Why hasn't the U.S. government paid war reparations to any country it attacked?Was the 2003 Iraq War an undeclared war to circumvent the Geneva Conventions?Are the OECD, IMF and the WTO really relevant organizations and what is the price for a country to ignore them?Is Japan still bound by the terms of its surrender in WWII?Making learning from success and failures in other countries a goal for politics?We will never surrender! Why would a country have this policy?If China is as good as other developing countries at protecting IP, why is the U.S. administration labelling China as a trade cheat?What are the groups that can legally challenge Trump's tariffs and can they have them reversed?
Was the Berlin Wall Breached Based upon an Erroneous Declaration?
Options for installing sub-panel
Why does the Bug drink sugar water in MiB?
What is the difference between the Ancient Greek religion and the Ancient Roman religion?
Being flown out for an interview, is it ok to ask to stay a while longer to check out the area?
Forcing and new ordinals
Why is the Duration of Time spent in the Dayside greater than that of the Night side of the Moon for Chandrayaan-2 Orbiter?
What would a life-form be like if it's antimatter-based
Drying clothes: windy but cold outside vs warm(ish) inside?
Why is Carbon Dioxide a Greenhouse Gas whereas Ammonia is not?
Equity-efficiency tradeoff examples
Can abstractions and good code practice in embedded C++ eliminate the need for the debugger?
Why is it possible to teach real numbers before even rigorously defining them?
Fiido D2: shock absorber broken
CiviCRM profiles / Caldera Forms: What to use when?
Two ways to compute divergence do not agree
How to check whether the permutation is random or not
Short story about a young psychic man who disrupts a home full of unusual people?
Weird spacing in aligned environment
Grainy 2D RegionIntersection Plot: How can I make it smoother?
Famous statistical wins and horror stories for teaching purposes
Is it acceptable to mark off or comment on someones presentation based on their non-standard English accent?
Is intra-EU movement/migration of EU/EUAA citizens a sizeable contributor to illegal work?
After upgrading to Xcode 11.2 from Xcode 11.1, app crashes due to _UITextLayoutView
Why hasn't the U.S. government paid war reparations to any country it attacked?
Was the 2003 Iraq War an undeclared war to circumvent the Geneva Conventions?Are the OECD, IMF and the WTO really relevant organizations and what is the price for a country to ignore them?Is Japan still bound by the terms of its surrender in WWII?Making learning from success and failures in other countries a goal for politics?We will never surrender! Why would a country have this policy?If China is as good as other developing countries at protecting IP, why is the U.S. administration labelling China as a trade cheat?What are the groups that can legally challenge Trump's tariffs and can they have them reversed?
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty
margin-bottom:0;
.everyonelovesstackoverflowposition:absolute;height:1px;width:1px;opacity:0;top:0;left:0;pointer-events:none;
Why hasn't the U.S. government paid war reparations to any country it attacked?
According to Wikipedia, the U.S. has never paid any war reparations to members of other countries. It has only paid damage to its Japanese citizens for interning them and unlawfully seizing their assets.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_reparations#United_States
Considering other countries have paid reparations to countries they attacked, why hasn't the U.S. ever paid any reparations to a country or people from a different country?
united-states international-law war international
edited Jul 13 at 13:25
JJ for Transparency and Monica
16.5k5 gold badges48 silver badges96 bronze badges
asked Jul 13 at 10:01
blackbirdblackbird
3,4082 gold badges21 silver badges45 bronze badges
|
show 10 more comments
Why hasn't the U.S. government paid war reparations to any country it attacked?
According to Wikipedia, the U.S. has never paid any war reparations to members of other countries. It has only paid damage to its Japanese citizens for interning them and unlawfully seizing their assets.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_reparations#United_States
Considering other countries have paid reparations to countries they attacked, why hasn't the U.S. ever paid any reparations to a country or people from a different country?
united-states international-law war international
edited Jul 13 at 13:25
JJ for Transparency and Monica
16.5k5 gold badges48 silver badges96 bronze badges
asked Jul 13 at 10:01
blackbirdblackbird
3,4082 gold badges21 silver badges45 bronze badges
13
They certainly should not be labeled reparations (and the existing answers explain why), but consider the Marshall plan and UNRRA, and present-day aid to Iraq and Afghanistan.
– Bryan Krause
Jul 13 at 15:55
34
@jamesqf that's really just doublespeak. If the regime is actually in charge of the country, and you have to fight the country's forces and destroy their resources to get to the evil mastermind, you ARE attacking that country. Saying it's not really an attack because of the reason for the attack is disingenuous.
– Goodbye Ms Chipps
Jul 13 at 21:28
33
Because they won.
– Agent_L
Jul 14 at 7:36
10
Maybe they weren’t called “reparations” but USA has in the past provided benefits to their opponents who lost.
