Britain's Greatest Ever Foe?

[ginscpy]

The Brits hung on until the USA came to the rescue.

Just like the Soviets.

The United States was never in any danger of being invaded or occupied in WW2.

Actually pretty comfy on the home front.

Biggest winners in WW2 with the least damage.

 

[Geechee_Red]

Washington Aristocraticlly played war, while "Commoner" Guerrillas beat the Brits who were fighting a "Gentlemen's" War. Washington and his ilk returned the Freemen to Euro•Peonange, in 1789 Piff

 

[Peach]

The Brits hung on until the USA came to the rescue.

Just like the Soviets.

The United States was never in any danger of being invaded or occupied in WW2.

Actually pretty comfy on the home front.

Biggest winners in WW2 with the least damage.

The British "hung on" through what would have broken most nations, as did the Soviets. The Soviets had a greater history of such horrors.

 

[ginscpy]

USA was never in any real danger.

 

[The_Lone_Troll]

Meh. Emperor Claudius would have been a better choice. I don't recall George Washington invading England and enslaving the population he didn't slaughter.

Although, to be fair, the Romans did bring civilisation.

Reg: All right, but apart from the sanitation, medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh water system and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?
Attendee: Brought peace?
Reg: Oh, peace - shut up!
Reg: There is not one of us who would not gladly suffer death to rid this country of the Romans once and for all.
Dissenter: Uh, well, one.
Reg: Oh, yeah, yeah, there's one. But otherwise, we're solid.


ROMANI ITE DOMUM!

 

[Caractacus]

Of all time I'd say France.

 

[whitehall]

George Washington named Britain's greatest ever foe - Telegraph

America, Fuck Yeah!

Wait... Technically he was British...

Technically? They were all British. That was the point. Franklin said it best when he risked everything to sign the Declaration of Independence. "We must hang together or most assuredly we will hang separately".

 

[Franticfrank]

I would say Michael Collins - Irish Revolutionary leader. He brought the British to their knees during the Irish war of Independence.

 

[zzzz]

The vote excluded all foes before 1700 and all entries had to have commanded Armies in the field. So Claudius and Hitler are excluded.

Interesting that enemy naval commanders and air commanders were not considered. When I think of a foe I tend to think of someone who threatened my existence and the colonies did not pose a direct military threat to Britain. With the loss of the colonies the British focus shifted more to the Western Pacific.

 

[editec]

Good choice.

WAshington's genius wasn't battlefield, so much as it was keeping the fight going long enough for the Brits to grow weary of it.

There's more to being a successful military leader than mere battlefield tactics.

 

[tigerbob]

The vote excluded all foes before 1700 and all entries had to have commanded Armies in the field. So Claudius and Hitler are excluded.

Interesting that enemy naval commanders and air commanders were not considered. When I think of a foe I tend to think of someone who threatened my existence and the colonies did not pose a direct military threat to Britain. With the loss of the colonies the British focus shifted more to the Western Pacific.

Air Commanders? The only one worthy of consideration (actually threatening Britain's existence) would be Goering who, let's face it, fatty made some appalling decisions in 1940.

Naval? Not sure that there was one that threatened Britain's existence. Well, not since 1588.

 

[zzzz]

Good choice.

WAshington's genius wasn't battlefield, so much as it was keeping the fight going long enough for the Brits to grow weary of it.

There's more to being a successful military leader than mere battlefield tactics.

Its called strategy. Winning battles may make a General a tactical genius but history has shown there is so much more to wining a war than just wining all the battles.

Washington won some battles but the strategy employed is what won the war. That and the greater threat France was.

 

[tigerbob]

Good choice.

WAshington's genius wasn't battlefield, so much as it was keeping the fight going long enough for the Brits to grow weary of it.

There's more to being a successful military leader than mere battlefield tactics.

Its called strategy. Winning battles may make a General a tactical genius but history has shown there is so much more to wining a war than just wining all the battles.

Washington won some battles but the strategy employed is what won the war. That and the greater threat France was.

I think it's also reasonable to say that the size of the United States and even more particularly the size of the North Atlantic also played a significant role. Hitler was stopped by 20 miles of water.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Meh. Emperor Claudius would have been a better choice. I don't recall George Washington invading England and enslaving the population he didn't slaughter.

Although, to be fair, the Romans did bring civilisation.

Britain had civilization prior to the arrival of the Romans, bub.

You refering to the way the Celts painted themselves blue, wiped their butts with their hands or typically raped their own daughters?

Not sure which is the more civilized.

The luckiest to happen to Britain was that it was conquored by Riome, and the second luckiest was being conquered by the Normans.

Or else they would be more like Scotland than France.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Good choice.

WAshington's genius wasn't battlefield, so much as it was keeping the fight going long enough for the Brits to grow weary of it.

There's more to being a successful military leader than mere battlefield tactics.

Its called strategy. Winning battles may make a General a tactical genius but history has shown there is so much more to wining a war than just wining all the battles.

Washington won some battles but the strategy employed is what won the war. That and the greater threat France was.

I think it's also reasonable to say that the size of the United States and even more particularly the size of the North Atlantic also played a significant role. Hitler was stopped by 20 miles of water.

The US wasnt the US then, and was basically a string of very small colonies that were seperated by many miles of wilderness between them.

Opposed to that, the Britts had the best navy in the world and their army was, man-for-man, the best in the world as well.

Washingtons largest army was around 8,000 and the Brits put more than 30,000 in New York alone.

Washington was a strategic genius in that he was able to engage the Brits enough to keep them pinned down in New York and unable to advance up the Hudson River thus dividing the rest of the colonies from New England where most of the colonial manufacturing was.

Yes, he 'lost' a bunch of battles doing it, but he preserved his army which is even more important.

Eventually Brittish arrogance defeated them themselves, as it goes eventually with ALL empires.

Something we should bear in mind for our times.

 

[JimBowie1958]

The vote excluded all foes before 1700 and all entries had to have commanded Armies in the field. So Claudius and Hitler are excluded.

Interesting that enemy naval commanders and air commanders were not considered. When I think of a foe I tend to think of someone who threatened my existence and the colonies did not pose a direct military threat to Britain. With the loss of the colonies the British focus shifted more to the Western Pacific.

Air Commanders? The only one worthy of consideration (actually threatening Britain's existence) would be Goering who, let's face it, fatty made some appalling decisions in 1940.

Naval? Not sure that there was one that threatened Britain's existence. Well, not since 1588.

Napoleons union of the French and Spanish navies was a challenge to the Britts control of the sea and iswhy they celebrate their victory at Trafalgar to this day, dont they?