rest of the world combined before 1938

"When Britain and France declared war on Germany in September 1939, the RAF had no heavy bomber. The Handley Page Halifax and Avro Lancaster both originated as twin engine bombers, but were rapidly redesigned for four Rolls-Royce Merlin engines and rushed into service once the technical problems of the larger Rolls-Royce Vulture emerged. The Halifax joined squadrons in November 1940 and flew its first raid against Le Havre on the night of 11–12 March 1941."

>Which were which ones exactly?

The aircraft carriers, but then they weren't in Pearl Harbor at the time.

You had me until
>Zerg Rush
fuck off

If you're going to quote wikipedia, then you might want to look at their actual definitions, which are not based on " having four engines" and are based on

>Heavy bombers are bomber aircraft with the greatest bomb load carrying capacity and longest range of their time.

The RAF did in fact have those planes; things like the Wellington and Blenheim, even if 2 engined and later far outclassed, had long ranges and heavy bombloads for 1939, much more so than anything anyone else had with the possible exception of the Soviets and their TB series.
So what if they were sunk? It wouldn't have given the Japanese long term superiority, they can't stop the construction of the Essexes, and the U.S. was on the defensive in the opening stages of the war. They might have had to do so a little while longer, but it doesn't change the long term projection even if both (out of 7 pre-war carriers) are sunk and cannot be raised at the start of the war.

Tee bee aytch, it's a fairly accurate description of early Soviet counter-offensives.

Yes, and they saw it didn't work so stopped doing it.

Why does this board autisticly screech at Britain?

Another glorious victory for England!

The Germans deployed one independent regiment, one separate motorized training brigade and 153 divisions for Barbarossa, which included 104 infantry, 19 panzer and 15 motorized infantry divisions in three army groups, nine security divisions to operate in conquered territories, four divisions in Finland and two divisions as reserve under the direct control of OKH.[93] These were equipped with about 3,350 tanks, 7,200 artillery pieces, 2,770 aircraft (that amounted to 65 percent of the Luftwaffe), about 600,000 motor vehicles and 625,000–700,000 horses.[94][95] Finland slated 14 divisions for the invasion, and Romania offered 13 divisions and eight brigades over the course of Barbarossa.[3] The entire Axis forces, 3.8 million personnel,[2] deployed across a front extending from the Arctic Ocean southward to the Black Sea,[76] were all controlled by the OKH and organized into Army Norway, Army Group North, Army Group Center and Army Group South, alongside three luftflotten (air fleets, the air force equivalent of army groups) that supported the army groups: Luftflotte 1 for North, Luftflotte 2 for Center and Luftflotte 4 for South.[3]

This is compared to 3.2 million Soviet soldiers garrisoned in the region. Thus, the Axis held a numerical advantage.

Furthermore, even if the numbers you state are true, it certainly shows that the myth that the Russians were a vast army which outnumbered the Germans terribly is just that, a myth.

Also how does Soviet tank production mean that the USSR is offensive? Just building tanks in no way means that a state is aggressive. One can show a huge list of other things to demonstrate the USSR being aggressive, but simply having a large tank fleet imparts little on a nation's political and military operational strategy.

France in the 1930s had the largest tank fleet in the world. Does that mean that France was a hyper-aggressive nation, at the same time that it was engaged in appeasement to the Germans?

they deserve it
the eternal anglo is the devil

They're jelly England basically was extremely lucky throughout history and succesful, so try to put England down every chance

>So what if they were sunk? It wouldn't have given the Japanese long term superiority, they can't stop the construction of the Essexes, and the U.S. was on the defensive in the opening stages of the war. They might have had to do so a little while longer, but it doesn't change the long term projection even if both (out of 7 pre-war carriers) are sunk and cannot be raised at the start of the war.
Not him but the argument is that it could have given Japan another six months to a year to do as they wished, since the USN might have been hesitant to risk any more carriers in the south Pacific, giving Japan more leeway in its campaign there, against Port Moresby, and trying to cut off Australia.

America still would have won.

Most of the board is sick of the British acting like white niggers thinking every part of their history is perfect.

Hi /r/history. Fuck off your to website and leave us alone.

History is always written by the victors so kys.

Jesus fuck. Can you stop being a pretentious contrarian cunt?

> ” having four engines"

The Brits still didn’t have more bombers then the rest of the world combined, meanwhile the Soviets had over 10,000 aircraft in 1939 with 350,000+ Soviet airforce personnel, compared to the UK’s 7,900 and Germany’s 8,300 aircraft.