– WGroleau
Jul 14 at 13:59
15
@WGroleau the first thing I thought when reading this question was, The Mouse That Roared: "You must remember, the Americans are a very strange people. Whereas other countries rarely forgive anything, the Americans forgive anything. There isn't a more profitable undertaking for any country than to declare war on the United States and to be defeated."
– RonJohn
Jul 15 at 0:20
|
show 10 more comments
Why hasn't the U.S. government paid war reparations to any country it attacked?
According to Wikipedia, the U.S. has never paid any war reparations to members of other countries. It has only paid damage to its Japanese citizens for interning them and unlawfully seizing their assets.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_reparations#United_States
Considering other countries have paid reparations to countries they attacked, why hasn't the U.S. ever paid any reparations to a country or people from a different country?
united-states international-law war international
edited Jul 13 at 13:25
JJ for Transparency and Monica
16.5k5 gold badges48 silver badges96 bronze badges
asked Jul 13 at 10:01
blackbirdblackbird
3,4082 gold badges21 silver badges45 bronze badges
Why hasn't the U.S. government paid war reparations to any country it attacked?
According to Wikipedia, the U.S. has never paid any war reparations to members of other countries. It has only paid damage to its Japanese citizens for interning them and unlawfully seizing their assets.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_reparations#United_States
Considering other countries have paid reparations to countries they attacked, why hasn't the U.S. ever paid any reparations to a country or people from a different country?
united-states international-law war international
united-states international-law war international
edited Jul 13 at 13:25
JJ for Transparency and Monica
16.5k5 gold badges48 silver badges96 bronze badges
asked Jul 13 at 10:01
blackbirdblackbird
3,4082 gold badges21 silver badges45 bronze badges
edited Jul 13 at 13:25
JJ for Transparency and Monica
16.5k5 gold badges48 silver badges96 bronze badges
asked Jul 13 at 10:01
blackbirdblackbird
3,4082 gold badges21 silver badges45 bronze badges
edited Jul 13 at 13:25
JJ for Transparency and Monica
16.5k5 gold badges48 silver badges96 bronze badges
edited Jul 13 at 13:25
JJ for Transparency and Monica
16.5k5 gold badges48 silver badges96 bronze badges
edited Jul 13 at 13:25
JJ for Transparency and Monica
16.5k5 gold badges48 silver badges96 bronze badges
16.5k5 gold badges48 silver badges96 bronze badges
asked Jul 13 at 10:01
blackbirdblackbird
3,4082 gold badges21 silver badges45 bronze badges
asked Jul 13 at 10:01
blackbirdblackbird
3,4082 gold badges21 silver badges45 bronze badges
asked Jul 13 at 10:01
blackbirdblackbird
3,4082 gold badges21 silver badges45 bronze badges
3,4082 gold badges21 silver badges45 bronze badges
13
They certainly should not be labeled reparations (and the existing answers explain why), but consider the Marshall plan and UNRRA, and present-day aid to Iraq and Afghanistan.
– Bryan Krause
Jul 13 at 15:55
34
@jamesqf that's really just doublespeak. If the regime is actually in charge of the country, and you have to fight the country's forces and destroy their resources to get to the evil mastermind, you ARE attacking that country. Saying it's not really an attack because of the reason for the attack is disingenuous.
– Goodbye Ms Chipps
Jul 13 at 21:28
33
Because they won.
– Agent_L
Jul 14 at 7:36
10
Maybe they weren’t called “reparations” but USA has in the past provided benefits to their opponents who lost.
– WGroleau
Jul 14 at 13:59
15
@WGroleau the first thing I thought when reading this question was, The Mouse That Roared: "You must remember, the Americans are a very strange people. Whereas other countries rarely forgive anything, the Americans forgive anything. There isn't a more profitable undertaking for any country than to declare war on the United States and to be defeated."
– RonJohn
Jul 15 at 0:20
|
show 10 more comments
13
They certainly should not be labeled reparations (and the existing answers explain why), but consider the Marshall plan and UNRRA, and present-day aid to Iraq and Afghanistan.
– Bryan Krause
Jul 13 at 15:55
34
@jamesqf that's really just doublespeak. If the regime is actually in charge of the country, and you have to fight the country's forces and destroy their resources to get to the evil mastermind, you ARE attacking that country. Saying it's not really an attack because of the reason for the attack is disingenuous.
– Goodbye Ms Chipps
Jul 13 at 21:28
33
Because they won.
– Agent_L
Jul 14 at 7:36
10
Maybe they weren’t called “reparations” but USA has in the past provided benefits to their opponents who lost.
– WGroleau
Jul 14 at 13:59
15
@WGroleau the first thing I thought when reading this question was, The Mouse That Roared: "You must remember, the Americans are a very strange people. Whereas other countries rarely forgive anything, the Americans forgive anything. There isn't a more profitable undertaking for any country than to declare war on the United States and to be defeated."
