# War of 1812



## plan_D (May 4, 2005)

Also the fact that Britain have taken a defensive stance for decades. Defending our empire instead of trying to expand it and relying on our Royal Navy to end most attempts on the taking of our homeland.


----------



## Anonymous (May 5, 2005)

plan_D said:


> Also the fact that Britain have taken a defensive stance for decades. Defending our empire instead of trying to expand it and relying on our Royal Navy to end most attempts on the taking of our homeland.



Yep, we all now Britian was a beneficant power for at least 100 years before WWII


----------



## plan_D (May 5, 2005)

Much more than America was. What was America doing soon after it gained independance, RG? Trying to build an empire of itself, and they called the British imperialist.  

If Britain wasn't a generous empire, why is that a lot of nations had respect for Britain? While they don't for America?


----------



## Anonymous (May 5, 2005)

plan_D said:


> Much more than America was. What was America doing soon after it gained independance, RG? Trying to build an empire of itself, and they called the British imperialist.
> 
> If Britain wasn't a generous empire, why is that a lot of nations had respect for Britain? While they don't for America?



Respect? Define Respect.

You must pehaps mean India? Or do you mean those lands where the British replaced the indiginous populations with their own people?

And who says countries don't have "respect" for America? LOL - fear and envy is a form of respect.

American Imperialism for the most part stopped at the Pacific Ocean. We never tried to conquer the rest of the world and force them into a subordinate position. Aside from our own continent vs. the Native Americans, our interests were in securing fair trade, not forcing it on exlcusive terms that we dictated.

You need to learn your own country's history before you take foolish jabs at mine.


----------



## plan_D (May 5, 2005)

You're the same as most other people who are jealous of the British Empire. The British were securing trade through holding land. They improved land and infrastructure of the areas that they conquered. 
We didn't massacre the people we conquered. We used diplomacy and hearts and minds. Where do you think our military doctrine of hearts and minds comes from? 

Stopped at the pacific? I think you should learn your own countries history, RG. Your country hides it's attempts on expanding it's empire under the guise of "in the name of democracy". The Spanish-American war was Americas reach to capture Cuba. 1812 war was an attempt by America to take Canada to name a few. 

What you and your closed mind fails to understand is I know my countries history. I know it better than you and I know this country owned the largest empire known to man. The difference between Britain and America is that we aren't ashamed of it, why should we be? In those days it was what was done. Britain was the best at it. We never tried to hide our empire under "in the name of democracy" like America's expansion was hidden. 

Through deceit, force and under-handed politics America secured what it has today. 
My favourite being the 1812 war which America to this day passes off as a victory, but how did it start!? American forces attempted to take Canada and were beaten back. British forces pushed down to Washington, sacked it, then moved down to New Orleans before being forced into a treaty with America because of over-stretched forces being beaten. But who won? America never took Canada, so Britain won. 

You think you know it all.


----------



## Nonskimmer (May 5, 2005)

plan_D said:


> America never took Canada, so Britain won.


We like to think _we_ got something out of it too.


----------



## Anonymous (May 5, 2005)

plan_D said:


> You're the same as most other people who are jealous of the British Empire. The British were securing trade through holding land. They improved land and infrastructure of the areas that they conquered.
> We didn't massacre the people we conquered. We used diplomacy and hearts and minds. Where do you think our military doctrine of hearts and minds comes from?



LOL - sure - and you slaughted those who did not agree. Study the British occupation of India a bit. Or the British in the ME or Africa. Or the slaughter of the Aboriginies or what happened in many British colonies in SE Asia. These things were done under the auspicies of British companies, using company armies, but when those armies got in trouble the red coats came into the fight.

British Imperialism generally meant effective slavery for the indiginous population, except if they were slaughtered. If you don't realize this then there is little point in discussion.



plan_D said:


> Stopped at the pacific? I think you should learn your own countries history, RG. Your country hides it's attempts on expanding it's empire under the guise of "in the name of democracy". The Spanish-American war was Americas reach to capture Cuba.



No... it was to get rid of the Spanish. In the Spanish-American war the U.S. gained the Philipines, the Sulus, and Guam and ended up paying Spain $20 million. And Cuba got its independance!



plan_D said:


> 1812 war was an attempt by America to take Canada to name a few.



Not hardly. A few facts for you:

1803-1812: British impress over 10,000 American citizens to man their ships, stating openly that the USA is still a British colony, not an independant nation, and that these are British citizens.

1806: British seize over 1000 US ships when they blockade France. The ships were siezed without notice or warning.

1807: Leapold fires on the Chesapeake when it refused to be boarded 3 miles of Norfolk Virgina, killing 3 and wounding 18.

The USA still sought a diplomatic solution, but the British would not stop their campaign of impressment. Furthermore, via Canada the British were supplying Indians in the Ohio Valley with firearms. Finally in on June 18th we'd had enough and declared war.

It was the British who then struck out of Canada into the USA and on August 16th captured a fort in Michigan. The USA then tried to attack the British in Canada, but 3 attempts failed. In January 1813, after a battle in Michigan, the British slaughtered the unarmed survivors after accepting surrender of arms and agreeing to allow the soldiers to retreat, known as the "Raisin River Massacre".

However, by 1815 the USA had the upper hand. Had we wanted to take Canada there was nothing the British could do to stop us. We didn't!



plan_D said:


> What you and your closed mind fails to understand is I know my countries history. I know it better than you and I know this country owned the largest empire known to man. The difference between Britain and America is that we aren't ashamed of it, why should we be? In those days it was what was done. Britain was the best at it. We never tried to hide our empire under "in the name of democracy" like America's expansion was hidden.



You British are proud of having enslaved and destroyed whole cultures?

You really don't see the difference between enslaving a peoples and freeing them?



plan_D said:


> Through deceit, force and under-handed politics America secured what it has today.



Justify those statements! Your true colors are comming out now kid!



plan_D said:


> My favourite being the 1812 war which America to this day passes off as a victory, but how did it start!? American forces attempted to take Canada and were beaten back. British forces pushed down to Washington, sacked it, then moved down to New Orleans before being forced into a treaty with America because of over-stretched forces being beaten. But who won? America never took Canada, so Britain won.
> 
> You think you know it all.



You prove your ignorance. The USA bent over backwards to avoid the war of 1812 - the British simply would not stop their unacceptable behaviors and refusal to recognize US sovereignty. Finally we'd had enough and even though we were not really prepared for war we engaged the British and after 2.5 years defeated them.

The USA never wanted Canada, but they would like to have had the British out of Canada. It was the British who attacked the USA out of Canada first in the war of 1812. In the end the American forces kicked the snot out of the Brits at Baltimore and then Jackson literally kicked the crap out of them at New Orleans.

Certainly by 1830-1840 there was absolutely nothing the British could do had the USA wanted to take Canada. If that had been an American objective the stars and stripes would be flying over Canada today.

The USA won the war of 1812 because we achieved our objective - the British recognized US sovereignty and never again contested it. You can't see this because your only definition of victory is conquest. That was not our goal in the first place. Had it been, we certainly would have conquered Canada - by 1850 the USA was a match for Britain on the ground anyway, and we had none of the supply problems that would have faced Britain in a Canadian defense.

So, you've proved how well you know/understand your history alrighty there Plan_D!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 5, 2005)

OK guys, now that's over with, every body sing along....

Well, in 18 and 14, we took a little trip....


----------



## Anonymous (May 6, 2005)

plan_D said:


> I'll try and not be swayed by his marvellous talent of annoying people.



LOL - you make outragous statements like the USA really lost the War of 1812 because it failed in its goal to conquer Canada and I'm the annoying one?


----------



## plan_D (May 6, 2005)

Shall we put that to the vote, RG? 

Failure in objectives is losing the war, RG. Germany lost the war because it failed in taking Europe from the Atlantic to Ural Mountains, then failed to defend itself. 
America lost the 1812 war because it failed in it's objective of taking Canada from the British. Therefore it lost the war. 

Another remarkable thing you seem to forget is the age of both nations. You disrespect Britain by saying it was cruel to the natives of the lands it conquered because you compare it to the world of today. Britain begin forging it's empire in the 14-15th Century before the U.S was even thought of. 
In those days little was thought of in the way of human rights. Britain has nothing to be ashamed of from those times because that is what all European nations did. It cannot be expected of a nation to think far ahead into the future and wonder what people will think of it because of it's lack of human rights. 
This disgraceful country, as you believe it to be, was also the first full country to abolish slavery. In 1772 Britain reported that it did not support slavery, Britain and the U.S prohibit international slave trade in 1807, Britain used the Royal Navy to _stop_ the slave trade and slavery was abolished throughout the entire British Empire in 1838. It did not take until 1865 with the passing of the 13th Amendment that slavery was abolished in America. So, don't go off on any big rants about Britain's harsh treatment of natives when your country still keeps Native Americans in reservations and seperates them from White-Americans. 

Now, in case you didn't notice, a few posts ago NS and evan both made the request that we stop this bickering. I put my hands up and am willing to stop. Have your much needed last word if you will, RG but this is going to stop. So I will leave this, feel free to reply but don't expect a reply from me on the subject.


----------



## Anonymous (May 6, 2005)

Fine don't reply. Just as well since your argument is indefensible. If you could keep your arguments civil then I'd do the same and we'd not have any problems.

Your argument about Indians being "kept on reservations" is ludicrous and stupid. Native Americans are totally free to leave the reservations if they so choose, are afforded every right of citizenship, and also are offered many special benefits to compensate them for past injustices.

