A British view on the American independence war

[Picaro]

The war for independence wouldn't have succeeded without the French help.

Maybe, but Richard Morris pulled a financial miracle out of his ass and Washington was able to keep his army together on the road to Yorktown. Franklin deserves a lot of credit, as does Jefferson for their diplomatic efforts, but the French would have ignored them if it weren't for Morris's well known business acumen and ability to figure out how re-imburse them later.

 

[Picaro]

The whole thing should not have happened. America was populated with enough people, and capable of creating their own industry without Britain. What eventually happened to Australia, New Zealand, India, Hong Cong, and Canada should have happened to America.The British were just not used to losing colonies during that era.The British had exactly the same mindset that we had during Vietnam. Nobody could possibly resist the most powerful navy on earth. Britain's. America knew that the British could never afford to fight a long land war in America, especially during an era of shifting alliances in Europe. Once the French joined us, it was all but over. Like I said, we went through the exact same experience in Vietnam.

Mostly rubbish. The colonies remained dependent on Great Britain for the next century, it was the British Navy that enforced the Monroe Doctrine, for instance, and British industrial technology that created our industrial base, and British investors that paid for most of the Erie Canal, railroads, etc.. It was nothing even remotely like 'Viet Nam'; the British Empire was overwhelmingly a positive influence everywhere it expanded.

Even Viet Nam wasn't like the popular delusions about it being some sort of 'huge loss; it was the Soviets who went bankrupt over it, and that along with LBJ's backing of Israel and it's winning the 1973 Arab wars sunk the Khrushchev/ Brezhnev Doctrine for all time. It was dependent on the West for food and refined petroleum products from 1973 on, until the final act of dissolution.

 

[Pogo]

thankyou , and thats where the despicable tories took off to . Good to see them go Pogo . USA had another enema or cleansing when the draft dodgers from the USA also took off for 'canada' Pogo .

It's also where the Brits sent slaves to their freedom after evacuation from here.

Why do you say "despicable"?

And the 'rest of the story' is more were turned away and refused than made it in, which is why Canada is called 'The Great White North'; it ain't because of the snow.

--- Link?

Have any idea how many Native Americans were, and still are, in Canada?
You could ask a Canadian.

And then there is their tiny latino population, which is just bizarre given its the largest group in the hemisphere.

Presuming by "Latino" you mean "Spanish" (and not French), why would it? No part of Canada was ever colonized by Spain. Or Portugal. It was all British and French.

Is it "bizarre" that Bolivia has a tiny Anglophone population? Is it "bizarre" that Ecuador has a tiny French population? Is it "bizarre" that you won't find a whole lot of people speaking Dutch in Uruguay?

 

[Vandalshandle]

The whole thing should not have happened. America was populated with enough people, and capable of creating their own industry without Britain. What eventually happened to Australia, New Zealand, India, Hong Cong, and Canada should have happened to America.The British were just not used to losing colonies during that era.The British had exactly the same mindset that we had during Vietnam. Nobody could possibly resist the most powerful navy on earth. Britain's. America knew that the British could never afford to fight a long land war in America, especially during an era of shifting alliances in Europe. Once the French joined us, it was all but over. Like I said, we went through the exact same experience in Vietnam.

Mostly rubbish. The colonies remained dependent on Great Britain for the next century, it was the British Navy that enforced the Monroe Doctrine, for instance, and British industrial technology that created our industrial base, and British investors that paid for most of the Erie Canal, railroads, etc.. It was nothing even remotely like 'Viet Nam'; the British Empire was overwhelmingly a positive influence everywhere it expanded.

Even Viet Nam wasn't like the popular delusions about it being some sort of 'huge loss; it was the Soviets who went bankrupt over it, and that along with LBJ's backing of Israel and it's winning the 1973 Arab wars sunk the Khrushchev/ Brezhnev Doctrine for all time. It was dependent on the West for food and refined petroleum products from 1973 on, until the final act of dissolution.