– RonJohn
Jul 15 at 0:20
13
13
They certainly should not be labeled reparations (and the existing answers explain why), but consider the Marshall plan and UNRRA, and present-day aid to Iraq and Afghanistan.
– Bryan Krause
Jul 13 at 15:55
They certainly should not be labeled reparations (and the existing answers explain why), but consider the Marshall plan and UNRRA, and present-day aid to Iraq and Afghanistan.
– Bryan Krause
Jul 13 at 15:55
34
34
@jamesqf that's really just doublespeak. If the regime is actually in charge of the country, and you have to fight the country's forces and destroy their resources to get to the evil mastermind, you ARE attacking that country. Saying it's not really an attack because of the reason for the attack is disingenuous.
– Goodbye Ms Chipps
Jul 13 at 21:28
@jamesqf that's really just doublespeak. If the regime is actually in charge of the country, and you have to fight the country's forces and destroy their resources to get to the evil mastermind, you ARE attacking that country. Saying it's not really an attack because of the reason for the attack is disingenuous.
– Goodbye Ms Chipps
Jul 13 at 21:28
33
33
Because they won.
– Agent_L
Jul 14 at 7:36
Because they won.
– Agent_L
Jul 14 at 7:36
10
10
Maybe they weren’t called “reparations” but USA has in the past provided benefits to their opponents who lost.
– WGroleau
Jul 14 at 13:59
Maybe they weren’t called “reparations” but USA has in the past provided benefits to their opponents who lost.
– WGroleau
Jul 14 at 13:59
15
15
@WGroleau the first thing I thought when reading this question was, The Mouse That Roared: "You must remember, the Americans are a very strange people. Whereas other countries rarely forgive anything, the Americans forgive anything. There isn't a more profitable undertaking for any country than to declare war on the United States and to be defeated."
– RonJohn
Jul 15 at 0:20
@WGroleau the first thing I thought when reading this question was, The Mouse That Roared: "You must remember, the Americans are a very strange people. Whereas other countries rarely forgive anything, the Americans forgive anything. There isn't a more profitable undertaking for any country than to declare war on the United States and to be defeated."
– RonJohn
Jul 15 at 0:20
|
show 10 more comments
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
The answer is right in the Wikipedia page you cited (emphasis added):
War reparations are compensation payments made after a war by the vanquished to the victors.
The United States has not been vanquished in a war, so it has not been in a situation where it would make a payment to a victor of a war.
Being “vanquished” implies not merely “losing” a war, but being defeated so totally that that the victor can impose their will on the loser with impunity. Although the United States has “lost” wars, it has not been “vanquished” like any of the countries listed on that page.
answered Jul 13 at 11:06
JoeJoe
8,9132 gold badges26 silver badges49 bronze badges
3
And the payments were in response to the Civil Liberties Act signed by Reagan, and not the result of losing a war. They shouldn't be listed wiki page, but that's Wikipedia...no time to get in an edit war.
– jmoreno
Jul 13 at 20:36
3
@jmoreno I checked the edit history and there doesn't look to be a lot of back and forth, so I just went ahead and fixed it. That clearly doesn't belong because it doesn't fit the definition given at the top of the page.
– mattdm
Jul 13 at 21:31
3
It's also been a long time since the US won any war.
– Eric Duminil
Jul 13 at 21:47
31
"It's also been a long time since the US won any war" It depends on your definitions. ISIS has been wiped out thx to a coalition effort but featuring US forces. The war against Iraq was over in a few weeks, with capitulation by Saddam's govt. Then began a very different phase that I'll agree is troubling and hasn't been "won" but also really isn't a war per se, though I can see why some would consider it part of "the Iraq War." Cold War was won, clearly. Vietnam by itself was "lost" but can also be seen as a single front in the Cold War. Afghanistan is policing, which isn't to be "won."
– Swiss Frank
Jul 13 at 22:06
2
@some_guy632 OP should clarify their intention then. However, if that were the intention, you could argue about the reconstructions of Germany and Japan, as other commenters have observed. But... those were not done out of a sense of guilt... which I gathered was OPs main intention to ask about
– Joe
Jul 14 at 4:40
|
show 3 more comments
The agreement to pay war reparations is usually part of a peace treaty. It is usually a demand the superior party makes from the inferior party in exchange for peace.
In any wars where the United States "lost" in the past 100 years, the United States simply gave up on occupying the other parties' territory and withdrew their troops. The "winning" side was in no position to make any more demands from the United States, because they posed no serious threat to any US assets outside of the country. So the United States were never in a situation where they were forced to pay to end a war. They were always in a position where they could unilaterally decide to end the war without any danger to their own sovereignty or territorial integrity.
answered Jul 13 at 13:16
Philipp♦Philipp
45.4k17 gold badges136 silver badges165 bronze badges
18
@Trilarion: The concept of morality in international relations came after WWII, which is conveniently also the last (hot) war in which the US was seriously threatened.