Your argument about slavery denies the reasoning behind Britain's policy change, which was to prevent internal social chaos because of the unemployment that would occur should the practice of slavery have been continued. BTW: this was the same reason the North abolished slavery and in the end the reason it was abolished in the South via the Civil war.

It was economic interests in both cases, not moral conviction, that lead to the abolishment of slavery. Yes the USA did this later than the British, but the difference is that we recognized the wrongness of slavery in all its forms at that time, where Britain only applied its policies internally - in the colonies effective slavery continued as a matter of policy right up to WWII. Without US policy via the Atlantic Charter, Britain would have continued its policies w.r.t. most of its non-white colonies past WWII as Chruchill clearly intended - he felt India was "owned" by Britain and should remain so.

But then I also have to admit both our nations are guilty of having allowed corporations to conduct such policies right up to recent times via proxy dictators - it gets to be a complex issue when you look at it in depth. Fortunately it seems to finally be a thing of the past (let's hope).


Back to the War of 1812 -- 

My point remains - the objective was achieved, Britain stopped its policy of impressing American sailors into to the RN and stopped sacking American ships.

CONQUEST OF CANADA WAS NEVER A GOAL OF THE USA! You need only study Jefferson's efforts to avoid war over this period to see exactly what the issues were that lead to this war and thus what the goals were.

Achieving most or all of your goals is VICTORY! So the USA won. Simple as that. Your attempt to create a false goal and then claim the war was lost because that goal was not achieved is totally without merit.


----------



## plan_D (May 6, 2005)

Just for anyone who doesn't know about the War of 1812.

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1649

Feel free, RG, to comment.


----------



## plan_D (May 6, 2005)

evan, you may as well delete this. It can all build up in the other War of 1812 thread I've already started.


----------



## BombTaxi (May 6, 2005)

I hope, as this thread is not locked, I might add a few comments?

RG, what was the US 'liberating' Cuba from in 1898? What threat did Spain pose to the Cubans or to the US? If the war was solely of liberation, why did the US, as you yourself said, claim Guam, the Phillipines and the Sulus as spoils of war? And finally, how can you justify the war at all when the pretence upon which it was declared (the sinking of the Maine) was clearly false?

And as an aside, explain how the Mexican - American War was anything other than a blind and agressive grab for territory? The US claimed half of Mexico after that war, and the Democrats wanted more (see James B. McPherson, 'Battle Cry Of Freedom', ch.2, p.51 plus footnotes)

Like plan_D, I will not dent that the UK was the premier colonialist and imperialist power in the world. But again like plan_D, I can admit to my countries past. There is nothing shameful in a country being a product of its age. To my mind, however, there is something extremely shameful about later ages distorting history because they cannot stomach the actions of thier predecessors.

Just my 0.02 8)


----------



## plan_D (May 6, 2005)

Alright, don't delete the thread just re-name to something like "America Imperialist?" or something.  Really, man...there is the SpanAm and 1812 threads too!  

Some good words there BombTaxi, by the way.


----------



## evangilder (May 6, 2005)

I know, Plan_d, I saw that after I moved it, but am not sure how to rename it. I am looking into it, but I think I wil use a more neutral title. Or I could move the posts from your selection into this one and remove the other. Which do you prefer?


----------



## plan_D (May 6, 2005)

Just move those from my other thread into here.


----------



## evangilder (May 6, 2005)

I will as soon as I get the permissions for it. That one seems to have been missed. We'll get it fixed soon.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 6, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> Fine don't reply. Just as well since your argument is indefensible. If you could keep your arguments civil then I'd do the same and we'd not have any problems.



Practice what you preach my friend, practice what you preach. Most of the arguments start because of things you say.


----------



## Anonymous (May 11, 2005)

I've read in this thread and the other one about the War of 1812 which is now locked, that somebody wanted some proof that the taking of Canada was one the USA war aims.

Well, here's a US Department of State web-site which states it *did *play a part in the decision to go to war
Http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/time/jd/16314.htm



and here's one from the US Army's historical branch 
http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/books/amh/amh-06.htm


----------



## Anonymous (May 11, 2005)

Anonymous said:


> I've read in this thread and the other one about the War of 1812 which is now locked, that somebody wanted some proof that the taking of Canada was one the USA war aims.
> 
> Well, here's a US Department of State web-site which states it *did *play a part in the decision to go to war
> Http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/time/jd/16314.htm
> ...




ps Its interesting to note that according to the, Office of the Chief of Mlitary History, United States Army, the War of 1812, was* at best * at draw for the USA


----------



## Anonymous (May 12, 2005)

*Admins - "GUESTS" should not be allowed to post, for obvious reasons.*

No offense intended to this guest.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Anonymous said:


> I've read in this thread and the other one about the War of 1812 which is now locked, that somebody wanted some proof that the taking of Canada was one the USA war aims.
> 
> Well, here's a US Department of State web-site which states it *did *play a part in the decision to go to war
> Http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/time/jd/16314.htm



Nowhere on this page does it say anything of the sort. What it does say is:



> Many who supported the call to arms saw British and Spanish territory in North America as potential prizes to be won by battle or negotiations after a successful war.



Which is not the same thing. This was not a reason why the USA went to war it was an additional possible benefit that a relatively small minority were interested in. I never said that no American's were interested in capturing lands from Canada - just that it was not a significant part of the decision to go to war.

This source is also one of those very poor sites which lack enough depth to be taken very seriously.



Anonymous said:


> and here's one from the US Army's historical branch
> http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/books/amh/amh-06.htm



This is a decent source. However, again it does not say that the acquistion of Canadian territory was a significant reason behind the US going to war. What it does point out is that some of the supporters for going to war, namely the "Western War Hawks", felt that a war might yeild territories and more importantly might stop British support for indian attacks on Western settlers. The numbers of Americans in the "west" were a very small though vocal minority in 1812.

Again, I never said there were no American's that had interests in taking some Canadian lands, only that these were not a major objective of the war. The primary reason was the impressment of American citizens and the stealing of American ships and cargos.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## plan_D (May 12, 2005)

I forgot about this thread. 

Anyway, they provide evidence showing that the capture of Canadian lands *was* an objective, even if not a major one. 

I agree with those sources, especially since it rightly states at best the war was a draw. Hardly a victory when nothing was achieved on either side. 
The Native American dispute was solved by forcing the U.S to cease all wars with them, as it states in the Treaty Of Ghent. Britain wasn't going to supply arms with someone who isn't at war, simple really. 

Although it can be confusing for some, on the other thread you stated how easy it would be for America to take Canada in 1830. Even using a map to show your tactics on the job. Not really that simple though. 
Blocking off that river would take a lot of man and machine, as well as a remarkable Navy. One that, let's say, beats the Royal Navy which didn't lose it's control of the oceans in the late 40s - 50s (Even though, that was the biggest Royal Navy in history). 
The U.S didn't even have a standing army in 1830. American citizens weren't well trained, ill-equipped and, I would think, not a wanting nation for war. 
Just look at 1917-18, the U.S had to send completely untrained men to Europe to be equipped with French and British equipment (even uniforms) and be trained by the British and French. 

The only real oppurtunity for the U.S would be to overwhelm the gaps in the Great Lakes. It's not as easy as you think it is to blockade a river. Even then, that doesn't have to be the only supply source. 
The U.S out-numbered British forces in 1812, what makes you think them out-numbering British forces in 1830 would secure victory?

You under-estimate the combat prowess of the Redcoats. Britain didn't have the largest empire in history because it won it in a lottery.


----------



## Anonymous (May 12, 2005)

plan_D said:


> I forgot about this thread.
> 
> Anyway, they provide evidence showing that the capture of Canadian lands *was* an objective, even if not a major one.
> 
> ...



I never said it was not an objective, rather that it was not a major motivation. Once the war was declared, the only way to attack Britain was to attack Canada.



plan_D said:


> Although it can be confusing for some, on the other thread you stated how easy it would be for America to take Canada in 1830. Even using a map to show your tactics on the job. Not really that simple though.
> Blocking off that river would take a lot of man and machine, as well as a remarkable Navy. One that, let's say, beats the Royal Navy which didn't lose it's control of the oceans in the late 40s - 50s (Even though, that was the biggest Royal Navy in history).



No that is the point, it takes no Navy at all. Shore based cannons, and chains drawn across the St. Lawrence River would be sufficient to stop all British ships from passing. The river was quite narrow in many places (it's been widened some in more modern times but it is still not that wide). Cannon and mortars could easily have been placed to pulverize any ship trying to proceed up-river. And because those ships would be presenting their bows to the cannon, they would have virtually no counter fire capability, and would have to proceed single file. And of course, chains under the water line would stop any ship fixing it to be attacked.



plan_D said:


> The U.S didn't even have a standing army in 1830. American citizens weren't well trained, ill-equipped and, I would think, not a wanting nation for war.



After the War of 1812 the USA did have a standing army. It was not huge because the USA did not have territorial expansion on the brain. But you are saying it did want to take Canada as a primary motivation for the war of 1812. If this was so, then a large army could have been fielded in 1830 or 1840 for that purpose. This is the proof of my point that the USA did not have a significant desire to conquer Canadal, as long as Britain did not continue to dispute American indpendance.



plan_D said:


> Just look at 1917-18, the U.S had to send completely untrained men to Europe to be equipped with French and British equipment (even uniforms) and be trained by the British and French.



