I have often seen this sort of sentiment in the picture above brought up in particular circles, usually by wignats still bitter about losing the Seige of Petersburg (VA and Russia). Though I am sure Norm never meant it in the context of "The Nazis were the good guys" that is usually the context it is perceived in.
I typically disagree with such notions, however I do hold this belief - that sometimes the worse side in any given conflict did win - to be true in certain cases. In this post I will describe them in a loose and breif list. I will also give some examples of times most people would agree with the sentiment, but I disagree.
I want to start off with my immediate idea; Napoleon. Napoleon Bonaparte is the most shining example to me of "did the good guys just lose?". I want to say that obviously Napoleon is not a saint, he was an autocrat who regressed a lot of republican reforms and at the end of the day still became a monarch. However, I think the fact that he kept any reforms at all and wasnt a Bourbon already evens out this bad impression. Napoleon re-legalized slavery - for economic reasons, re-allowed catholicism - because the law was silly, he was an egomaniac, a warmonger, a tyrant, a cronyist, &c. However in all of this you must take for account the opposing side. The Opposition here was feudalism and the status quo, it was the kings of Europe, the aristocracy. I believe it is Tallyrand who said of the Bourbons when they regained sovreignty of France "That they have learnt nothing and forgotten nothing", the aristocracy that opposed Napoleon across the whole of the continent intended to resolutley end this whole Revolution buisness and resume rule over the mudbloods for the rest of eternity as God had intended. That in this confict Napoleon, the Modern Caesar, stood on the side of popular liberalism and republicanism, and against the Ancien Regime.
No squabbling from England will ever change that fact, or change the fact that Napoleon, in the end, was a positive force that changed Europe for the better, despite the massive deaths. It was through his conquests that the Revolution and its ideas were spread across Europe to places like Italy and Germany, ideas that would ferment and boil over in 1849. That feudalism would be abolished. Napoleon was not very good, but what was the alternative here? Killing liberalism in its crib for the sake of the Austrian crown and the British half-crown? Britain and Russia and Austria were wrong here. France was the better side in this conflict.
Now for a shorter one that paints me in an even more francophilic light. The French and Indian War (only the American conflict, not the whole 7 years war). I think its pretty safe to say that under every pretext the English were never going to be the better side in this one. The French not only didnt start this conflict, but were far better regarding the Indians than the English. All the English wanted Ohio for was to place more Pennsylvanians and Virginians in, so they could genocide everything up to the Mississippi and extend slavery, you know, in the American fashion. Regarding that the French are saints. All they ever did with their American holdings were send hookers and debtors to try and populate it and milk it for that sweet sweet beaver fur. Thats pretty tame compared to the baggage of all those broken treaties. First conflict I will not go to bat for America on, and I will lick some boots believe me.
Honorable Mention here is the one I really believe with absolutely no room for debate, but they didnt really lose their war, so idk; Vietnam. Ho Chi Minh was 1000% correct, and the United States should have supported him rather than fight him. France and the US and China were all wrong and Vietnam was right to gain its independence, and they did rather successfully, though I know the narrative that "Vietnam won and that good" isnt super popular, so I felt like it kind of fit.
Finally were gonna do an ancient one because I agree with the current narrative for most modern conflicts and medieval conflict is all petty disputes between rich families and dont really count as moral arguments the same way WW2 does. Im talking the Crisis of the Third Century (and really every subsequent conflict Western Rome got into). Rome definitely should have fallen there, and stitching it back together with the Dominate was probably bad, and letting it continue to get as bad as it got with the whole migrant thing was also pretty bad. Rome treated its neighbors like shit, and that kind of thing isnt sustainable forever. Rome and its military meritocracy during this period is probably a good thing in the grand scheme of things, but thats like the only thing it has going for it. This isnt a great example since the widespread effects of Rome falling this early is way too numerous to ever account for, but I think they should have put her down.
And now for the two examples of cases where I think a lot of people would say "oh the bad guys won here" but where I disagree.
My first thought is WW1. This is wrong. While nobody likes the Entente, France and England are megadicks in this war, especially France, do not let that French bitterness outshine the fact that the Germans were actually awful. It really was a shame that both sides couldnt lose here. The Germans were much more autocratic than France and a century defined by their victory would not have been good. I feel like most of the people who would say this would have only a cursory knowledge of the war, and mostly from and American 'anti-Wilson' standpoint. Not to be taken seriously.
My other opinion is the Roman Civil War. Most people would probably say that Brutus and Pompey should have won their wars and that Caesar should have lost. I disagree. If my opinion on Napoleon wasnt enough of a red flag, you can basically copy that opinion over to Julius Caesar. I do not think he was a good person who did good things, but I think rather that the opposing side was so drastically worse than Caesar that he was the best option in the Civil War. Obviously the Empire was not a good option, and Augustus was certainly not a good option, however though Cato and Brutus may have been rightly fighting against tyrants, they were fighting against tryants defending - The Republic -, and are wrong to do so.
The Roman Republic was not a good system and was not worth defending from tyranny. As a vibe and concept it was fine but in practice it was an oligarchic cabal that acted only to facilitate the rich and powerful of Rome to own and rule the Empire without killing eachother too often and that purpose is not worth defending. Maybe if the Republic was more like an actual republic, or even a Merchants republic, I'd be more willing to sympathize with it, but as it stands I hate Cato more than I hate Caesar, because at least Caesar used his money for populist ends like debt abolition. Protecting the elite's right to run Rome under the guise of popular government is not something worth defending, its not a good cause, and it certainly doesnt mean that theyre the good guys. The Empire wouldnt end up too much better but at least they would be honest about their elitism.
That is all I had to say today though.
Dont forget to bookmark so you dont lose me, thanks for reading! Stay golden.