– Kevin
Jul 13 at 21:39
5
@Kevin The mainland US was never seriously threatened in WW II. Neither Nazi Germany nor Japan were even remotely in a position to attack the mainland USA.
– gerrit
Jul 13 at 22:09
9
@gerrit: Not as events actually transpired, but it has been a rich font of alt-history for good reason. Imagine if (for example) Japan had been more competent in its operational planning, Germany did not declare war on the US, and so on. Given enough minor changes, it is not entirely implausible that some degree of hot fighting on US soil could have happened. Also, Hawaii is a US state. You can't just exclude it arbitrarily. I certainly never said "mainland."
– Kevin
Jul 13 at 22:48
9
@Kevin Hawaii is a US state currently, but it was not a state at the time of WWII. Nor was Alaska for that matter. They were certainly US territories, but it’s not arbitrary to categorize them differently than the (then) 48 states.
– Nathan L
Jul 14 at 5:45
5
@gerrit The word "mainland" is doing a lot of work there. The US was threatened. There's no reason the US should feel obliged to give up Hawaii just because California is not threatened. The US has obligations towards its territories as well as rights over them.
– Ben
Jul 14 at 10:56
|
show 11 more comments
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "475"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"u003ecc by-sa 4.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f42951%2fwhy-hasnt-the-u-s-government-paid-war-reparations-to-any-country-it-attacked%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
The answer is right in the Wikipedia page you cited (emphasis added):
War reparations are compensation payments made after a war by the vanquished to the victors.
The United States has not been vanquished in a war, so it has not been in a situation where it would make a payment to a victor of a war.
Being “vanquished” implies not merely “losing” a war, but being defeated so totally that that the victor can impose their will on the loser with impunity. Although the United States has “lost” wars, it has not been “vanquished” like any of the countries listed on that page.
answered Jul 13 at 11:06
JoeJoe
8,9132 gold badges26 silver badges49 bronze badges
3
And the payments were in response to the Civil Liberties Act signed by Reagan, and not the result of losing a war. They shouldn't be listed wiki page, but that's Wikipedia...no time to get in an edit war.
– jmoreno
Jul 13 at 20:36
3
@jmoreno I checked the edit history and there doesn't look to be a lot of back and forth, so I just went ahead and fixed it. That clearly doesn't belong because it doesn't fit the definition given at the top of the page.
– mattdm
Jul 13 at 21:31
3
It's also been a long time since the US won any war.
– Eric Duminil
Jul 13 at 21:47
31
"It's also been a long time since the US won any war" It depends on your definitions. ISIS has been wiped out thx to a coalition effort but featuring US forces. The war against Iraq was over in a few weeks, with capitulation by Saddam's govt. Then began a very different phase that I'll agree is troubling and hasn't been "won" but also really isn't a war per se, though I can see why some would consider it part of "the Iraq War." Cold War was won, clearly. Vietnam by itself was "lost" but can also be seen as a single front in the Cold War. Afghanistan is policing, which isn't to be "won."
– Swiss Frank
Jul 13 at 22:06
2
@some_guy632 OP should clarify their intention then. However, if that were the intention, you could argue about the reconstructions of Germany and Japan, as other commenters have observed. But... those were not done out of a sense of guilt... which I gathered was OPs main intention to ask about
– Joe
Jul 14 at 4:40
|
show 3 more comments
The answer is right in the Wikipedia page you cited (emphasis added):
War reparations are compensation payments made after a war by the vanquished to the victors.
The United States has not been vanquished in a war, so it has not been in a situation where it would make a payment to a victor of a war.
Being “vanquished” implies not merely “losing” a war, but being defeated so totally that that the victor can impose their will on the loser with impunity. Although the United States has “lost” wars, it has not been “vanquished” like any of the countries listed on that page.
answered Jul 13 at 11:06
JoeJoe
8,9132 gold badges26 silver badges49 bronze badges
3
And the payments were in response to the Civil Liberties Act signed by Reagan, and not the result of losing a war. They shouldn't be listed wiki page, but that's Wikipedia...no time to get in an edit war.
– jmoreno
Jul 13 at 20:36
3
@jmoreno I checked the edit history and there doesn't look to be a lot of back and forth, so I just went ahead and fixed it. That clearly doesn't belong because it doesn't fit the definition given at the top of the page.
– mattdm
Jul 13 at 21:31
3
It's also been a long time since the US won any war.
– Eric Duminil
Jul 13 at 21:47
31
"It's also been a long time since the US won any war" It depends on your definitions. ISIS has been wiped out thx to a coalition effort but featuring US forces. The war against Iraq was over in a few weeks, with capitulation by Saddam's govt. Then began a very different phase that I'll agree is troubling and hasn't been "won" but also really isn't a war per se, though I can see why some would consider it part of "the Iraq War." Cold War was won, clearly. Vietnam by itself was "lost" but can also be seen as a single front in the Cold War. Afghanistan is policing, which isn't to be "won."