Some of the US troops were relatively untrained, but most were reasonably well trained they just needed to learn the rules of war developed by the British and French. Also, British and French units needed immeadiate relief and so some US troops were integrated into existing positions as reinforcements even though the USA did not want to do this. And once the USA troops got there, they performed far better than their British and French counterparts in the late Spring and Summer of 1918.



plan_D said:


> The only real oppurtunity for the U.S would be to overwhelm the gaps in the Great Lakes. It's not as easy as you think it is to blockade a river. Even then, that doesn't have to be the only supply source.



Blockading a river when you own the shores is easy. It was almost a forgone conclusion that without displacing those ground forces there would be no way to break such a blockade. And Britain had no other way to supply its units futher to the west, these would have collapsed in short order unless Britian were able to break such a river blockade.



plan_D said:


> The U.S out-numbered British forces in 1812, what makes you think them out-numbering British forces in 1830 would secure victory?



Actually, the numbers were relatively equal. You should read the second source listed above again. And in the end the USA beat the British both at Baltimore and New Orleans, using militia. By 1830, the US Army had regulars, and in the scenario we are discussing, it would have had a lot of regulars.

The British lost the Revolution, they'd have lost a war over Canada too. The logistical issues of such a war, which would have been worse than they were in the Revolution, would in the end make all the difference.



plan_D said:


> You under-estimate the combat prowess of the Redcoats. Britain didn't have the largest empire in history because it won it in a lottery.



Most of Britain's empire was built of lands where the indiginous people were totally technologically outclassed. In fact, in almost every case, the indiginous culture lacked gunpowder, and usually it lacked steel. The USA was not such an opponent.

Jeeze Plan_D, in 1841 Queen Victoria backed down and gave Canada effective indpendance within the "Commonwealth" because she feared to do anything else would result in complete independance. Why would she have done this if the British were so capable of kicking everyone's ass?

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## evangilder (May 12, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> *Admins - "GUESTS" should not be allowed to post, for obvious reasons.*



RG, guests have always been able to post. Surely you have seen guest postings in your 6 months or so that you have been here. So why is it an issue here?


----------



## plan_D (May 12, 2005)

It's not a case of just _attacking_ Canada. The U.S was looking to gain Canadian land, even if this wasn't a primary motivation it was one. 

The U.S didn't own both shores of the river, the English Army could have set up counter-artillery batteries on the other side of the river. Also, all the supplies for the Army didn't come from England. Over-land routes could have been used to supply the armies holding the gaps. 

Minds can change a lot in a few decades. Those that wanted Canada in 1812 could have very well been dead by 1830, their ideas dying with them. 

No, RG, all U.S troops were untrained in the Great War. They needed French and British training to even be considered for the front. Nor did the U.S troops perform any better than their British or French counter-parts. The U.S troops were fresh faces, that is all. Fresh faces which the German Army couldn't match. 

It took the U.S almost 2 years to set up their army. If they had a standing army beforehand, why was it such a struggle for them to form divisions in World War 1? Pershing's reluctance to allow U.S troops to serve under the British or French flag delayed the entrance of U.S troops on the field because the U.S had no organisation to have them fighting under the stars and stripes. 

Even then, the last offensives of the war, which Ludendorff said broke the back of the German army was the Battle of Amiens in July 1918, led by New Zealanders. 

The only advantage U.S troops had over the rest of the Allies was their freshness. I'm sorry to say it's patriotism that has brought you to the conclusion that U.S troops performed better. 

The U.S won at New Orleans through the English Generals arrogance. U.S troops were heavily dug-in, which made a lot of difference in those days. In a war for Canada, the English troops would be dug-in. The treaty of Ghent had already been signed before the New Orleans battle, the war was already decided as a draw. 

Britain had to fight many great European powers to become the strength it was. In fact, Britain has fought every single country in Europe (basing on land area) except Portugal. Don't get it in your head that Britain only had her empire because she was fighting Africans with sharp mango fruits (  ). 

Queen Victoria still secured the trading with Canada. That is the whole idea of the British Empire. To give Britain what the British Isles doesn't provide. 
Of course Britain couldn't beat everyone, all the time, but the way you talk it seems to me that you think that Britain was incapable of waging war.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 12, 2005)

Well I am not trying to take away from any nations that fought in WW1 and I am not saying this because I am a member of the famed 1st Infantry Division that fought in WW1 but I think the 1st ID did fairly well in WW1 and they paid a high price for it too.



> The First Expeditionary Division was constituted in May 1917 from Army units then in service on the Mexican border and at various Army posts throughout the United States. On June 8, 1917 it was officially organized in New York, New York. This date is the 1st Infantry Division's official birthday. The first units sailed from New York and Hoboken, N.J., June 14, 1917. Throughout the remainder of the year, the rest of the Division followed, landing at St. Nazaire, France, and Liverpool, England. After a brief stay in rest camps, the troops in England proceeded to France, landing at Le Havre. The last unit arrived in St. Nazaire on Dec. 22. Upon arrival in France, the Division, less its artillery, was assembled in the First (Gondrecourt) training area, and the artillery was at Le Valdahon.
> On the 4th of July, the 2nd Battalion, 16th Infantry, paraded through the streets of Paris to bolster the sagging French spirits. At Lafayette's tomb, one of General Pershing's staff uttered the famous words, "Lafayette, we are here!" Two days later, July 6, the First Expeditionary Division was redesignated the First Infantry Division. On the morning of Oct. 23, the first American shell of the war was sent screaming toward German lines by Battery C, 6th Field Artillery. Two days later, the 2nd Bn., 16th Inf., suffered the first American casualties of the war.
> 
> By April 1918, the Germans had pushed to within 40 miles of Paris. In reaction to this thrust, the Big Red One moved into the Picardy Sector to bolster the exhausted French First Army. To the Division's front lay the small village of Cantigny, situated on the high ground overlooking a forested countryside. It was the 28th Infantry, who attacked the town, and within 45 minutes captured it along with 250 German soldiers, thus earning the special designation " Lions of Cantigny" for the regiment. The first American victory of the war was a First Division victory.
> ...


----------



## plan_D (May 12, 2005)

The courage of the U.S troops was certainly there and they did perform well for a newly created unit but compared to the experienced, well trained and well equipped British and French Divisions, the only advantage they had was fresh faces. They had fresh and full divisions against depleted and tired German divisions.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 12, 2005)

As I said I was not trying to take away from other forces there and I as said in the other post I believe that is the biggest advantage that the US forces brought to WW1 was being fresh fighting against a force that was tired and depleted.


----------



## Anonymous (May 12, 2005)

evangilder said:


> RG_Lunatic said:
> 
> 
> > *Admins - "GUESTS" should not be allowed to post, for obvious reasons.*
> ...



I've not noticed Guests posting. It is just a bad idea in general. Registration is free, anyone wishing to post should have to register and establish an identity. There should be a help forum for those who have problems registering where Guests can post to receive assistance.

The policy is up to you guys, but allowing Guests to post in any forum is a mistake. Eventually you will discover this when someone malitiously exploits this "feature".

In the meantime, it will just make for possible confusion should more than one Guest decide to post into the same thread.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## evangilder (May 12, 2005)

Well, so far there have been no malicious exploits from guest postings. Their IP addresses are logged. If someone wants to post with multiple aliases, it is not hard to do either. If it becomes a problem, then we can take care of it.


----------



## mosquitoman (May 12, 2005)

Besides, it's always good to hear someone else's view apart from the regulars on here


----------



## Anonymous (May 12, 2005)

plan_D said:


> It's not a case of just _attacking_ Canada. The U.S was looking to gain Canadian land, even if this wasn't a primary motivation it was one.



This is not entirely clear, though I would suspect that had key strategic points been gained the USA would have been reluctant to give them back. Certianly if it did so it would have required significant concessions.



plan_D said:


> The U.S didn't own both shores of the river, the English Army could have set up counter-artillery batteries on the other side of the river. Also, all the supplies for the Army didn't come from England. Over-land routes could have been used to supply the armies holding the gaps.



Ahh... you forget your original argument to which this reply is directed. You said that the British could just sit in their forts, that "defense was easier than offense", and that the British would have no problems supplying them.

The British would have been badly outnumbered. The British population had been seriously depleted during the war with Napolean, and its forces were also required in the Carribean, Africa, India, China, Austrailia, and New Zealand at that time.

US forces would have easily captured both sides of the river, at least at key points. The British therefore would either have had to survive an extended siege, which was impossible, or they'd have had to come out and fight, in which case they'd have been badly outnumbered.

And yes, supplies pretty much did need to come from England. Lower canada had only about 600,000 people, not enough to provide significant support, and it had no industrial capacity at all. Furthermore, in a serious war at this time, Upper Canada would most likely have thrown in with the Americans - after all most of them were Americans.



plan_D said:


> Minds can change a lot in a few decades. Those that wanted Canada in 1812 could have very well been dead by 1830, their ideas dying with them.



If you research it a little more you will see that very few Americans had eyes on Canada, even in 1812. The biggest argument for taking action against Canada was the British supplying of the warlike tribes in that region with firearms so they could raid westward settler's outside the bounds of Canada, and then trade the spoils to the British.

And before you go off trying to defend the actions of the Indians involved, I suggest you also study the history of the tribes of that region a bit. It was there way to make war, both against the white man and other indians. The believed the "strong" should dominate. There were many other regions where the indians were generally peaceful, but this region was not one of them. When able they traded with the white man to obtain weapons and then used these weapons annihilated their historic foes.



plan_D said:


> The U.S won at New Orleans through the English Generals arrogance. U.S troops were heavily dug-in, which made a lot of difference in those days. In a war for Canada, the English troops would be dug-in.



