It is now believed - the death toll revised by the professor I was lucky enough to study under, J. David Hacker - that almost 750,000 Americans died in the Civil War, and it has become the new accepted statistic.
2 Unrelated Points: The Revolutionary War and the War of 1812 are NOT really linked. There was over 20-years in between, and part of that time - during Washington's 2nd Term and during the Adams Administration - the US nearly went to war with France. The War of 1812 was based on a dumb decision by James Madison.
And World War I and World War II are not the same war, as while there WAS fighting in many places around the world during WWI, the fighting was mostly limited to Europe. WWII had an entire Pacific Theater that WWI did not have. Hitler and the Nazis came to power playing off the anger over losing WWI, but Japan did not invade China or attack us in Pearl Harbor and the Philippines because of WWI. Germany's actions can be looked at through a WWI lens, but Japan's can't.
Saying the World Wars aren't closely related is pretty ridiculous. Same for 1812. The English were continually kidnapping Americans to put in their navy as they viewed the U.S. as still their territory no matter what piece of paper had been signed.
Correction on my previous post: there were nearly 30-years between the end of the Revolutionary War in 1783 and the start of the War of 1812.
Americans in 1812 felt residual anger towards the British that was intensified by Britain's contempt for Americans, but the British were still battling Napoleon and didn't care about events in North America, and there was no real reason to fight them. In fact, Madison's war was so unpopular in New England that the states there considered secession.
The fight was between Americans and Canadians in the North, and against Native American tribes allied with Britain and Spain in the south and west. Americans naively expected the Canadians to join the American union, and were shocked when they faced resistance...the American troops captured and burned the Canadian capital of York (today Toronto), and the Red Coats later burned DC; the war wound up a stalemate and its main importance historically is that it launched the career of Andrew Jackson.
So your quiz inspired me to do some reading...turns out the Philippine-American war was only officially from 1899-1902, and had at least 4000 American casualties as listed in your quiz. However, the Moro Rebellion is what lasted until 1913 as your quiz shows, but had much fewer American casualties.
@tswalla You're username suggests you're Muslim which would explain your slanted view. I'm not denying the US government may have been involved in some unethical things but Muslims love to blame their problems on others instead of taking responsibility constantly playing the victim card. This despite the fact that long before the US and Israel existed tribal hostilities existed in Arab and Muslim culture and today is no exception. The Muslim invasion of India where you sold off their women and enslaved those who didn't convert, the Arab slave trade in Africa spanning at least 800 years where you castrated the men and used the women as sex slaves, the Barbary pirates, the Taliban who turned on the US who formed from the US aided Mujahideen in their fight against communism, all the dictatorships in Muslim countries, and many more. I could go on but you get the idea, you don't exactly have a great track record or reputation and you're a hypocrite for talking about wars and violence.
I know this isn't the popular conception. But the popular conception frankly makes no sense and is unprecedented in history.
The Iraq War lasted from March 2003 to April 2003. That's how long it took for the Americans to conquer Baghdad and the government of Saddam Hussein to fall. The Iraqi military was disbanded shortly thereafter. After this point, the war was finished and the occupation of Iraq began. Total casualties during the war were about 200.
The war in Afghanistan lasted from October through December 2001, when the Taleban lost control of Kandahar their final stronghold. During this period, there were 7 US casualties. After December the war was over and the occupation of Afghanistan began.
To further drive this point home... The USA along with its allies occupied Germany and Japan after WW2. The US still controlled some parts of Japan up through the 1970s. If some soldiers died in Germany or Japan during this lengthy post-war period, I'm confident that their deaths would not be counted along with the casualties of WW2. The different standard applied to the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan are completely baffling.
And the people in Iraq fought back just as the people in Vietnam did. Battles between the North Vietnamese Army and the United States did not account for the majority of daily combat in the war. Non-government combatants largely defeated Napoleon in Spain and the U.S. in the Philippine-American War. Controlling the capital doesn't always mean winning the war.
And by this reasoning the U.S. fully occupied South VietNam immediately. They really never controlled it worth a damn though. That's what all the fighting was about. So can we say the U.S. won the VietNam War in 1964 with almost no deaths, but then lost 58,000 to occupation?
The land forces never tried to take North VietNam at all. It was fought in the American-occuped South. (...and secretly Cambodia and Laos, which they never won either)
As for Iraq, much of the military continued fighting, they just didn't use uniforms anymore.
Winning the war means winning the war. The war objectives in Vietnam were never achieved. The war was ongoing until the United States withdrew, and it ended in defeat. The objectives in both Iraq and Afghanistan were swiftly achieved. After that the war was concluded and the occupation of these countries began. This should not be hard to understand. They're not even remotely similar. The USA was fighting the army of Saddam Hussein in Iraq. That army was disbanded in April, 2003. They were no longer fighting a war at that point. The enemy had been completely and totally defeated. In Vietnam the US never even came remotely close to disbanded the North Vietnamese army, or their allies the VietCong. They were locked in ongoing conflict with both for the duration of the war.