– Swiss Frank
Jul 13 at 22:06
2
@some_guy632 OP should clarify their intention then. However, if that were the intention, you could argue about the reconstructions of Germany and Japan, as other commenters have observed. But... those were not done out of a sense of guilt... which I gathered was OPs main intention to ask about
– Joe
Jul 14 at 4:40
|
show 3 more comments
The answer is right in the Wikipedia page you cited (emphasis added):
War reparations are compensation payments made after a war by the vanquished to the victors.
The United States has not been vanquished in a war, so it has not been in a situation where it would make a payment to a victor of a war.
Being “vanquished” implies not merely “losing” a war, but being defeated so totally that that the victor can impose their will on the loser with impunity. Although the United States has “lost” wars, it has not been “vanquished” like any of the countries listed on that page.
answered Jul 13 at 11:06
JoeJoe
8,9132 gold badges26 silver badges49 bronze badges
The answer is right in the Wikipedia page you cited (emphasis added):
War reparations are compensation payments made after a war by the vanquished to the victors.
The United States has not been vanquished in a war, so it has not been in a situation where it would make a payment to a victor of a war.
Being “vanquished” implies not merely “losing” a war, but being defeated so totally that that the victor can impose their will on the loser with impunity. Although the United States has “lost” wars, it has not been “vanquished” like any of the countries listed on that page.
answered Jul 13 at 11:06
JoeJoe
8,9132 gold badges26 silver badges49 bronze badges
answered Jul 13 at 11:06
JoeJoe
8,9132 gold badges26 silver badges49 bronze badges
answered Jul 13 at 11:06
JoeJoe
8,9132 gold badges26 silver badges49 bronze badges
answered Jul 13 at 11:06
JoeJoe
8,9132 gold badges26 silver badges49 bronze badges
8,9132 gold badges26 silver badges49 bronze badges
3
And the payments were in response to the Civil Liberties Act signed by Reagan, and not the result of losing a war. They shouldn't be listed wiki page, but that's Wikipedia...no time to get in an edit war.
– jmoreno
Jul 13 at 20:36
3
@jmoreno I checked the edit history and there doesn't look to be a lot of back and forth, so I just went ahead and fixed it. That clearly doesn't belong because it doesn't fit the definition given at the top of the page.
– mattdm
Jul 13 at 21:31
3
It's also been a long time since the US won any war.
– Eric Duminil
Jul 13 at 21:47
31
"It's also been a long time since the US won any war" It depends on your definitions. ISIS has been wiped out thx to a coalition effort but featuring US forces. The war against Iraq was over in a few weeks, with capitulation by Saddam's govt. Then began a very different phase that I'll agree is troubling and hasn't been "won" but also really isn't a war per se, though I can see why some would consider it part of "the Iraq War." Cold War was won, clearly. Vietnam by itself was "lost" but can also be seen as a single front in the Cold War. Afghanistan is policing, which isn't to be "won."
– Swiss Frank
Jul 13 at 22:06
2
@some_guy632 OP should clarify their intention then. However, if that were the intention, you could argue about the reconstructions of Germany and Japan, as other commenters have observed. But... those were not done out of a sense of guilt... which I gathered was OPs main intention to ask about
– Joe
Jul 14 at 4:40
|
show 3 more comments
3
And the payments were in response to the Civil Liberties Act signed by Reagan, and not the result of losing a war. They shouldn't be listed wiki page, but that's Wikipedia...no time to get in an edit war.
– jmoreno
Jul 13 at 20:36
3
@jmoreno I checked the edit history and there doesn't look to be a lot of back and forth, so I just went ahead and fixed it. That clearly doesn't belong because it doesn't fit the definition given at the top of the page.
– mattdm
Jul 13 at 21:31
3
It's also been a long time since the US won any war.
– Eric Duminil
Jul 13 at 21:47
31
"It's also been a long time since the US won any war" It depends on your definitions. ISIS has been wiped out thx to a coalition effort but featuring US forces. The war against Iraq was over in a few weeks, with capitulation by Saddam's govt. Then began a very different phase that I'll agree is troubling and hasn't been "won" but also really isn't a war per se, though I can see why some would consider it part of "the Iraq War." Cold War was won, clearly. Vietnam by itself was "lost" but can also be seen as a single front in the Cold War. Afghanistan is policing, which isn't to be "won."
– Swiss Frank
Jul 13 at 22:06
2
@some_guy632 OP should clarify their intention then. However, if that were the intention, you could argue about the reconstructions of Germany and Japan, as other commenters have observed. But... those were not done out of a sense of guilt... which I gathered was OPs main intention to ask about
– Joe
Jul 14 at 4:40
3
3
And the payments were in response to the Civil Liberties Act signed by Reagan, and not the result of losing a war. They shouldn't be listed wiki page, but that's Wikipedia...no time to get in an edit war.