But hay, it was purely defensive! Because you never know when Poland, with less then 700 tanks and 1400 planes, might strike for Moscow!…

pretty much this. Pearl Harbour was pretty much the biggest military cock up in history, on a political and a strategic level, and yet for some reason it's a cornerstone of Japan's military reputation.

>The Brits still didn’t have more bombers

Good thing that's not what I said.

> compared to the UK’s 7,900 and Germany’s 8,300 aircraft.

But those figures are wrong you fucking retard.

ww2-weapons.com/raf-squadrons-in-september-1939/

ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/AAF-Luftwaffe/AAF-Luftwaffe-2.html

Seriously, stop getting your shit from Wikipedia.

And you still haven't even begun to say why the mere existence of tanks proves offensive intent, or even provide a framework that can say "This many tanks is for defensive purposes, but X+1 means you're going to expand."

> So what if they were sunk?

The U.S. only had three carriers in the Pacific and if Japan had sunk Enterprise and Lexington, that would have left only Saratoga in San Diego and the Japanese with 10 carriers in control of the whole Pacific.

>This is compared to 3.2 million Soviet soldiers garrisoned IN THE REGION.

The point was the Soviets had the largest army in the world, meanwhile they're surrounded by dangerous enemies like Estonia...

For starters, the U.S. has 4 other carriers they can transfer (maybe not the Ranger, it had some seaworthiness issues). The things can move, you realize, and they weren't exactly needed for Atlantic service; Hornet, Yorktown and Wasp were all fucking sunk in the Pacific.

Secondly, the Japanese held the advantage in open waters away from U.S. bases and land based air anyway, at least until pilot attrition and the huge reverse of Midway.

In any case, it's irrelevant. The U.S. did not take to real offensive of areas controlled by the Japanese at the start of the war until 1944. That is plenty of time to build carriers from scratch, and by the time of the beginning of the invasion of the Marshalls, you had 5 brand new Essex class carriers, (and numerous smaller ones) which alone were probably a match for the entire Combined Fleet.

>France in the 1930s had the largest tank fleet in the world. Does that mean that France was a hyper-aggressive nation

France wasn't espousing global revolution and hadn't attacked its neighbors, unlike the Soviets.

Not him, but the Soviets hadn't attacked any of their neighbors since Stalin ascended to leadership until the MR pact came along and Germany egged them onto it.

Besides which, for the early 30s, France was openly occupying part of Germany.

“The British built more heavy bombers than the rest of the world combined before 1938”

t. Ima Faggot

> unsourced site shilling vidya games

Go away, kid.

> wall of text

“Do the leg work for me!”

>For starters, the U.S. has 4 other carriers they can transfer

Sure, eventually and thru the Panama Canal, where the Japanese can have 10 carriers of their own waiting.

Nobody is saying the Japanese could have won WWII but you can't shrug off the loss of two carriers.

>Soviets hadn't attacked any of their neighbors since Stalin

The Soviets carried out both ground and air incursions into Poland throughout the 1920-30s.

Seriously, are you suggesting the U.S.S.R. under Stalin wasn't preparing to invade their neighbors (as they would literally come to do)?

>Go away, kid.
For someone who literally provided no sources whatsoever, that's awfully pathetic.

And, since you need to be spoonfed: Concerning the Luftwaffe

ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/AAF-Luftwaffe/AAF-Luftwaffe-2.html

>On September 2, 1939, the Luftwaffe possessed 4,161 aircraft: 604 reconnaissance, 1,179 fighters, 1,180 bombers, 366 dive bombers, 40 ground attack, 240 coastal, and 552 transports.

But please, do amuse me about how The Strategy for the Defeat of the Luftwaffe is trumped by whatever it is you have.

>Sure, eventually and thru the Panama Canal, where the Japanese can have 10 carriers of their own waiting.

I'm not even sure the Japanese have the fuel to get all the way to Panama and back, and they sure as hell aren't going to go so near as to be under the possibility of attack from land based planes. That' in large part, is what makes the loss of carriers non decisive; they only restrict American action in areas that are not coverable by land; a well prepared land based air force is going to chew up most carriers and one of the reasons that the American offensives against Japanese islands took so long wasn't to be able to defeat their carriers (which had been sunk long before for the most part), but to present a large enough bastion of CVP as to be able to overwhelm an islands air garrison.

>Nobody is saying the Japanese could have won WWII but you can't shrug off the loss of two carriers.

Sure you can, when the country in question built 18 brand new ones in the course of the war, each of which were considerably better than the pre-war vessels, and could have built even more than that if they saw a need.