Characterizing Iraqi insurgents attacking American troops as part of the Iraq War would be like saying the Civil War didn't end in 1865, because a federal troop got killed in Jackson during Reconstruction.
Do Baathists still control the government in Baghdad? Does the Taleban still control Afghanistan? Nobody has made an argument here against my point that wasn't completely absurd. I mean the Emperor of Japan got to retain his title and position after World War 2, a lot more than can be said for Saddam Hussein. But nobody says the war against Japan is still ongoing because an American serviceman got killed in Tokyo in 1968. I'd love to hear a valid reason for considering the Iraq and Afghanistan wars as ongoing for so long that wasn't completely arbitrary or driven by politics, but there aren't any.
@Kal, you say that the War in Afghanistan ended long ago because one of the main US objectives was to kick out the Taliban. While that was true for a while, the Taliban has gained control over massive chunks of Afghanistan again and is acting like a quasi-state and not just a terrorist group. Also, with everything going on now (especially the US withdrawal), a lot of intelligence experts think that the Taliban will either become a major power player in Afghani politics after a peace deal is signed or take over the country military if the government doesn't "cooperate" with their demands.
I'm just wondering, what's your take on this? Do you still think it's valid to say that we "won" in Afghanistan if one of the main objectives stops being true? Or does it not matter because, regardless of whether or not the Taliban takes over, Afghanistan has gone through a lot in the past 20 years and is a very different country than it was in 2001?
The Taleban currently in Afghanistan is more like a movement than an organization. Several different bands of Islamists call themselves the Taleban. The group that was in control of Kabul was swiftly defeated, kicked out, jailed, killed, or dispersed. I don't think the objective can be achieved and then stop being achieved 20 years later. That would sort of be like saying Greeks won the Battle of Thermopylae because later on Alexander would go on to conquer the Persian Empire. And since "the Taleban" has ceased being a functioning government of a sovereign entity I feel that they don't exist anymore in the same form. But tribal and Islamist groups that oppose the US occupation and wish to return to a Taleban-style form of government have picked up and adopted the name and banner. If Neo-Nazis ever come to power in Germany in the future we wouldn't say that the Allies lost World War 2.
But like I said: not really the same group. The Taleban in control of Kabul 20 years ago was destroyed and dispersed. After this, the US-led Allied occupation of Afghanistan began, and a new government was set up. Various elements opposed to that new government eventually coalesced in various places in and outside of Afghanistan, some of which chose to pick up the Taleban banner. None of these elements had much success at gaining or holding territory until the last presidential administration negotiated a nearly unconditional surrender to them, completely undercutting the Afghan government of 2001-2021, and secured the release of many former members and leaders of the old Taleban. When the current administration made good on the promise to withdraw from the occupation, this new Taleban took over the whole country with barely a shot fired; because the war was long over - the occupation simply ended.
The War on Terror was a political slogan that was supposed to encompass Afghanistan, Iraq, and all US counter-terrorism efforts around the entire world. Not the same thing. And besides it was mostly used as a PR tool to try and get Americans to somehow think of Iraq and Afghanistan as related and both somehow connected to 9/11, to gin up support for the Bush invasion of Iraq, even though Iraq had nothing to do with Afghanistan or 9/11.
Strange fact: Invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan with the ancillary objective of capturing Osama Bin Laden, but finally getting him in Pakistan without so much as a skirmish. Who says that the CIA
doesn't eventually get its man! - Perseverance, perseverance, perseverance!!!
The Mexican-American War was fought by the regular army. The Civil War was a revolving door of deserters, assumed names and underage kids getting kicked out. The South lost many of its records in the destruction, men were pressed into service along the way and civilian deaths are simple guesses.
I have to say here, and I am not alone that I find certain aspects of the American government's behaviour over the years to have been pretty appalling. It would be very easy for American nationalists to wave their flag. There are many many military interventions made by American forces that have been fiascos, and you nationalists content yourselves with saying, well other people did worse 200 years ago.
That was 1754-1763 and part of the 7 years' war. It was before the American Revolution, but helped lead to it from British taxes and tighter control on the colonies.
during jefferson’s presidency, there was one war, where the US, declared war on somalian priates, because they had taken over a good portion of somalia and acted as a country, so they were considered a country
Since the Philippines was a U.S. territory at the time (according to the Americans), maybe we should count all of the casualties on the Filipino side of the war, too? The same way that you count both Union and Confederate casualties for the Civil War. That would put the total number significantly higher. At least 3x as much if not way more than that if you count non-combat deaths on the Filipino side.
The return rates are interesting. So much won from the cost of the Revolutionary War, and Mexican.
Humanity has been pretty lucky to have a government as generous as the USA as the sole superpower for the last .. 80+ years. It's denialism to say anything else, when the alternative is the USSR/Russia, or China.