English troops were not trained to "dig in" except at fortifications. It was not the way of European battle. This was one advantage the Americans had, they were much more adept at guerilla type fighting and the use of available cover. And again, such "digging in" would only have lost the War for the British. The US would simply have laid siege to the British positions. Supply via the St. Lawrence river could easily be denied. Supply over land could easily be intercepted. The British would have had to leave their fortifications to protect their supply lines - and in that case the American's would have had every advantage.



plan_D said:


> The treaty of Ghent had already been signed before the New Orleans battle, the war was already decided as a draw.



Yes, but neither commander knew of this. The point is that had the war continued, the Americans were getting stronger and the British weaker in their relative ability to do battle.



plan_D said:


> Britain had to fight many great European powers to become the strength it was. In fact, Britain has fought every single country in Europe (basing on land area) except Portugal. Don't get it in your head that Britain only had her empire because she was fighting Africans with sharp mango fruits (  ).



I didn't say that. However, Britian did not win and hold lands of technically advanced peoples. It won on the Seas with its navy. It was simply unwilling to engage in a long and profitless war in the Americas, and had the USA been relentless in a pursuit of Canadian soil, the British would simply have looked at the books and decided it was not worth it to continue to fight for the relatively small returns it might recieve from Canada at that time.



plan_D said:


> Queen Victoria still secured the trading with Canada. That is the whole idea of the British Empire. To give Britain what the British Isles doesn't provide.
> 
> Of course Britain couldn't beat everyone, all the time, but the way you talk it seems to me that you think that Britain was incapable of waging war.



Not at all. My point is that had the USA been determined to conquer Candada, the British were in a poor position to hold it, and its value to the British empire was insufficient to justify the kind of commitment Britain would have had to make in a war it might well have lost regaurdless.

================================



plan_D said:


> No, RG, all U.S troops were untrained in the Great War. They needed French and British training to even be considered for the front. Nor did the U.S troops perform any better than their British or French counter-parts. The U.S troops were fresh faces, that is all. Fresh faces which the German Army couldn't match.



It was also the US philosphy and training that allowed then to press on in the face of heavy losses, learned in the Civil War. Read what German commanders said of the Americans, which was something like "when they should retreat they advance, when they should surrender they hold".



plan_D said:


> It took the U.S almost 2 years to set up their army. If they had a standing army beforehand, why was it such a struggle for them to form divisions in World War 1? Pershing's reluctance to allow U.S troops to serve under the British or French flag delayed the entrance of U.S troops on the field because the U.S had no organisation to have them fighting under the stars and stripes.



The USA didn't want to get involved in Europe's war at all. Still 18 American divisons were deployed, in whole or in major part, for battle by mid 1918.

Look at the roll of the 1st. U.S. division in the battle at Catigny (Apr. 27-July 8, 1918), where dispite a concerted German defense the Americans (under French command) won.



plan_D said:


> Even then, the last offensives of the war, which Ludendorff said broke the back of the German army was the Battle of Amiens in July 1918, led by New Zealanders.



I suggest you read THE AMERICAN TROOPS IN THE ATTACK TO THE SOUTH OF SOISSONS 18th. - 22nd. July 1918.



plan_D said:


> The only advantage U.S troops had over the rest of the Allies was their freshness. I'm sorry to say it's patriotism that has brought you to the conclusion that U.S troops performed better.



Look at the results for the causalties. The Brtish and French would back off in the face of such losses, where the Americans would press on to victory. In the "New Zealander" July offensive you revered to above, the 1st Division achieved all its objectives, despite the French failures which they also made up. The cost was high, during 5 days of fighting the 1st divsion lost 6870 men including 75% of its infantry officers. Likewise the 2nd division also achieved all of its objectives, despite the failures of the French supporting their flanks. And again the losses were exceptionally high, the division having lost 4300 men. One huge difference between the British and French units in combat vs. the Americans was the willingness of the officers to expose themselves to the enemy. American officers lead the charges from the front - British and French officers lead from the back. By the end of the fighting on July 22nd, one of the US regiments was being lead by a Captain who'd been in the military less than 2 years.

But more than all of this, it was American financial support which resulted in the Allied victory in WWI. The direct costs of WWI were:

Great Britain: $35.33 billion
France: $24.25 billion
USA: $22.6 billion

However, $14.6 billion (1918 dollars) of Britian and France's WWI costs were in the form of loans from the USA - _which were never paid back!_. In the 20's, the British and French said "why should we have to pay when Germany was at fault and it is not paying its war reperations". So the USA loaned (at very favorable terms) Germany the money to pay its reperations for several years, expecting the British and French would then pay their debts, and this would transfer the debt to Germany from which it could be managed over time. However, the British and French _still refused to pay_ even when the German's did pay the reperations! Somehow in their minds the USA was ultimately responsible for the costs their war.

Also, this does not include the 3% of US national product that was loaned to Europe (mostly France and Germany) in the post-war years, which was also never paid back.

A ways back you blamed the USA for the crash of 1929 and the depression. In fact it was Britain and France's bad debt comming to the surface that was, more than anything else, the cause of the American Bank failures and ultimately the Great Depression.

Taking all this into consideration, perhaps you can understand why I feel it was exceptionally generous for the USA to then loan Britian/France more billions at the start of WWII when they'd proven beyond any doubt in the past that they were not likely to ever pay it back. And sure enough, virtually all of Britian's WWII debt was forgiven after the war. After subracting out "reverse-lend lease" it turns out that Britain paid back about $650 million on over $23 billion of outstanding debt.

Not only that, more loans were given to Britian, to the tune of some $4.2 billion, at just 2% interest in the 5 years following WWII. These are due to be paid off, finally, in 2006 - and the House of Lord's has decided to not to mark the occasion in any way. It is clear they do not feel they should ever have had to pay back this debt. This attidude might be understandable, except for the fact of the huge WWII debt forgiven and the additional $3.5 billion in Economic and Military Assistance Grants (gifts) given to Britain between 1946 and 1964.

So the arguments you made about Britain's stand against Communism in the early post-war years without American assistance are largely false. We footed a big part of that bill and to a large degree financed the continuation of the British Aerospace industry. And you've argued that the USA was paid off through having bases in Europe - well the bases were there for two reasons - to protect Europe from the Soviets and to pump cash into the European economies. To a very large extent, these bases were a form of financial support which the US politicians were able to avoid having to justify as such to the US taxpayer.

To put things in perspective, consider that the $14.6 billion in forgiven WWI debt and the $23 billion in forgiven WWII debt amount to something between $1.3 and $3.6 trillion in todays money, depending on the method used to calculate the present value. Whichever figure you use, it's not a trivial sum.

Now I'm not saying that the USA should not have provided whatever support to Britain that was necessary in its times of need. I just think that it should be acknowleged and some measure of gratitude is not unreasonable. To a degree the British, thanks to their leadership, have done so. But the British people in general don't seem to feel they owe America any kind of support in our current struggles - I just don't think they really understand the overall historic picture.

And France and Germany... well if I go into that I'm sure I will piss off Adler and Udet big time!  

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Anonymous (May 12, 2005)

evangilder said:


> Well, so far there have been no malicious exploits from guest postings. Their IP addresses are logged. If someone wants to post with multiple aliases, it is not hard to do either. If it becomes a problem, then we can take care of it.



I don't understand what positive there is to allowing anonymous posts? Since registration is free, why not require registration?


----------



## evangilder (May 12, 2005)

I don't understand why this is such a big deal to you. Guest posters have been posting here as long as I have been here and there have been no problems. Guest posting has been in place since before I became an admin and as long as horse has no issue with it, fine. I am only an admin here, not the site owner. If you have an issue with guest posting, I suggest you send an e-mail to 'admin at ww2aircraft dot net'. This is more of a decision of the owner of this site.


----------



## Anonymous (May 12, 2005)

I figured it was something you admins would discuss with the site owner.

Not a huge deal to me evan, just a known mistake as learned by many other boards.


----------



## plan_D (May 13, 2005)

You're going to admit there were some U.S officials looking at the 1812 War as a chance to gain Canadian land, then?

Crossing a river is hard in the time of war. The British could set-up their fortifications on the three gaps and anything remaining holding the north side of the river. Over-land routes could be used because they'd be coming down from the north. U.S troops would have to be over the river and attacking the land routes on the British side. If this was all possible, why not do it in 1812?

I'm sure Canada could support the British forces with the vital food and water they need to survive. They'd be no stopping the other war supplies over the Atlantic and it could be shipped in further north and brought down. 

There were peaceful and warlike Native American tribes but it hardly makes a difference, the U.S destroyed them and their way of life no matter their stance of violent action. 

English troops could and would have altered to the situation. They knew the advantages of fortifications, take for example Rourkes Drift or Battle of Waterloo. 

The Battle of New Orleans only shows how important a well dug-in army is, in the 19th Century. It doesn't show England's increasing inability to fight on the field of battle at all. America had suffered the same kind of defeats in battle in 1812-1813. 

I agree on that one. I imagine Britain would just leave it. 


On to WW1:

Very few U.S troops had training in World War 1. They were all trainined in Europe by the French or British. The U.S troops were fresh faced and inexperienced in the horrors of modern combat. They were eager for battle just like the French and British were in 1914. 

The difference was in 1918 the U.S troops would have tanks and aircraft supporting them, it was no longer just man against machine gun. The British and French were weary and tired. They had been in the war for 4 long years, this doesn't mean they're poor soldiers nor does it mean that the fresh faced U.S troops are any better. All fresh troops fight better than exhausted ones. 