I can not agree that the British colonial period was a positive experience around the world. They fought 2 or 3 wars with China because they were trying to stop Britain from selling opium to the Chinese people. They were incredibly intensive racists, and treated all colonials as barbarians. They really made a mess out of the Middle East after WW1 with the Balfour agreement, and the Western world is still paying for it today.They had just as bad an experience with Afghanistan that we had, and finally declared victory and went home just to get the hell out. The Irish still hate them, and went so far as to remain neutral in WW2. The Indians seriously considered remaining neutral in ww2, because they wanted their independence. The Indian mutiny against the British, by their insensitive use of pig and beef grease in musket ammo was incredibly stupid. They totally botched the takeover of South Africa, and the Boor War was not really necessary. When they invaded Egypt to keep control of the Suez Canal, even we had to turn our back on them. The Crimean war against the Russians accomplished nothing, and was mostly fought by the British just to give the troops something to do.

As for Vietnam, you almost make it sound like we won. I don't THINK so!

 

[there4eyeM]

It was in France's geopolitical interests to aid the American War for Independence, but the debt it incurred was a large contributer to the crisis that precipitated it's own revolution.

 

[Munin]

Its interesting that it was a civil war, patriots vs loyalist both claiming moral high ground. Before I saw this I mostly viewed it as a foreign war, which is not completely true.

And brothers fighting against brothers, in a way it is more comparable with the war Russia is having on Ukraine.
Also former brothers in arms during the Soviet Union wars, the American militias where fighting side by side with the British against the French not that long before. Suprising how many families & towns were completely split. This is something also shown in the movie "the Patriot", where the name of the movie also reveals the side from wich is looked at the war.


But the warfare being fought seems to be more resembling guerilla warfare: both in vietnam, Iraq & afghanistan. The unconventional warfare at the time was breaking the rules of combat in a non acceptable way and abusing the weakness of the superpower army: the rules that army has to hold himself to. Back then it was sniping officers, ambush warfare, going back to civilian life to hide from military consequences of enlistment.

The insurgents in Iraq do this by abusing the rules the Americans have to fight by: using civilian disguises when it suits them, using suicide bombers with civilian outfits.
They also use the one thing an "invading" army always has against itself: time. In Vietnam, Afghanistan & Iraq there is a deadline and a limit to the cost of the war for the "invader". A country fighting for its survival can outwait the enemy as long as it is not to strongly beaten, it can afford to delay the war untill the enemy gives up or runs out of money that its taxpayers are willing to pay for a foreign war.

 

[Picaro]

Its interesting that it was a civil war, patriots vs loyalist both claiming moral high ground. Before I saw this I mostly viewed it as a foreign war, which is not completely true.

And brothers fighting against brothers, in a way it is more comparable with the war Russia is having on Ukraine.
Also former brothers in arms during the Soviet Union wars, the American militias where fighting side by side with the British against the French not that long before. Suprising how many families & towns were completely split. This is something also shown in the movie "the Patriot", where the name of the movie also reveals the side from wich is looked at the war.


But the warfare being fought seems to be more resembling guerilla warfare: both in vietnam, Iraq & afghanistan. The unconventional warfare at the time was breaking the rules of combat in a non acceptable way and abusing the weakness of the superpower army: the rules that army has to hold himself to. Back then it was sniping officers, ambush warfare, going back to civilian life to hide from military consequences of enlistment.

The insurgents in Iraq do this by abusing the rules the Americans have to fight by: using civilian disguises when it suits them, using suicide bombers with civilian outfits.
They also use the one thing an "invading" army always has against itself: time. In Vietnam, Afghanistan & Iraq there is a deadline and a limit to the cost of the war for the "invader". A country fighting for its survival can outwait the enemy as long as it is not to strongly beaten, it can afford to delay the war untill the enemy gives up or runs out of money that its taxpayers are willing to pay for a foreign war.