God bless the USA as they say. Hopefully they focus more on exceeding, and less on being weighed down by the muck of the ROW in the coming century. I want to see men on Mars.
Lots of commentary that 'The War on Terror' is just a political slogan.
A 2021 report from the Costs of War project at Brown University revealed that 20 years of post-9/11 wars have cost the U.S. an estimated $8 trillion and have killed more than 900,000 people, though only around 15,000 - 20,000 were American casualties.
That should still give this 'slogan' sufficient credibility to appear on this list.
I have heard of the Philippine conflict actually; but this is the first I have heard of it be referred to it as the Philippine American War; I had heard that it was called the Philippine Insurrection
WW1 started in 1916, not 1917 and WW2 started in 1939. You added when Pearl harbor was bombed and when the U.S.A joined the war. It really started when Germany Invaded Poland.
The point is when the U.S. got involved. Even though WW1 and WW2 began earlier (1914 and 1939) the U.S. wasn't fully involved in them until 1917 and 1941, and, considering this is a quiz about the wars the U.S. has fought in, it makes more sense to include the starting date for when the U.S. joined.
2 Unrelated Points: The Revolutionary War and the War of 1812 are NOT really linked. There was over 20-years in between, and part of that time - during Washington's 2nd Term and during the Adams Administration - the US nearly went to war with France. The War of 1812 was based on a dumb decision by James Madison.
And World War I and World War II are not the same war, as while there WAS fighting in many places around the world during WWI, the fighting was mostly limited to Europe. WWII had an entire Pacific Theater that WWI did not have. Hitler and the Nazis came to power playing off the anger over losing WWI, but Japan did not invade China or attack us in Pearl Harbor and the Philippines because of WWI. Germany's actions can be looked at through a WWI lens, but Japan's can't.
Americans in 1812 felt residual anger towards the British that was intensified by Britain's contempt for Americans, but the British were still battling Napoleon and didn't care about events in North America, and there was no real reason to fight them. In fact, Madison's war was so unpopular in New England that the states there considered secession.
The fight was between Americans and Canadians in the North, and against Native American tribes allied with Britain and Spain in the south and west. Americans naively expected the Canadians to join the American union, and were shocked when they faced resistance...the American troops captured and burned the Canadian capital of York (today Toronto), and the Red Coats later burned DC; the war wound up a stalemate and its main importance historically is that it launched the career of Andrew Jackson.
Although I guess it could be argued that it was many conflicts over a few centuries.
I'd still count it though
I know this isn't the popular conception. But the popular conception frankly makes no sense and is unprecedented in history.
The Iraq War lasted from March 2003 to April 2003. That's how long it took for the Americans to conquer Baghdad and the government of Saddam Hussein to fall. The Iraqi military was disbanded shortly thereafter. After this point, the war was finished and the occupation of Iraq began. Total casualties during the war were about 200.
The war in Afghanistan lasted from October through December 2001, when the Taleban lost control of Kandahar their final stronghold. During this period, there were 7 US casualties. After December the war was over and the occupation of Afghanistan began.
The land forces never tried to take North VietNam at all. It was fought in the American-occuped South. (...and secretly Cambodia and Laos, which they never won either)
As for Iraq, much of the military continued fighting, they just didn't use uniforms anymore.
Characterizing Iraqi insurgents attacking American troops as part of the Iraq War would be like saying the Civil War didn't end in 1865, because a federal troop got killed in Jackson during Reconstruction.
I'm just wondering, what's your take on this? Do you still think it's valid to say that we "won" in Afghanistan if one of the main objectives stops being true? Or does it not matter because, regardless of whether or not the Taliban takes over, Afghanistan has gone through a lot in the past 20 years and is a very different country than it was in 2001?
doesn't eventually get its man! - Perseverance, perseverance, perseverance!!!
"Filipino-American" instead.
This is not good enough.
It's not great, but it could be worse...
5/12
Although, the Philippines were never incorporated as states, so idk if that changes things...
In the end I missed it because I didn't know it was also called the "war of 1812", wich I looked up because I had no idea about it.
Maybe "British" war could also be accepted for this one?
Humanity has been pretty lucky to have a government as generous as the USA as the sole superpower for the last .. 80+ years. It's denialism to say anything else, when the alternative is the USSR/Russia, or China.
God bless the USA as they say. Hopefully they focus more on exceeding, and less on being weighed down by the muck of the ROW in the coming century. I want to see men on Mars.
A 2021 report from the Costs of War project at Brown University revealed that 20 years of post-9/11 wars have cost the U.S. an estimated $8 trillion and have killed more than 900,000 people, though only around 15,000 - 20,000 were American casualties.
That should still give this 'slogan' sufficient credibility to appear on this list.
i guess the reason why so few people got the philippine-american war is because history teachers don't give a $h1T about it