– jmoreno
Jul 13 at 20:36
And the payments were in response to the Civil Liberties Act signed by Reagan, and not the result of losing a war. They shouldn't be listed wiki page, but that's Wikipedia...no time to get in an edit war.
– jmoreno
Jul 13 at 20:36
3
3
@jmoreno I checked the edit history and there doesn't look to be a lot of back and forth, so I just went ahead and fixed it. That clearly doesn't belong because it doesn't fit the definition given at the top of the page.
– mattdm
Jul 13 at 21:31
@jmoreno I checked the edit history and there doesn't look to be a lot of back and forth, so I just went ahead and fixed it. That clearly doesn't belong because it doesn't fit the definition given at the top of the page.
– mattdm
Jul 13 at 21:31
3
3
It's also been a long time since the US won any war.
– Eric Duminil
Jul 13 at 21:47
It's also been a long time since the US won any war.
– Eric Duminil
Jul 13 at 21:47
31
31
"It's also been a long time since the US won any war" It depends on your definitions. ISIS has been wiped out thx to a coalition effort but featuring US forces. The war against Iraq was over in a few weeks, with capitulation by Saddam's govt. Then began a very different phase that I'll agree is troubling and hasn't been "won" but also really isn't a war per se, though I can see why some would consider it part of "the Iraq War." Cold War was won, clearly. Vietnam by itself was "lost" but can also be seen as a single front in the Cold War. Afghanistan is policing, which isn't to be "won."
– Swiss Frank
Jul 13 at 22:06
"It's also been a long time since the US won any war" It depends on your definitions. ISIS has been wiped out thx to a coalition effort but featuring US forces. The war against Iraq was over in a few weeks, with capitulation by Saddam's govt. Then began a very different phase that I'll agree is troubling and hasn't been "won" but also really isn't a war per se, though I can see why some would consider it part of "the Iraq War." Cold War was won, clearly. Vietnam by itself was "lost" but can also be seen as a single front in the Cold War. Afghanistan is policing, which isn't to be "won."
– Swiss Frank
Jul 13 at 22:06
2
2
@some_guy632 OP should clarify their intention then. However, if that were the intention, you could argue about the reconstructions of Germany and Japan, as other commenters have observed. But... those were not done out of a sense of guilt... which I gathered was OPs main intention to ask about
– Joe
Jul 14 at 4:40
@some_guy632 OP should clarify their intention then. However, if that were the intention, you could argue about the reconstructions of Germany and Japan, as other commenters have observed. But... those were not done out of a sense of guilt... which I gathered was OPs main intention to ask about
– Joe
Jul 14 at 4:40
|
show 3 more comments
The agreement to pay war reparations is usually part of a peace treaty. It is usually a demand the superior party makes from the inferior party in exchange for peace.
In any wars where the United States "lost" in the past 100 years, the United States simply gave up on occupying the other parties' territory and withdrew their troops. The "winning" side was in no position to make any more demands from the United States, because they posed no serious threat to any US assets outside of the country. So the United States were never in a situation where they were forced to pay to end a war. They were always in a position where they could unilaterally decide to end the war without any danger to their own sovereignty or territorial integrity.
answered Jul 13 at 13:16
Philipp♦Philipp
45.4k17 gold badges136 silver badges165 bronze badges
18
@Trilarion: The concept of morality in international relations came after WWII, which is conveniently also the last (hot) war in which the US was seriously threatened.
– Kevin
Jul 13 at 21:39
5
@Kevin The mainland US was never seriously threatened in WW II. Neither Nazi Germany nor Japan were even remotely in a position to attack the mainland USA.
– gerrit
Jul 13 at 22:09
9
@gerrit: Not as events actually transpired, but it has been a rich font of alt-history for good reason. Imagine if (for example) Japan had been more competent in its operational planning, Germany did not declare war on the US, and so on. Given enough minor changes, it is not entirely implausible that some degree of hot fighting on US soil could have happened. Also, Hawaii is a US state. You can't just exclude it arbitrarily. I certainly never said "mainland."
– Kevin
Jul 13 at 22:48
9
@Kevin Hawaii is a US state currently, but it was not a state at the time of WWII. Nor was Alaska for that matter. They were certainly US territories, but it’s not arbitrary to categorize them differently than the (then) 48 states.
– Nathan L
Jul 14 at 5:45
5
@gerrit The word "mainland" is doing a lot of work there. The US was threatened. There's no reason the US should feel obliged to give up Hawaii just because California is not threatened. The US has obligations towards its territories as well as rights over them.
– Ben
Jul 14 at 10:56
|
show 11 more comments
The agreement to pay war reparations is usually part of a peace treaty. It is usually a demand the superior party makes from the inferior party in exchange for peace.