Well, it wasn't remotely a 'Viet Nam' type, it's not like the British sent over their best military minds or even actually tried very hard; they could have easily crushed the rebellion if they were that serious about doing so; they had other problems, including domestic ones, and a Parliament yet again warring with the Crown over money. In the event, the U.S. ended up being mostly in the British sphere, not France's, and provided a nice outlet for British investment and trade while the French disintegrated and later Napoleon blockading the Continent; it wasn't some huge disaster for Britain or anything. You came back later and burned down the capital, after all, just to let us know we weren't that tough. lol

 

[Votto]

The Brits were arrogant and it cost them a colony

If they were willing to give equal representation to those in the colonies, none of this would have happened

Indeed. The British said that the colonists needed to pay "their fair share" in taxes. Then they unleashed their government created corporations on the colonists to corner the market on tea. And lastly, they came for their ammo in order to disarm them. All the while they looked down on the colonists as uneducated simpletons.

Sound familiar Dims?

 

[Picaro]

I can not agree that the British colonial period was a positive experience around the world.

Every place they conquered was better off than they were under 'self-rule', and after they left as well; they left behind democratic institutions and infrastructure they would never have had under their own power, which was just long strings of looting despots ad nauseam. All of their former colonies that didn't fall under Communist imperialism are faring well, compared to their neighbors and certainly the neighbors that weren't British colonies. Of course you're only interested in the part of the story that suits your degenerate leftist gibberish, like Pogo.

They fought 2 or 3 wars with China because they were trying to stop Britain from selling opium to the Chinese people. They were incredibly intensive racists, and treated all colonials as barbarians.

Most of them were barbarians, for one, and also incredibly racist themselves, more so than Europeans, despite all the Cold War propaganda you're influenced by and love to repeat.

They really made a mess out of the Middle East after WW1 with the Balfour agreement, and the Western world is still paying for it today.

Yes, like the ME wasn't a mess before and after when they were ruling themselves, and of ocurse invading everybody around them and butchering people in very large numbers... great point ... snicker ....

They had just as bad an experience with Afghanistan that we had, and finally declared victory and went home just to get the hell out. The Irish still hate them, and went so far as to remain neutral in WW2.

So what? the Irish were never saints and angels. Just because they lost doesn't make them hapless innocent victims or anything. they spent a lot of time in their past raiding the coasts of England and Europe themselves. you must think losing rates Sainthood status in the course of world history; it doesn't.

The Indians seriously considered remaining neutral in ww2, because they wanted their independence. The Indian mutiny against the British, by their insensitive use of pig and beef grease in musket ammo was incredibly stupid.

Some Indians mutinied, not all; it wasn't a universal revolt, except in the minds of those gullible enough to believe Cold War propaganda from the Soviets and other Commies. Many Indians, a whole lot, actually, didn't mind the British at all, having some clue to what life was like before they came along, and in fact they made up the largest volunteer army in world history, and fought for the Brits ... oh horror of horrors ... in fact many were puzzled by those who were rebelling, and thought they were stupid or crazy.

Indian Army during World War II - Wikipedia

The Indian Army during World War II began the war, in 1939, numbering just under 200,000 men.[1] By the end of the war, it had become the largest volunteer army in history, rising to over 2.5 million men in August 1945.[1][2] Serving in divisions of infantry, armour and a fledgling airborne force, they fought on three continents in Africa, Europe and Asia.[1]

The Indian Army fought in Ethiopia against the Italian Army, in Egypt, Libya and Tunisia against both the Italian and German Army, and, after the Italian surrender, against the German Army in Italy. However, the bulk of the Indian Army was committed to fighting the Japanese Army, first during the British defeats in Malaya and the retreat from Burma to the Indian border; later, after resting and refitting for the victorious advance back into Burma, as part of the largest British Empire army ever formed. These campaigns cost the lives of over 87,000 Indian servicemen, while another 34,354 were wounded, and 67,340 became prisoners of war.[3][4] Their valour was recognised with the award of some 4,000 decorations, and 18 members of the Indian Army were awarded the Victoria Cross or the George Cross. Field Marshal Claude Auchinleck, Commander-in-Chief of the Indian Army from 1942, asserted that the British "couldn't have come through both wars (World War I and II) if they hadn't had the Indian Army."[5][6] British Prime Minister Winston Churchill also paid tribute to "The unsurpassed bravery of Indian soldiers and officers."[5]

They totally botched the takeover of South Africa, and the Boor War was not really necessary.