You points about U.S success doesn't give any implication to the U.S troops fighting any better. The U.S troops were fresh, RG, this makes a big difference in warfare. It was the Battle of Amiens that broke the back of the Germans led by New Zealanders. 

The French and British provided the U.S troops with training, equipment and even uniforms. The U.S troops were fresh with the same training as the European nations, who were now tired and weary. This is the reason why it seems the U.S were better than their European counter-parts. That is the only reason why. 

Now, this massive rant about loans and payments really appeared from no where. I, honestly, don't care. Your interpretation of the British people couldn't be more wrong though. You misunderstand the relationship between the U.S and the U.K. 

The U.K has supported the U.S in every war post-World War II. The majority of people did too. Even in this Iraq War the majority of people in March 2003 were in support of the war. The obvious length of the war has brought about war weariness which is always going to happen in a democracy. Even with that, the May elections were won by the government that decided to help the U.S! The Iraq War wasn't even that high on the agenda. This should surely show you, the British population on a whole either supported the Iraq War (and the U.S) or just didn't care, which is basically the same. 

Have you ever been to Britain, RG?


----------



## redcoat (May 13, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> If you research it a little more you will see that very few Americans had eyes on Canada, even in 1812.


Not true.
While the taking of Canada was not a * stated * aim of the US in declaring war in 1812, it was the aim of a powerful political faction within the US Congress, the 'War Hawks', and a major reason the vote for war was passed.
http://college.hmco.com/history/readerscomp/rcah/html/ah_090300_warhawks.htm


> plan_D said:
> 
> 
> > The treaty of Ghent had already been signed before the New Orleans battle, the war was already decided as a draw.
> ...


It was the other way round. 
By late 1814 the war against France was ending, and Britain was beginning to transfer more of its forces to North America. while the US was bankrupt, and the war was by then highly unpopular.
The New England states were even starting to make noises about breaking away from the Union. ( Hartford convention) 

ps, I was the guest poster 
I didn't realize I wasn't logged on


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 13, 2005)

redcoat said:


> RG_Lunatic said:
> 
> 
> > If you research it a little more you will see that very few Americans had eyes on Canada, even in 1812.
> ...



Last night the History Channel showed the "War of 1812" special. I wished when this special was developed the producers would of gave more info on the "Great Lakes" battles.


----------



## Anonymous (May 13, 2005)

plan_D said:


> You're going to admit there were some U.S officials looking at the 1812 War as a chance to gain Canadian land, then?



Of course, I never said otherwise. There were some British officials who wanted to side with Hitler too, so what? The point is that it was not a major reason for the USA going to war. Even without the possibility of capturing British land in Canada the USA would have gone to war. Without impressments, there would not have been a war.



plan_D said:


> Crossing a river is hard in the time of war. The British could set-up their fortifications on the three gaps and anything remaining holding the north side of the river. Over-land routes could be used because they'd be coming down from the north. U.S troops would have to be over the river and attacking the land routes on the British side. If this was all possible, why not do it in 1812?
> 
> I'm sure Canada could support the British forces with the vital food and water they need to survive. They'd be no stopping the other war supplies over the Atlantic and it could be shipped in further north and brought down.



Because the actual "invasion" of 1812 was intended more as a punative raid than to occupy Canada. It was not well thought out and US forces were insufficient to enforce a long term blockade. However, by the mid 1820's, under President Stonewall Jackson, had the USA been interested in actually conquering Candada, things would have been different.

After the War of 1812 the USA sustained a much larger military than prior to the war, and had it had eyes on Canada it would have been much larger still. The USA could easily have owned the river for at least a month or two, both via land and via ships. Remember, the USA already held the South side of the St. Lawrence river to start with, taking the North side would have been rather trivial.

Again, you are forgetting your original argument, which was that the British, though outnumbered, had the advantage of being on the defense and could sit in their fortifications to make up the numeric disadvantage. But now you are arguing they'd have come out to defend their supply lines, and if they did so, that defensive advantage would be totally lost.

Also, Upper Canada (which is actually to the south-west of Lower Canada) would most likely have sided with the USA. How willing Lower Canada would have been to support the British is questionable - my guess is they would have tried to stay out of the war as much as possible rather than risk being a conquered region should the USA win. As for Canada supplying the British, they simply could not do so from Lower Canada, the terrain is too rough in the winter months and besides that they were not large enough to provide sufficient supplies. And they still would have had to get those supplies to the British forts, which would have required British troops.

When you look at everything involved, each decade that passed after the War of 1812 the USA became more capable of taking Canada and the British became less capable of defending it. Obviously today we could take it in a couple of days if we wanted it. 8)



plan_D said:


> There were peaceful and warlike Native American tribes but it hardly makes a difference, the U.S destroyed them and their way of life no matter their stance of violent action.



My point is that if a culture believes in and lives by the creedo "the strong have the right to dominate", then is it not right to dominate them if you are the strong?



plan_D said:


> English troops could and would have altered to the situation. They knew the advantages of fortifications, take for example Rourkes Drift or Battle of Waterloo.



But in this case they'd have surely lost. In ~1830 the USA was capable of sustaining a siege for however long it took to win a protracted war.



plan_D said:


> The Battle of New Orleans only shows how important a well dug-in army is, in the 19th Century. It doesn't show England's increasing inability to fight on the field of battle at all. America had suffered the same kind of defeats in battle in 1812-1813.



Yes, but by 1814 the US had learned its lesson. By 1830 no longer would the British have been facing untrained militia.

Being "dug-in" is only advantageous if you have sufficient supplies to outlast a seige. The British in Canada would have had to come out of the forts or perish. And if they did come out of the forts, they would have been beaten unless Britain were willing to make holding Canada its sole objective. And even had Britain done so, victory was by no means assured as the value of the RN in such a war would have been somewhat limited. In the meantime, the rest of the Empire would have collapsed. 



plan_D said:


> I agree on that one. I imagine Britain would just leave it.
> 
> 
> > Exactly - approximately 1-1.5 million Canadian's of dubious loyalty were simply not worth the huge costs and risks of a major war to hold it.
> ...


----------



## Anonymous (May 13, 2005)

redcoat said:


> RG_Lunatic said:
> 
> 
> > If you research it a little more you will see that very few Americans had eyes on Canada, even in 1812.
> ...



The Warhawks made up a very small part of the US congress in 1812. To put things in context here's a quote from another page of the same webstie you've referenced:



> Beginning in 1810 young Democratic-Republican "War Hawks" from the West and the South argued that the right to export American products without losing ships and men had to be defended. They also objected to the British inciting the Indians along the Great Lakes frontier and argued that the British would be forced to change their policies if the United States attacked Canada. Some believed that the future of republican government was in danger if the United States could not successfully defend its rights. Others hoped that if Canada was conquered it could be retained after the war.
> http://college.hmco.com/history/readerscomp/rcah/html/ah_090500_warof.htm



As you can see, only a small portion of the Warhawks were interested in possible territorial gains in Canada. Others were interested in territorial gains against Spain. But mostly it was about impressment and British policy toward the American merchant. Territorial acquisitions were not enough to cause the war, and even without that possiblity the impressment and theft of ships/cargos was enough on its own.



redcoat said:


> plan_D said:
> 
> 
> > The treaty of Ghent had already been signed before the New Orleans battle, the war was already decided as a draw.
> ...



Conneticut was the only State that was seriously considering cessession. And after the Battle of Baltimore and then the Battle of New Orleans victories their cause was finished and most of their leadership was quickly driven out of the USA and all were driven out of political power.

Britain was spent from the war with Napolean. Something like 40% of the British population was under 18 years of age, and another 30% were over the age of 45. And figures for males would be even worse (i've not been able to find any). A huge proportion of abled bodied fighting men were in the RN, and not very suited to ground combat which is what would have been required. And a large number of the 25-30% of service age males were in fact not able-bodied due to wounds recieved during the Napoleanic war.

Britain was in no position to be deploying large numbers of forces across the Atlantic after having spent itself in a dozen years of war against Napolean. Furthermore, just because the war was over did not mean that Britain could afford to send its entire army, or even a large portion of it, across the ocean to fight an extended war in the Americas. That would have put Europe at risk.

While the War of 1812 was unpopular with the Americans during most of its course, after the Battle of Baltimore that largely changed, and after the victory at New Orleans it completely changed.

As for the US being bankrupt, only for international trade. Had the USA had to continue the war, it would have issued script which would have been honored within the internal economy which was healthy. In fact this happened immeadiately after the war with no problems.




RG_Lunatic said:


> ps, I was the guest poster
> I didn't realize I wasn't logged on



NP. I hope you can understand that it is much better to post under an identity than to share the "Guest" identity which could horribly confuse a thread.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## plan_D (May 14, 2005)

It's completely different, the supporters of Hitler in Britain were not part of the government. The 'War Hawks' were in the U.S Congress and voted to go to war with Britain for the reason of taking Canadian land. 

No, Britain wouldn't have to come out to protect it's supply lines. All it would have to do is hold the north side of the river so it could counter American artillery on the south bank. It could even land men on the south side and set up defensive positions there. 
The Americans might have been greater in number but the English were still better trained. 

The Royal Navy was not always what secured British victory in foreign lands. The Royal Navy was a defensive measure, in the Napoleonic Wars the Royal Navy defended England from the combined Spanish and French fleet at the Battle of Trafaglar. After that it was up to the English land forces to secure victory on the European continent. 


Some of the U.S forces were part trained in the U.S. They were sending troops out to Europe with no training at all. The U.S troops were in no state to be commited to battle when they arrived in Europe. They had to be trained and supplied by European nations. 

