How True Is It of Any Military Conflict You Have Studied That ‘Wars Are Always Won by the Side with the Most Resources’?
How true is it of any military conflict you have studied that ‘wars are always won by the side with the most resources’?
INTRODUCTION
Throughout history there have been many events that could possibly be used to argue that the statement isn’t true, and that wars are not always won by the side with the most resources. At the time of World War I Germany was arguably the most powerful country in the world, it can be said that they did not come out victorious. Similarly, it is not completely decisive who won the Gulf War, even though the conflict between Iraq and a coalition of 34 countries was clearly an uneven one. But most notably, in many senses the Vietnam War is one that stands out as arguing against the statement the strongest. This is based mainly on the fact that the US was arguably the most powerful country in the world at the time of the war, and that their opponents, the North of Vietnam, were an undeveloped and fairly powerless country.
WAS IT A WAR?
There are however questions over whether the Vietnam War was in fact a war at all. A dictionary definition of war describes it as “a conflict carried on by force of arms, as between nations or between parties within a nation”[1] So, on this reading, it’s quite possible to class the Vietnam War as a war. There are though some stand out elements that disagree with the fact that it was a war. Firstly, historians such as Alan Farmer and Vivienne Sanders have suggested that “Johnson aimed to avoid getting entangled in the war with China, so he never declared a war on North Vietnam”[2]. This is important because is suggests that war was never declared and could possibly determine that it wasn’t ‘officially’ a war. Secondly, the US presidents and high personnel that operated during the war used the term ‘war’ sparingly, using words such as ‘conflict’ to describe the events in Vietnam. It seems that the US would try to hide what was going on in Vietnam, not wanting the events to escalade even
INTRODUCTION
Throughout history there have been many events that could possibly be used to argue that the statement isn’t true, and that wars are not always won by the side with the most resources. At the time of World War I Germany was arguably the most powerful country in the world, it can be said that they did not come out victorious. Similarly, it is not completely decisive who won the Gulf War, even though the conflict between Iraq and a coalition of 34 countries was clearly an uneven one. But most notably, in many senses the Vietnam War is one that stands out as arguing against the statement the strongest. This is based mainly on the fact that the US was arguably the most powerful country in the world at the time of the war, and that their opponents, the North of Vietnam, were an undeveloped and fairly powerless country.
WAS IT A WAR?
There are however questions over whether the Vietnam War was in fact a war at all. A dictionary definition of war describes it as “a conflict carried on by force of arms, as between nations or between parties within a nation”[1] So, on this reading, it’s quite possible to class the Vietnam War as a war. There are though some stand out elements that disagree with the fact that it was a war. Firstly, historians such as Alan Farmer and Vivienne Sanders have suggested that “Johnson aimed to avoid getting entangled in the war with China, so he never declared a war on North Vietnam”[2]. This is important because is suggests that war was never declared and could possibly determine that it wasn’t ‘officially’ a war. Secondly, the US presidents and high personnel that operated during the war used the term ‘war’ sparingly, using words such as ‘conflict’ to describe the events in Vietnam. It seems that the US would try to hide what was going on in Vietnam, not wanting the events to escalade even