So what? They lost a few here and there? Whoopity do. The Romans lost many times, and yet they lasted over a 1,000 years, and most certainly left Europe in far better shape than it would have been under a bunch of murderous pagans who thought painting their balls blue was the height of culture and warfare.

When they invaded Egypt to keep control of the Suez Canal, even we had to turn our back on them.

So what, again? You think the Pashas before that and the Nasserites after were wonderful or something? lol

The Crimean war against the Russians accomplished nothing, and was mostly fought by the British just to give the troops something to do.

Gosh, they were so incompetent at everything, yet they managed an empire around the globe, before satellites or even telegraphs came along. Yeah they're real idiots, and you're a sophisticate with the brains and abilities to get all snarky about them. Tell us all about your great political acheivements and mastery of logistics that are comparable.

As for Vietnam, you almost make it sound like we won. I don't THINK so!

Actually we did far better than the Soviets did; LBJ ended the Viet Cong as a serious threat in the South, and the North had to invade to win, made possible by Congress abandoning them in 1975, and you and the rest of world letting them violate every agreement on the books while sniveling rubbish about 'American war crimes' and other gibbering lunacy.

Anybody here seriously going to try and prove South Africa was 'better off' under Shaka Zulu or any other murderous African ruler? Or any Asian country? lol good luck.

 

[Picaro]

The Brits were arrogant and it cost them a colony

If they were willing to give equal representation to those in the colonies, none of this would have happened

Indeed. The British said that the colonists needed to pay "their fair share" in taxes. Then they unleashed their government created corporations on the colonists to corner the market on tea. And lastly, they came for their ammo in order to disarm them. All the while they looked down on the colonists as uneducated simpletons.

Sound familiar Dims?

It was the later British atrocities and outrages that tipped the balance, for sure. As I said earlier, they weren't sending their best and brightest over to run things.

 

[Picaro]

Ah, I see my posts are being deleted, for no good reason. never mind.

 

[Picaro]

It was in France's geopolitical interests to aid the American War for Independence, but the debt it incurred was a large contributer to the crisis that precipitated it's own revolution.

They were rather feckless and arrogant as an ally, which is why the U.S. drifted back to the British sphere of influence. The demands they made after the war were pretty stupid and offensive; see the negotiations over the Jay Treaty and others for why.

 

[Vandalshandle]

I can not agree that the British colonial period was a positive experience around the world.

Every place they conquered was better off than they were under 'self-rule', and after they left as well; they left behind democratic institutions and infrastructure they would never have had under their own power, which was just long strings of looting despots ad nauseam. All of their former colonies that didn't fall under Communist imperialism are faring well, compared to their neighbors and certainly the neighbors that weren't British colonies. Of course you're only interested in the part of the story that suits your degenerate leftist gibberish, like Pogo.

They fought 2 or 3 wars with China because they were trying to stop Britain from selling opium to the Chinese people. They were incredibly intensive racists, and treated all colonials as barbarians.

Most of them were barbarians, for one, and also incredibly racist themselves, more so than Europeans, despite all the Cold War propaganda you're influenced by and love to repeat.

They really made a mess out of the Middle East after WW1 with the Balfour agreement, and the Western world is still paying for it today.

Yes, like the ME wasn't a mess before and after when they were ruling themselves, and of ocurse invading everybody around them and butchering people in very large numbers... great point ... snicker ....