I cannot believe you have just stated that tanks played a minor role! They were the winning factor of Cambrai and Amiens. The Germans had no effective defence against the tank. All they had was anti-tank rifles and diverted long-range artillery to counter-tanks [which isn't ideal]. The Germans had more tanks captured than they had built. The tank was one of the sole reasons why that war was won. Next you'll be saying aircraft payed little role, or that the hydraulic system on the artillery that set it back to it's original position was unimportant.

Read Amiens and Cambrai, where the tank was used effectively. 

The British and French troops weren't rested, they were never taken off the line. They were just moved to quieter sections of the front. Even then, you cannot fully rest an army that has been sat in a trench for four years. They will always be weary and tired. 

I'm going to take Ludendorf's word for it that the Amiens broke the spine of his armed forces. 

The European nations wouldn't allow the U.S troops to the line if they weren't trained enough. It's obvious they wouldn't do that just out of spite because they NEEDED the fresh faces. It was just obvious that U.S troops weren't prepared to support the French and British on the front line. 

No, you don't understand the relationship at all. The key words there are _I think_ because you can't find that statement. I never said that Britain fronted the Cold War, I said that Britain was a front-line in the Cold War. I also said that Europe was supporting America just as much as America was supporting Europe. You seem to think that Europe can't survive on its own. 

You think it was all U.S development, huh? The Europeans had no weapons development in progress in the Cold War?

You think you know more about the state of this nation than me? You just read media reports [which are largely false or bias] then you try and tell me, a resident of this nation, a person who voted why we voted the way we did?

Do you even know how small and over-stretched the British forces are? The U.S doesn't need massive military support, your government knows that. Britain provides something much more important to the U.S, political support!

Well, 18 months hardly gives you enough time to get over it. That doesn't happen with everyone, when I was in school we had a Canadian and American come in the last two years. They got on fine with everyone and had a lot of friends [with the Canadian given the inventive nickname, Canada]. Everyone gets in fights in Britain it's the way this country is. Don't try and tell me you know this country better than I do...or I'll just laugh then I just won't bother with you anymore.


----------



## redcoat (May 14, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> plan_D said:
> 
> 
> > You're going to admit there were some U.S officials looking at the 1812 War as a chance to gain Canadian land, then?
> ...


Can you please supply us with the names of these *officials* then? 


> The point is that it was not a major reason for the USA going to war. Even without the possibility of capturing British land in Canada the USA would have gone to war. Without impressments, there would not have been a war.


If it had nothing to do with territorial gains, why do the US carry on with the war after they found out Britain had agreed to stop impressment, and resind the Orders of Council ?



> Because the actual "invasion" of 1812 was intended more as a punative raid than to occupy Canada.


Do you have any evidence it was a mere raid? It doesn't say anything in the US Army history web-site ( or anywhere else for that matter) about it being just a raid 


> It was not well thought out and US forces were insufficient to enforce a long term blockade.


To say the performance of the US forces at this time was dissapointing, would be putting it mildly


> However, by the mid 1820's, under President Stonewall Jackson, had the USA been interested in actually conquering Candada, things would have been different.


'Once bitten, twice shy' 
After the War of 1812, not even the War Hawks thought it would be a "Walk in the woods"
Thanks to 1812, any American politician with eyes on northern expansion knew it would cost more than the US was prepared to pay.




> Also, Upper Canada (which is actually to the south-west of Lower Canada) would most likely have sided with the USA. How willing Lower Canada would have been to support the British is questionable - my guess is they would have tried to stay out of the war as much as possible rather than risk being a conquered region should the USA win.


Due to the actions of the US Army in the War of 1812 in Lower Canada, by the end of it the people of lower Canada had been turned into ultra loyalists. 



> Of course fresh troops fight better. But it is also a matter of "heart". American troops simply did not give up no matter the losses. This was part of their US training, based upon the lessons of the Civil war which said it was better to take the losses up front than to get bogged down into a protracted action which would, over time, result in at least the same level of losses.


By the time US units went into action in any numbers the German army was already weakened and in retreat. both the Allies and Germans were impressed with their bravery, but horrified by the basic errors they kept committing, 



> You are saying that rested vetran troops are no match for fresh green troops? When the US troops went into battle in Spring 1918, the British and French troops were allowed to rest.


 only a few divisions of US troops were in action by this date, the majority to see action didn't do so until late summer


> And how do you determine that it was the Battle of Amien's that broke the back of the Germans?


 Because every historian agrees that it did !
This attack broke through the German defensive lines, and after this attack the Germans were unable to stabilize their front line, they were in retreat until the end of the war


> It seems to me the battle at Chateau-Thierry stopped the German advance,


 There wasn't 'one' advance in the German spring offensive, but a number of attacks. Chateau-thierry was just the last weak attempt


> the battle of Belleau Wood established the Allied offensive,


No it was just a successful minor counter-attack, it didn't establish anything


> the Second Battle of the Marne put the Germans into retreat,


 Yes, but it didn't break through and the Germans were able to stabilize their lines


> and the Meuse-Argonne Campaign (where Pershing lost 120,000 men) is what finally "broke the back of the Germans". Specifically it was the breaking of German supply lines at Sedan by the US 2nd Division, 50 miles behind German lines, that put the final nail in their coffin.


Sorry, but by this time the Germans were already in full retreat, and the German military had already advised the Kaiser to seek peace.



> My point was simply that dispite Britain's failure to pay back past loans the USA has never denied them when they were in need.


this statement needs to be qualified with the statement
" When the US considered it was in their own interests to do so"
This isn't an attack on the US, just an observation on life in the real world.


----------



## Anonymous (May 15, 2005)

plan_D said:


> It's completely different, the supporters of Hitler in Britain were not part of the government. The 'War Hawks' were in the U.S Congress and voted to go to war with Britain for the reason of taking Canadian land.



There were some of the British nobility that wanted to side with Hitler. I was mistaken in saying they were "officials".

The Warhawks won their positions in Congress largely because of British transgressions against the USA. And you are misreprsenting the Warhawks as all having had eyes on the conquest of Canada, when in fact this only really applies to a few of them. Most of the Warhawks were interested in breaking the British alliance with the 1st Nation, not aquiring Candian lands. This alliance was "proved" when the Indians of the 1st Nation attacked the US Army under Gen. Harrion's command using British supplied weapons. And in this goal they were successful (another reason why the USA won the War of 1812).



plan_D said:


> No, Britain wouldn't have to come out to protect it's supply lines. All it would have to do is hold the north side of the river so it could counter American artillery on the south bank. It could even land men on the south side and set up defensive positions there.
> The Americans might have been greater in number but the English were still better trained.



No because the USA would have taken positions on the north side of the river right off the bat as part of their initial attack. The USA held the south side to start with. And for at least the start of such a hypothetical 1830's war, the USA would have dominated the river in terms of shipping/navy as well. US gun boats operating out of the Great Lakes would have had immeadiate access to the St. Lawrence river. By the time the British could respond, the US presence on the North side of the river would have been firmly entrenched.

The Americans would have been much larger in numbers, and by 1830 the Americans would have been nearly if not completely as well trained. 



plan_D said:


> The Royal Navy was not always what secured British victory in foreign lands. The Royal Navy was a defensive measure, in the Napoleonic Wars the Royal Navy defended England from the combined Spanish and French fleet at the Battle of Trafaglar. After that it was up to the English land forces to secure victory on the European continent.



The British land forces were hardly alone in their fight against Napolean.

===============

Back to WWI - can you please indicate which war you are refering to and organize this aspect of your replies a bit?



plan_D said:


> Some of the U.S forces were part trained in the U.S. They were sending troops out to Europe with no training at all. The U.S troops were in no state to be commited to battle when they arrived in Europe. They had to be trained and supplied by European nations.



The American 1st and 2nd Divisions were combat experianced units. I'm not sure about the 3rd and the 4th, but I believe they were a mix of vetrans and raw troops.

As I said before, in many cases US troops positioned for "training" got that training in actual combat.



plan_D said:


> I cannot believe you have just stated that tanks played a minor role! They were the winning factor of Cambrai and Amiens. The Germans had no effective defence against the tank. All they had was anti-tank rifles and diverted long-range artillery to counter-tanks [which isn't ideal]. The Germans had more tanks captured than they had built. The tank was one of the sole reasons why that war was won. Next you'll be saying aircraft payed little role, or that the hydraulic system on the artillery that set it back to it's original position was unimportant.
> 
> Read Amiens and Cambrai, where the tank was used effectively.



Well, the battle accounts I've read (involving the US troops with British/French tank support) indicate the tanks got destroyed early in the battles. American troops continued to advance without them.

And a WWI tank is pretty easily defeated by an anti-tank rifle.

On to the post-war....



plan_D said:


> No, you don't understand the relationship at all. The key words there are _I think_ because you can't find that statement. I never said that Britain fronted the Cold War, I said that Britain was a front-line in the Cold War. I also said that Europe was supporting America just as much as America was supporting Europe. You seem to think that Europe can't survive on its own.



_Note: my previous figures for US assistance to Britain was in error. I messed up in the conversion of data, treating $1,100 million as $1 million + $100 million. The actual figure for US Economic + Military loans and gifts 1946-2003 is $8.8 billion, not $7.7 billion_

Hmm, we had troops in Europe, Korea, and a host of other locations. Where did Europe have troops, other than in their own countries? We loaned and gifted billions of $ to European nations with which to finance their defense... $8.8 in Economic and Military Assistance to Britain alone, and $81.3 billion to W. Europe in general.

