Who was the United State's greatest former enemy

Of all the wars the United States has fought, which foe was most formidable?

My vote was for Japan. My reasons are simple: no enemy before or since has matched the United States blow-for-blow until it simply could not fight on anymore like Japan had. I am tempted to put the confederacy in a close second place, but I also have to take a little something away from their "achievement" because it was a secession movement that took half the country. In other words, in WWII it was Japan vs the U.S. in the Civil War, it was part of the country vs. the other part, so of course it would be "difficult", but it wasn't the full might of the States at work.

After that, I would say Nazi Germany, followed closely by the Taliban in Afghanistan, and though it's not mentioned the Soviet Union in the Cold War (putting all proxy conflicts under that umbrella).

The Confederacy. Never before had the US faced such a threat to its morale and government. This was a Civil War, not a war overseas, meaning that people at the homefront were at risk. Furthermore, more Americans died during the Civil War than any other war.

Second place would have to be Japan. The Japanese empire was known for its brutality and unwillingness to give up. There's a reason the only time an atomic bomb was ever used in combat was against Japan.

Probably the British

Why you ask? No, not because of the Revolutionary War, but because they were the only country the USA has ever lost to (Technically, it was a draw, but the american's war goal was to take over Canada, and that didn't work out)

They also burnt down the White House, which takes a lot of balls. No one else could have ever done that and get away with it.

And this is still not including the fact that the UK were dealing with Napoleon, who posed a much bigger threat for them. Imagine how it would have gone had the UK used their full power against the United States.

Honorable mention goes to Vietnam, because the US also "lost" to them (they were never really at war and just pulled out their troops supporting South Vietnam, but we all knew they just ran away ) but Vietnam hardly posed the same threat to the US as the British no matter if they won or lost, and Vietnam had a lot of assistance from Russia and China to help them, unlike the UK.

I chose Japan under Hirohito since he did not only go directly against American values but he also refused to surrender. They made the USA waste lots of money in a stupid useless war that would cost millions of lives, and when the first nuke was thrown, he still didn't surrender.

Either the Axis Powers or Jefferson Davis, in the sense that the CSA was closest to tearing the US apart.

I'd say the British, because they were the only power to ever pose an actual threat to America's very existence. Things got very bad for the Americans during the first several years of the war, and the British were fully intent on strangling the new American nation in the crib. Admittedly, I think another revolution would have happened not very long after, but no other power has ever presented as serious a threat to the US. Even the CSA wouldn't have wiped the USA out of existence.

The country that had the best chance of destroying the USA was by far the UK during that war America was completely outgunned all wars after the USA had quite the advantage

Definitely the CSA, having reasons to kill as many Americans ever seen in any war we've been in, the Confederates to this day remind us that our true worst enemies often lie within our own borders.

Serbia was greatest enemy. We shot down all the Amerifags planes. SERBIA STRONK!

Jokes aside it is the CSA. The only thing that beats America is another America.

Japan and Germany should count as one.

Once the United States got into gear the Axis powers didn't have a chance.

Britain. Sure, Britain's circumstances weren't the best but neither were the US's. This was back when the US was relatively small and Britain was one of (if not the) greatest power.
Japan had balls to bomb Hawaii but they were never a threat to the actual US. It was only a matter of time before the US just took back everything Japan had taken in the Pacific with superior Airforce and Navy.

I would say the British in 1812, but since this is a poll with limited options, pic related.

KingDario wrote:I would say the British in 1812, but since this is a poll with limited options, pic related.

This list does not exclude the British in 1812, the first option on the list is what your looking for.

ceaserkhan22 wrote:

KingDario wrote:I would say the British in 1812, but since this is a poll with limited options, pic related.

This list does not exclude the British in 1812, the first option on the list is what your looking for.

Huh, George III was still the King until 1820. More you know.

George III's Britain hands down. They were the only enemy we ever fought that was actually stronger than the United State COULD become if it needed to. Great Britain, in both 1775-1783 and 1812-1814/5 started out stronger economically and militarily than the U.S., and remained so throughout the course of both wars. There was never a "turning point" like Gettysburg or Midway or Stalingrad, only a slow attrition of financial resources that made the ever utilitarian leadership in the House of Commons gradually aim for less and less until they just basically gave up getting any concessions at all. In both wars the British were theoretically strong enough to conquer the United States, but lacked the national will to do so. If I may be so bold as to advance a comparison, the US was the North Vietnam of that equation! LOL!

I'd like to add that if Hitler's Germany had shared a border with the US, they could have steam-rolled over much of the country just like they did to the Soviet Union in operation Barbarosa! Our geographic position gave us the luxury of maintaining only a relatively tiny standing army, which meant our contribution to both World Wars was rather delayed. Hitler would have been a much more daunting adversary if we'd had to face the roughly 300 divisions he put into Russia by 1942. Of course the US population was over twice the size of Germany's and industrial output was even more disproportionately in our favor, but if you let your enemy arm up while you remain passive, bad things can happen! With a few different priorities, Germany could have built the atomic bomb and then started World War 2.