They had just as bad an experience with Afghanistan that we had, and finally declared victory and went home just to get the hell out. The Irish still hate them, and went so far as to remain neutral in WW2.

So what? the Irish were never saints and angels. Just because they lost doesn't make them hapless innocent victims or anything. they spent a lot of time in their past raiding the coasts of England and Europe themselves. you must think losing rates Sainthood status in the course of world history; it doesn't.

The Indians seriously considered remaining neutral in ww2, because they wanted their independence. The Indian mutiny against the British, by their insensitive use of pig and beef grease in musket ammo was incredibly stupid.

Some Indians mutinied, not all; it wasn't a universal revolt, except in the minds of those gullible enough to believe Cold War propaganda from the Soviets and other Commies. Many Indians, a whole lot, actually, didn't mind the British at all, having some clue to what life was like before they came along, and in fact they made up the largest volunteer army in world history, and fought for the Brits ... oh horror of horrors ... in fact many were puzzled by those who were rebelling, and thought they were stupid or crazy.

Indian Army during World War II - Wikipedia

The Indian Army during World War II began the war, in 1939, numbering just under 200,000 men.[1] By the end of the war, it had become the largest volunteer army in history, rising to over 2.5 million men in August 1945.[1][2] Serving in divisions of infantry, armour and a fledgling airborne force, they fought on three continents in Africa, Europe and Asia.[1]

The Indian Army fought in Ethiopia against the Italian Army, in Egypt, Libya and Tunisia against both the Italian and German Army, and, after the Italian surrender, against the German Army in Italy. However, the bulk of the Indian Army was committed to fighting the Japanese Army, first during the British defeats in Malaya and the retreat from Burma to the Indian border; later, after resting and refitting for the victorious advance back into Burma, as part of the largest British Empire army ever formed. These campaigns cost the lives of over 87,000 Indian servicemen, while another 34,354 were wounded, and 67,340 became prisoners of war.[3][4] Their valour was recognised with the award of some 4,000 decorations, and 18 members of the Indian Army were awarded the Victoria Cross or the George Cross. Field Marshal Claude Auchinleck, Commander-in-Chief of the Indian Army from 1942, asserted that the British "couldn't have come through both wars (World War I and II) if they hadn't had the Indian Army."[5][6] British Prime Minister Winston Churchill also paid tribute to "The unsurpassed bravery of Indian soldiers and officers."[5]

They totally botched the takeover of South Africa, and the Boor War was not really necessary.

So what? They lost a few here and there? Whoopity do. The Romans lost many times, and yet they lasted over a 1,000 years, and most certainly left Europe in far better shape than it would have been under a bunch of murderous pagans who thought painting their balls blue was the height of culture and warfare.

When they invaded Egypt to keep control of the Suez Canal, even we had to turn our back on them.

So what, again? You think the Pashas before that and the Nasserites after were wonderful or something? lol

The Crimean war against the Russians accomplished nothing, and was mostly fought by the British just to give the troops something to do.

Gosh, they were so incompetent at everything, yet they managed an empire around the globe, before satellites or even telegraphs came along. Yeah they're real idiots, and you're a sophisticate with the brains and abilities to get all snarky about them. Tell us all about your great political acheivements and mastery of logistics that are comparable.

As for Vietnam, you almost make it sound like we won. I don't THINK so!

Actually we did far better than the Soviets did; LBJ ended the Viet Cong as a serious threat in the South, and the North had to invade to win, made possible by Congress abandoning them in 1975, and you and the rest of world letting them violate every agreement on the books while sniveling rubbish about 'American war crimes' and other gibbering lunacy.

Anybody here seriously going to try and prove South Africa was 'better off' under Shaka Zulu or any other murderous African ruler? Or any Asian country? lol good luck.

Ok, Pic, the British was God's gift to Colonialism, and Empire building, and we beat the Vietnamese so bad that we forced them to become one of our "most favored nation" trading partners, and now they must sell us shirts made by sweatshop labor, under a communist government! It was worth every one of those 56,000 American dead now that I can buy a sport shirt made in Vietnam for $12.99 at Walmart!