I've yet to see any European troops stationed to defend US territory, or any European economic assistance flowing into the USA!



plan_D said:


> You think it was all U.S development, huh? The Europeans had no weapons development in progress in the Cold War?



Where did I say that? Certainly Britain and France had weapons development programs of their own - but these programs were largely funded by the USA through the first 15-20 years of the cold war.



plan_D said:


> Do you even know how small and over-stretched the British forces are? The U.S doesn't need massive military support, your government knows that. Britain provides something much more important to the U.S, political support!



Proportions are proportions. All I'm saying is that the British idea of "support" is to send 1/3rd as many people per capita as the USA. And Britian is not garrisoning S. Korea, Germany, or any of the other nations the USA must station troops. That was not the kind of support shown Britian by the USA in its time of need.

And as for the rest of the EU, well they have generally failed to support us much at all, several (espeically France) have even stood against us!

Political support should be a given for every country in the EU, only Britain has lived up to this. But military support is really even more important - political support is talk, and as we all know, talk is cheap.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Anonymous (May 15, 2005)

Redcoat - I'm only going to reply to items I've not answered in my reply to Plan_D.



redcoat said:


> RG_Lunatic said:
> 
> 
> > The point is that it was not a major reason for the USA going to war. Even without the possibility of capturing British land in Canada the USA would have gone to war. Without impressments, there would not have been a war.
> ...



That's easy. That decision was made in late June 1812 in London. By the time the news had reached the USA, the war was already in progress. Battles had been fought and troops were on the move. The British had already (counter) invaded US territory. Most likely, the decision to stop impressments was made (if it was really made at that time) when news that Pres. Madison had actually asked Congress to declare war in early June 1812 (I think on the 2nd) reached London. By then it was simply too late.



redcoat said:


> RG_Lunatic said:
> 
> 
> > Because the actual "invasion" of 1812 was intended more as a punative raid than to occupy Canada.
> ...



The force dispatched was only a few thousand men. This was totally insufficent to hold territory for even a short period, and there was no means to reinforce them. There simply were not the forces required to occupy Canada and try to hold it. Look at what happend when the US did successfully invade Canada in 1813 - they sacked and burned York and then retreated.



redcoat said:


> RG_Lunatic said:
> 
> 
> > It was not well thought out and US forces were insufficient to enforce a long term blockade.
> ...



That is not the case at all. Britain was increasingly less able to defend Canada, and increasingly at risk the Canadians might side with the USA.

However, the Treaty of Ghent clearly defined the borders, and the British agreed not to support/supply their Indian allies (the 1st Nation) in their efforts to stop American westward expansion. There was pleanty of land for expansion to the west, the USA simply believed in honoring its treaty with its parent nation - simple as that. The costs in national reputation as a breaker of treaties was not worth what was seen as relatively less desireable land than that to be had to the west.

The only way the USA was going to get involved in Canada against Britain would have been in support of a Canadian based War of Indpendance - which almost happened.




redcoat said:


> RG_Lunatic said:
> 
> 
> > Also, Upper Canada (which is actually to the south-west of Lower Canada) would most likely have sided with the USA. How willing Lower Canada would have been to support the British is questionable - my guess is they would have tried to stay out of the war as much as possible rather than risk being a conquered region should the USA win.
> ...



Which had faded considerably by 1830, and almost completely by 1840.

===================

The way you compose your posts makes replying just too difficult. If you need some help in how to format your replies please PM me.

===================



redcoat said:


> RG_Lunatic said:
> 
> 
> > My point was simply that dispite Britain's failure to pay back past loans the USA has never denied them when they were in need.
> ...



Well, yes and no. This is only true within the framework of the US philosophy on how free nations should co-exist in a free market world economy.

Certainly the USA could have chosen not to forgive WWII debts. It could even have insisted that WWI debts be repaid as well. In fact, it was in position to simply take the all the gold and silver in W. European Banks as payment. And it certainly did not need to pump some $81.3 billion of capital into the European nations, mostly over the 20 years following WWII.

Your "in there own interests" comment is cynical and does not respect the fact that the USA was also concerned for the standard of living in Europe. This thinking is how the EU nations such as France and Germany rationalize their lack of loyalty and gratitude in America's current crisis.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## plan_D (May 15, 2005)

Nobility didn't make up the vote of the nation though so that is largely unimportant. The 'War Hawks' that wanted Canadian land did make up the vote to war. The Treaty of Ghent stated that the U.S should halt all wars against the Native Americans. The U.S government signed this treaty but look at the wording of the treaty, the U.S should halt all wars against the Native Americans not, the Native Americans should halt all wars against the U.S or Britain should stop supplying the Native Americans. 

It's hard to get across a river in war time. Britain would have seen this growing aggression and been ready for any form of river crossing. Then, if the U.S has put chains across the river, U.S gunboats hardly have free roam. 

No, you're right, the English weren't alone. However it was the English who landed at Lisbon and pushed Napoleon and his armies out of Portugal, Spain and chased him into France in 1804-1805. It was, then again, English armies who secured final victory at the Battle of Waterloo. 
These are all on top of the many other conflicts that England had fought on land in Europe, Asia and the Middle East. 


World War I - 

The British and French commanders did not allow untrained U.S troops on the frontline for the simple reason that it would but their own troops at risk. 
The training in combat you refer to would have been after their basic training, given to them by the European Allies. 

The initial shock of enemy armour alone often weakened the resolve of the enemy. My advice to you is to read Achtung! Panzer! by Heinz Guderian, it may be trying to prove the worth of armour on the battlefield but is still held in _high_ regard by many historians today as the definative history of armoured warfare in World War 1. 

The tanks were not easily destroyed on the contrary they were extremely robust vehicles. Often the only thing that stopped their advance was the craters caused by the artillery bombardment beforehand. When the tank was stuck, the Germans would zero in with long range artillery. 

Post War - 

Britain had/has troops in a host of African nations, South-East Asian nations, Middle-Eastern nations and we had troops in Korea. 

Europe provides the U.S with many technological advancements. There is a host of ideas and designs passed between both the U.S and Europe. 

The U.S doesn't require military assistance on it's own nation. It has two massive defensive parimeters, called oceans. The Pacific and Atlantic ocean provide a vast amount of security. People often state that Britain is lucky to have 26 miles of sea between it and Europe. Well, the U.S is even luckier to have 3000 miles one side and almost 7000 miles the other. 

Even then, British troops were sent over to the U.S. Some were even stationed in the U.S. 

U.S funded did send money to the British and French but this wasn't just out of the good of their hearts. The U.S got many technological advancements from Britain and France during the Cold War period. 

Do you want to tell 92 Sqd. Lightning that Britain had no troops in Germany in the Cold War? I think you need to research British troop placements during the Cold War. We had and still have garrisons in Germany. 
Political support is extremely important actually. The U.S doesn't need military support, can't you see that? What it needs is the support of a well implanted and respected nation and that nation is Britain. Without the support of other nations, the U.S cannot act on it's own. 

You're too obvious now, RG. You want Europe and Europeans to get down on their knees and kiss America's feet. You want us to thank you everyday and you're obviously bitter that we don't. 

The British and American populations get on well enough as it is. We may snipe and groan at one another but when the time comes, Britain and America will be standing side by side and that's something you can't see.


----------



## BombTaxi (May 15, 2005)

Are you serious, RG, in saying European troops were confined to thier own countries after WW2? British troops since 1945 have served in: Germany, Berlin (British Sector), Korea, Belize, Malaya, Hong Kong, the Falklands, Iraq, Kosovo, Bosnia, Aden, Kenya and the Suez, to name just a few locations. NATO forces have served throughout Europe and Africa as peacekeepers...to say that Europe has done nothing to repay America is totally untrue. In fact, your anti-European bent is totally blinding you to the facts of history - much to your detriment.


----------



## lesofprimus (May 15, 2005)

RG has always excelled at the Anti-Euro thing BT......... Since day one he has....


----------



## Anonymous (May 15, 2005)

plan_D said:


> Nobility didn't make up the vote of the nation though so that is largely unimportant. The 'War Hawks' that wanted Canadian land did make up the vote to war.



No, there were a few warhawks who may have wanted to aquire Canadian land. Most just wanted to force the British to stop supplying the First Nation Indians with firearms and other modern weapons.




plan_D said:


> The Treaty of Ghent stated that the U.S should halt all wars against the Native Americans. The U.S government signed this treaty but look at the wording of the treaty, the U.S should halt all wars against the Native Americans not, the Native Americans should halt all wars against the U.S or Britain should stop supplying the Native Americans.



The British agreed, as part of Article I, that it would no longer support Indian tribal wars agains the USA. This clearly meant there would be no more supplying of firearms to the Indians.

And the wording does not state that the USA will halt all wars against the Indians, only that they will not continue wars based upon an Indian tribes former alliance with Britain, and visa versa. And even this is clearly subject to the requirement that the Indians stop hostilities against the USA (and Britain). The Indians did not stop their hostilities against the settlers in the West, so the whole thing is mute.



plan_D said:


> It's hard to get across a river in war time. Britain would have seen this growing aggression and been ready for any form of river crossing. Then, if the U.S has put chains across the river, U.S gunboats hardly have free roam.



But since the USA would have been the agressor, it would already have been across the river before the British could respond. And any attempt to defend the river would have left the forts under-manned.

Chains can be lowered for your own ships. And, US gunboats drafted far less than British ships and were much better suited for river combat, since they were designed to fire forward rather than broadside. They probably could have crossed over the chains that would have stopped british vessles.