DuceMoosolini wrote:I'd say the British, because they were the only power to ever pose an actual threat to America's very existence. Things got very bad for the Americans during the first several years of the war, and the British were fully intent on strangling the new American nation in the crib. Admittedly, I think another revolution would have happened not very long after, but no other power has ever presented as serious a threat to the US. Even the CSA wouldn't have wiped the USA out of existence.

I'm not sure why so many people picked Japan. They had about six good months at the beginning of the war, then got wrecked. Even without the nukes, there was nothing left of Japan. Their navy had been destroyed, their armies were trapped on islands and in China, and their cities had all been burned to the ground by incendiaries. Japan was a dangerous foe, but they never had a prayer of winning.

DuceMoosolini wrote:I'd say the British, because they were the only power to ever pose an actual threat to America's very existence. Things got very bad for the Americans during the first several years of the war, and the British were fully intent on strangling the new American nation in the crib. Admittedly, I think another revolution would have happened not very long after, but no other power has ever presented as serious a threat to the US. Even the CSA wouldn't have wiped the USA out of existence.

DuceMoosolini wrote:I'm not sure why so many people picked Japan. They had about six good months at the beginning of the war, then got wrecked.

Ohhhh you did not just quote yourself, boi!!!

I will tell you why I chose Japan. It has nothing to do with their odds of winning the fight. There are many examples in history of pitched battles, ferocious wars, and bloody conflicts in which one side was always going to win end of story. But as they say, it is not the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog. Japan was a dog comprised entirely of fight, to the point of suicide before surrender. The British were anything but, signing their former colony away despite winning more often than losing.

If you boil it down to the bare essentials, the fact that Japan held out under the conditions you describe here:

Even without the nukes, there was nothing left of Japan. Their navy had been destroyed, their armies were trapped on islands and in China, and their cities had all been burned to the ground by incendiaries. Japan was a dangerous foe, but they never had a prayer of winning.

Japan still fought tooth, nail, type 95 and katana to the very last bomb. This was while their homeland burned, with a limping navy, and pockets of soldiers on fortified rocks in the Pacific. Frankly, that is one hell of a former foe. They are distinguished for their will, their tenacity, their dedication, and their ability to put up when it counted even if it would mean defeat.[/quote]

Cold War Communist wrote:
I will tell you why I chose Japan. It has nothing to do with their odds of winning the fight. There are many examples in history of pitched battles, ferocious wars, and bloody conflicts in which one side was always going to win end of story. But as they say, it is not the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog. Japan was a dog comprised entirely of fight, to the point of suicide before surrender. The British were anything but, signing their former colony away despite winning more often than losing.

Japan still fought tooth, nail, type 95 and katana to the very last bomb. This was while their homeland burned, with a limping navy, and pockets of soldiers on fortified rocks in the Pacific. Frankly, that is one hell of a former foe. They are distinguished for their will, their tenacity, their dedication, and their ability to put up when it counted even if it would mean defeat.

Eloquently defended, CWC. Wrong, but eloquent.

No, seriously, you're making me rethink this whole thing... the British basically hoped that the United States would get tired of the depressed conditions war imposed on them, and so did Japan. Both powers based their whole premise for going to war on the idea that the US would acquiesce once we realized what it would cost us to actually win...

The difference between George III's Great Britain and Hirohito's Japan lay in what THEY were willing to sacrifice to achieve their goal of outlasting the US. In Japan's case, it was EVERYDAMNTHING. In Britain's case, it was a certain amount of blood and treasure, beyond which there was no point because even a victory would not recoup their financial loss.

Yep. Japan is definitely the more fearsome foe. Except they actually couldn't have won, whereas the British actually could have. But still.

Cold War Communist wrote:
I will tell you why I chose Japan. It has nothing to do with their odds of winning the fight. There are many examples in history of pitched battles, ferocious wars, and bloody conflicts in which one side was always going to win end of story. But as they say, it is not the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog. Japan was a dog comprised entirely of fight, to the point of suicide before surrender. The British were anything but, signing their former colony away despite winning more often than losing.

I'll give that one to you; there ain't nothing I can say to argue against it. I still think I'm right of course, but that's because we are clearly evaluating this question differently. But you definitely made me better understand why Japan is winning the poll.

DuceMoosolini wrote:

Cold War Communist wrote:
I will tell you why I chose Japan. It has nothing to do with their odds of winning the fight. There are many examples in history of pitched battles, ferocious wars, and bloody conflicts in which one side was always going to win end of story. But as they say, it is not the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog. Japan was a dog comprised entirely of fight, to the point of suicide before surrender. The British were anything but, signing their former colony away despite winning more often than losing.

I'll give that one to you; there ain't nothing I can say to argue against it. I still think I'm right of course, but that's because we are clearly evaluating this question differently. But you definitely made me better understand why Japan is winning the poll.

Thank you. To your point, I asked a friend of mine (we work together) who he would name as the toughest foe and he went with Great Britain as well. His reasoning was pretty much in-line with everyone else who has made that choice. Great Britain was perhaps the one nation that could have defeated the United States, and because the U.S. was in its infancy the fight was more of an uphill battle. It's really a tough call as to who was the toughest enemy because there are many different contexts and aspects to consider.