 

[Pogo]

I can not agree that the British colonial period was a positive experience around the world.

Every place they conquered was better off than they were under 'self-rule', and after they left as well; they left behind democratic institutions and infrastructure they would never have had under their own power, which was just long strings of looting despots ad nauseam. All of their former colonies that didn't fall under Communist imperialism are faring well, compared to their neighbors and certainly the neighbors that weren't British colonies. Of course you're only interested in the part of the story that suits your degenerate leftist gibberish, like Pogo.

Say guvnor --- about them thar "every place they conquered was better off and they left behind democratic instutitions" ----- have any idea where the Cajuns came from?

No I thought not. Cherche-toi "Le Grand Dérangement".

And by the way my ancestry is from a place called Ireland. You know the place where Henry Cromwell got tens of thousands of slaves to send to the Americas after his brother Oliver overran the place in a series of massacres?

Oopsie again.

 

[Vandalshandle]

I can not agree that the British colonial period was a positive experience around the world.

Every place they conquered was better off than they were under 'self-rule', and after they left as well; they left behind democratic institutions and infrastructure they would never have had under their own power, which was just long strings of looting despots ad nauseam. All of their former colonies that didn't fall under Communist imperialism are faring well, compared to their neighbors and certainly the neighbors that weren't British colonies. Of course you're only interested in the part of the story that suits your degenerate leftist gibberish, like Pogo.

Say guvnor --- about them thar "every place they conquered was better off and they left behind democratic instutitions" ----- have any idea where the Cajuns came from?

No I thought not. Cherche-toi "Le Grand Dérangement".

And by the way my ancestry is from a place called Ireland. You know the place where Henry Cromwell got tens of thousands of slaves to send to the Americas after his brother Oliver overran the place in a series of massacres?

Oopsie again.

During the Irish potato famine, Britain had more than enough food for the Irish, but allowed them to starve for financial reasons. More than 1,000,000 died. The Corn laws kept the price of bread artificially high. Landlords foreclosed on farms, and the population of Ireland declined by 25%

ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_%28Ireland%29

 

[Doc1]

The Brits were arrogant and it cost them a colony

If they were willing to give equal representation to those in the colonies, none of this would have happened

Dude? Seriously? It was a monarchy, don't say stupid shit.

 

[Vandalshandle]

The Brits were arrogant and it cost them a colony

If they were willing to give equal representation to those in the colonies, none of this would have happened

Dude? Seriously? It was a monarchy, don't say stupid shit.

Even in the 1700's, Parliament had taxation authority in Britain..

 

[Doc1]

The Brits were arrogant and it cost them a colony

If they were willing to give equal representation to those in the colonies, none of this would have happened

Dude? Seriously? It was a monarchy, don't say stupid shit.

Even in the 1700's, Parliament had taxation authority in Britain..

The fledgling US was never going to get any "representation". In a Monarchical system the King has the final say in EVERYTHING, it matters not what powers Parliament may have thought they had.

 

[Vandalshandle]

The Brits were arrogant and it cost them a colony

If they were willing to give equal representation to those in the colonies, none of this would have happened

Dude? Seriously? It was a monarchy, don't say stupid shit.

Even in the 1700's, Parliament had taxation authority in Britain..

The fledgling US was never going to get any "representation". In a Monarchical system the King has the final say in EVERYTHING, it matters not what powers Parliament may have thought they had.

Doc, that is not quite true. Even the King only gets money when parliament gives it to him, and having that power, they use it as leverage for everything else they want. It is true that Charles I didn't see it that way, which is why he ended up without a head on his shoulders.

 

[whitehall]

Do college kids get credit for posting a video instead of a term paper these days? Why can't people post an argument or an opinion or even a freaking cognizant statement in freaking english instead of forcing us to watch yet another amateur video or hollywood made docu/drama extravaganza?