In any wars where the United States "lost" in the past 100 years, the United States simply gave up on occupying the other parties' territory and withdrew their troops. The "winning" side was in no position to make any more demands from the United States, because they posed no serious threat to any US assets outside of the country. So the United States were never in a situation where they were forced to pay to end a war. They were always in a position where they could unilaterally decide to end the war without any danger to their own sovereignty or territorial integrity.
answered Jul 13 at 13:16
Philipp♦Philipp
45.4k17 gold badges136 silver badges165 bronze badges
18
@Trilarion: The concept of morality in international relations came after WWII, which is conveniently also the last (hot) war in which the US was seriously threatened.
– Kevin
Jul 13 at 21:39
5
@Kevin The mainland US was never seriously threatened in WW II. Neither Nazi Germany nor Japan were even remotely in a position to attack the mainland USA.
– gerrit
Jul 13 at 22:09
9
@gerrit: Not as events actually transpired, but it has been a rich font of alt-history for good reason. Imagine if (for example) Japan had been more competent in its operational planning, Germany did not declare war on the US, and so on. Given enough minor changes, it is not entirely implausible that some degree of hot fighting on US soil could have happened. Also, Hawaii is a US state. You can't just exclude it arbitrarily. I certainly never said "mainland."
– Kevin
Jul 13 at 22:48
9
@Kevin Hawaii is a US state currently, but it was not a state at the time of WWII. Nor was Alaska for that matter. They were certainly US territories, but it’s not arbitrary to categorize them differently than the (then) 48 states.
– Nathan L
Jul 14 at 5:45
5
@gerrit The word "mainland" is doing a lot of work there. The US was threatened. There's no reason the US should feel obliged to give up Hawaii just because California is not threatened. The US has obligations towards its territories as well as rights over them.
– Ben
Jul 14 at 10:56
|
show 11 more comments
The agreement to pay war reparations is usually part of a peace treaty. It is usually a demand the superior party makes from the inferior party in exchange for peace.
In any wars where the United States "lost" in the past 100 years, the United States simply gave up on occupying the other parties' territory and withdrew their troops. The "winning" side was in no position to make any more demands from the United States, because they posed no serious threat to any US assets outside of the country. So the United States were never in a situation where they were forced to pay to end a war. They were always in a position where they could unilaterally decide to end the war without any danger to their own sovereignty or territorial integrity.
answered Jul 13 at 13:16
Philipp♦Philipp
45.4k17 gold badges136 silver badges165 bronze badges
The agreement to pay war reparations is usually part of a peace treaty. It is usually a demand the superior party makes from the inferior party in exchange for peace.
In any wars where the United States "lost" in the past 100 years, the United States simply gave up on occupying the other parties' territory and withdrew their troops. The "winning" side was in no position to make any more demands from the United States, because they posed no serious threat to any US assets outside of the country. So the United States were never in a situation where they were forced to pay to end a war. They were always in a position where they could unilaterally decide to end the war without any danger to their own sovereignty or territorial integrity.
answered Jul 13 at 13:16
Philipp♦Philipp
45.4k17 gold badges136 silver badges165 bronze badges
edited Jul 14 at 11:05
answered Jul 13 at 13:16
Philipp♦Philipp
45.4k17 gold badges136 silver badges165 bronze badges
answered Jul 13 at 13:16
Philipp♦Philipp
45.4k17 gold badges136 silver badges165 bronze badges
answered Jul 13 at 13:16
Philipp♦Philipp
45.4k17 gold badges136 silver badges165 bronze badges
45.4k17 gold badges136 silver badges165 bronze badges
18
@Trilarion: The concept of morality in international relations came after WWII, which is conveniently also the last (hot) war in which the US was seriously threatened.
– Kevin
Jul 13 at 21:39
5
@Kevin The mainland US was never seriously threatened in WW II. Neither Nazi Germany nor Japan were even remotely in a position to attack the mainland USA.
– gerrit
Jul 13 at 22:09
9
@gerrit: Not as events actually transpired, but it has been a rich font of alt-history for good reason. Imagine if (for example) Japan had been more competent in its operational planning, Germany did not declare war on the US, and so on. Given enough minor changes, it is not entirely implausible that some degree of hot fighting on US soil could have happened. Also, Hawaii is a US state. You can't just exclude it arbitrarily. I certainly never said "mainland."
– Kevin
Jul 13 at 22:48
9
@Kevin Hawaii is a US state currently, but it was not a state at the time of WWII. Nor was Alaska for that matter. They were certainly US territories, but it’s not arbitrary to categorize them differently than the (then) 48 states.
– Nathan L
Jul 14 at 5:45
5
@gerrit The word "mainland" is doing a lot of work there. The US was threatened. There's no reason the US should feel obliged to give up Hawaii just because California is not threatened. The US has obligations towards its territories as well as rights over them.
– Ben
Jul 14 at 10:56
|
show 11 more comments
18
@Trilarion: The concept of morality in international relations came after WWII, which is conveniently also the last (hot) war in which the US was seriously threatened.
– Kevin
Jul 13 at 21:39
5
@Kevin The mainland US was never seriously threatened in WW II. Neither Nazi Germany nor Japan were even remotely in a position to attack the mainland USA.
– gerrit
Jul 13 at 22:09
9
@gerrit: Not as events actually transpired, but it has been a rich font of alt-history for good reason. Imagine if (for example) Japan had been more competent in its operational planning, Germany did not declare war on the US, and so on. Given enough minor changes, it is not entirely implausible that some degree of hot fighting on US soil could have happened. Also, Hawaii is a US state. You can't just exclude it arbitrarily. I certainly never said "mainland."
– Kevin
Jul 13 at 22:48
9
@Kevin Hawaii is a US state currently, but it was not a state at the time of WWII. Nor was Alaska for that matter. They were certainly US territories, but it’s not arbitrary to categorize them differently than the (then) 48 states.
– Nathan L
Jul 14 at 5:45
5
@gerrit The word "mainland" is doing a lot of work there. The US was threatened. There's no reason the US should feel obliged to give up Hawaii just because California is not threatened. The US has obligations towards its territories as well as rights over them.
– Ben
Jul 14 at 10:56
18
18
@Trilarion: The concept of morality in international relations came after WWII, which is conveniently also the last (hot) war in which the US was seriously threatened.
– Kevin
Jul 13 at 21:39
@Trilarion: The concept of morality in international relations came after WWII, which is conveniently also the last (hot) war in which the US was seriously threatened.
– Kevin
Jul 13 at 21:39
5
5
@Kevin The mainland US was never seriously threatened in WW II. Neither Nazi Germany nor Japan were even remotely in a position to attack the mainland USA.
– gerrit
Jul 13 at 22:09
@Kevin The mainland US was never seriously threatened in WW II. Neither Nazi Germany nor Japan were even remotely in a position to attack the mainland USA.
– gerrit
Jul 13 at 22:09
9
9
@gerrit: Not as events actually transpired, but it has been a rich font of alt-history for good reason. Imagine if (for example) Japan had been more competent in its operational planning, Germany did not declare war on the US, and so on. Given enough minor changes, it is not entirely implausible that some degree of hot fighting on US soil could have happened. Also, Hawaii is a US state. You can't just exclude it arbitrarily. I certainly never said "mainland."
– Kevin
Jul 13 at 22:48
@gerrit: Not as events actually transpired, but it has been a rich font of alt-history for good reason. Imagine if (for example) Japan had been more competent in its operational planning, Germany did not declare war on the US, and so on. Given enough minor changes, it is not entirely implausible that some degree of hot fighting on US soil could have happened. Also, Hawaii is a US state. You can't just exclude it arbitrarily. I certainly never said "mainland."
– Kevin
Jul 13 at 22:48
9
9
@Kevin Hawaii is a US state currently, but it was not a state at the time of WWII. Nor was Alaska for that matter. They were certainly US territories, but it’s not arbitrary to categorize them differently than the (then) 48 states.
– Nathan L
Jul 14 at 5:45
@Kevin Hawaii is a US state currently, but it was not a state at the time of WWII. Nor was Alaska for that matter. They were certainly US territories, but it’s not arbitrary to categorize them differently than the (then) 48 states.
– Nathan L
Jul 14 at 5:45
5
5
@gerrit The word "mainland" is doing a lot of work there. The US was threatened. There's no reason the US should feel obliged to give up Hawaii just because California is not threatened. The US has obligations towards its territories as well as rights over them.
– Ben
Jul 14 at 10:56
@gerrit The word "mainland" is doing a lot of work there. The US was threatened. There's no reason the US should feel obliged to give up Hawaii just because California is not threatened. The US has obligations towards its territories as well as rights over them.
– Ben
Jul 14 at 10:56
|
show 11 more comments
Thanks for contributing an answer to Politics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f42951%2fwhy-hasnt-the-u-s-government-paid-war-reparations-to-any-country-it-attacked%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
13
They certainly should not be labeled reparations (and the existing answers explain why), but consider the Marshall plan and UNRRA, and present-day aid to Iraq and Afghanistan.
– Bryan Krause
Jul 13 at 15:55
34
@jamesqf that's really just doublespeak. If the regime is actually in charge of the country, and you have to fight the country's forces and destroy their resources to get to the evil mastermind, you ARE attacking that country. Saying it's not really an attack because of the reason for the attack is disingenuous.
– Goodbye Ms Chipps
Jul 13 at 21:28
33
Because they won.
– Agent_L
Jul 14 at 7:36
10
Maybe they weren’t called “reparations” but USA has in the past provided benefits to their opponents who lost.
– WGroleau
Jul 14 at 13:59
15
@WGroleau the first thing I thought when reading this question was, The Mouse That Roared: "You must remember, the Americans are a very strange people. Whereas other countries rarely forgive anything, the Americans forgive anything. There isn't a more profitable undertaking for any country than to declare war on the United States and to be defeated."
– RonJohn
Jul 15 at 0:20