(I'll reply to the rest when I have time)

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Anonymous (May 15, 2005)

BombTaxi said:


> Are you serious, RG, in saying European troops were confined to thier own countries after WW2? British troops since 1945 have served in: Germany, Berlin (British Sector), Korea, Belize, Malaya, Hong Kong, the Falklands, Iraq, Kosovo, Bosnia, Aden, Kenya and the Suez, to name just a few locations. NATO forces have served throughout Europe and Africa as peacekeepers...to say that Europe has done nothing to repay America is totally untrue. In fact, your anti-European bent is totally blinding you to the facts of history - much to your detriment.



Look at the size of the garrisons provided, which in most cases were only token.

I'm not trying to "bash" Britain. Of all our "Allies" they are about the only one's who have stood up and helped the USA when it needed it. This is just the direction the thread has taken via Plan_D's commentary, which implies that the flow of support has not been mostly one way, which it has been.

And please eliminate the short-term NATO operations from your list. Those are not what we are talking about here.


----------



## redcoat (May 16, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> The British agreed, as part of Article I, that it would no longer support Indian tribal wars agains the USA. This clearly meant there would be no more supplying of firearms to the Indians.


Actually Article I of the Treaty of Ghent doesn't even mention the Indians, its Article IX before the treaty gets around to the Indian question, and here's the wording

*"The United States of America engage to put an end immediately after the Ratification of the present Treaty to hostilities with all the Tribes or Nations of Indians with whom they may be at war at the time of such Ratification, and forthwith to restore to such Tribes or Nations respectively all the possessions, rights, and privileges which they may have enjoyed or been entitled to in one thousand eight hundred and eleven previous to such hostilities. Provided always that such Tribes or Nations shall agree to desist from all hostilities against the United States of America, their Citizens, and Subjects upon the Ratification of the present Treaty being notified to such Tribes or Nations, and shall so desist accordingly. And His Britannic Majesty engages on his part to put an end immediately after the Ratification of the present Treaty to hostilities with all the Tribes or Nations of Indians with whom He may be at war at the time of such Ratification, and forthwith to restore to such Tribes or Nations respectively all the possessions, rights, and privileges, which they may have enjoyed or been entitled to in one thousand eight hundred and eleven previous to such hostilities. Provided always that such Tribes or Nations shall agree to desist from all hostilities against His Britannic Majesty and His Subjects upon the Ratification of the present Treaty being notified to such Tribes or Nations, and shall so desist accordingly".*
At what point does it state that Britain 'agreed' to stop supplying the Indians?
Though, it should be pointed out that before the War of 1812 the British government didn't actually supply the native Indians with any firearms, despite the American folk-lore 

[


----------



## redcoat (May 16, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> The way you compose your posts makes replying just too difficult. If you need some help in how to format your replies please PM me.


Sorry, but you will just have to live with me being 'difficult'!


----------



## BombTaxi (May 16, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> Look at the size of the garrisons provided, which in most cases were only token.
> 
> I'm not trying to "bash" Britain. Of all our "Allies" they are about the only one's who have stood up and helped the USA when it needed it. This is just the direction the thread has taken via Plan_D's commentary, which implies that the flow of support has not been mostly one way, which it has been.
> 
> And please eliminate the short-term NATO operations from your list. Those are not what we are talking about here.



Im actually starting to get quite offended by this. Are you going to tell my great uncle, who fought the entire Second World War then _went and did it again_ in Korea that he was part of a token garrison? Or tell my uncle, who spent nearly a decade as a rifleman, that his deployments would probably be insignificant 'short-term NATO operations' - operations largely conducted as a result of US-sponsored resolutions of the UNSC? If the UK (or anyone else, for that matter) have troops supporting the US, it doesnt matter whether its 30 or 30,000. They are still there, with the rest of your European allies, putting thier necks out for you. Its the gross arrogance and utter lack of gratitude displayed by the likes of you, RG, that makes some people in this country hate the US and hate the wars we fight for them. 

N.B: Personally, I love the US and I support ALL the Allied troops in Iraq. I apologise for the vitriolic nature of my post, but I feel grossly offended by the suggestion that the UK has done nothing for the US since 1945. Coming from a forces family, I know this to be untrue. My comments refer specifically to RG and not to the rest of our American members, who appear to be totally decent people. Cheers 8)


----------



## plan_D (May 16, 2005)

I never said all of the 'War Hawks' wanted to take Canadian land but some did. Those few provided a vote for war which makes it drastically different from nobility of Britain supporting Hitler's cause. 

Article I has already been shown, so I don't have to. Please point out in the Treaty Of Ghent where that comes from and where it says that the Native Americans must cease hostilities against the U.S and Britain. 

U.S troops across the river would have to dig in fast and be across in large numbers before the British could respond. It takes time to dig yourself in, British troops could hit the brigehead then hold and pull back what was needed in the forts. 
The U.S forces would need exceptional organisation and intelligence to achieve a co-ordinated strike on the forts at just the time when British forces were out.


----------



## Anonymous (May 16, 2005)

redcoat said:


> RG_Lunatic said:
> 
> 
> > The British agreed, as part of Article I, that it would no longer support Indian tribal wars agains the USA. This clearly meant there would be no more supplying of firearms to the Indians.
> ...



Article 1 starts with:



> There shall be a firm and universal peace between His Britannic Majesty and the United States, and between their respective countries, territories, cities, towns, and people, of every degree, without exception of places or persons.



It was agreed between the British and the Americans that this would mean the British would no longer support their former Indian Allies in resisting American westward expansion south of the Canadian boarder.

And there was undeniable proof the British were supplying firearms to the First Nation Indians, large numbers of British made firearms and high quality "glossy" powder were found amounst the 1st Nation Indian's who attacked the US Army (commanded by Harrison) at Tippecanoe 1811. This is a proven fact, not folk-lore. It can further be proven that their was in fact a formal Alliance between the British and the Indians of the First Nation specifically intended to resist American westward expansion. The British reniged on their promises to support an Indian nation in the Treaty of Ghent, and never supported the indians again.

It may not have been formally stated in the treaty, but it was clear that British supply to Indian warriors would be considered an act of war and in conflict with Article I which stated there was to be a "universal peace" between the USA and Britain. This was essential to the American's agreeing to return captured lands in the Lake Erie area.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Anonymous (May 16, 2005)

plan_D said:


> I never said all of the 'War Hawks' wanted to take Canadian land but some did. Those few provided a vote for war which makes it drastically different from nobility of Britain supporting Hitler's cause.



All the Warhawks favored war against the British, but only a few appear to maybe have had an eye on Canadian territory. And even they were not very set upon this, or they could have kept the territory captured during the war - it was clear tha Britain did not want to pursue the war even more than America.



plan_D said:


> Article I has already been shown, so I don't have to. Please point out in the Treaty Of Ghent where that comes from and where it says that the Native Americans must cease hostilities against the U.S and Britain.



It says there shall be a "universal peace" between Britain and the USA. This implies the British will not supply America's enemies. It was clear that to supply its former Indian allies would be considered an act of agression. It states that the British Indian Allies must also cease hostilities, or the USA was under no obligation to discontinue its war against them. They did not discontinue hostilties, so that war in fact did continue.



plan_D said:


> U.S troops across the river would have to dig in fast and be across in large numbers before the British could respond. It takes time to dig yourself in, British troops could hit the brigehead then hold and pull back what was needed in the forts.
> 
> The U.S forces would need exceptional organisation and intelligence to achieve a co-ordinated strike on the forts at just the time when British forces were out.



It is easy to cross a river when you own one side of it to start with. It would have taken weeks for the British to respond and counter-attack at something like 1:4 or worse odds.

By 1830 the Americans vastly outnumbered the British garrison in Canada. Had the British left the forts to engage the Americans on the north side of the St. Lawrence, they'd have been fighting at a huge numeric disadvantage, and most of their forces would have been Canadian militia, not British regulars.

The fastests British reponse with significant troops would have taken almost 3 months - 3 weeks for word to reach London, several weeks to marshall and dispatch the forces, a month to six weeks for them to cross the Atlantic, and then a week or two to form up and march to the battle area. The US numeric advantage was sufficient to both defend its bridgeheads on the north side of the St. Lawrence and isolate or lay siege to the Canadian forts.

After the War of 1812, the USA established a standing army and formalized training of state militia - and had it intended to go to war this would have been done on an even larger scale. The British garrison in Canada was never bolstered to resist an American attack - the British relied on the USA to honor the terms of the Treaty of Ghent, which it did.

If America had really wanted Canada, at almost any time since the War of 1812 it could have taken it.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 16, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> And France and Germany... well if I go into that I'm sure I will piss off Adler and Udet big time!
> 
> =S=
> 
> Lunatic



Actually no it would not piss me off, because I can act a hell of a lot more mature then you. You really do need to grow up RG_Lunatic. *However calling me out like this, does piss me off! I bet you would not do this if you saw me in person, because you would be too afraid to get your *** handed to you.* You really need to get out more.



RG_Lunatic said:


> In the first year I had the crap beaten out of me by gangs of British kids just for being an American many times. One time I had a concussion and had to have 25 stitches in my scalp when the bunch of them knocked me down and kicked me with their boots. Another time I had two broken ribs from being kicked while on the ground. The police would do nothing. But when I beat the snot out of two of the kids who cornered me and thought they could beat me up without a gang near the end of our stay, my mom was dragged into the police station and I was expelled from the school.



No offense here but I really dont think they did it because you were American. It was more then likely because of the way you talk down to people, especially people of another nationality. *You are not better then other people.*  (I can do the shock thing too! OH my gosh) I bet you got beat up a lot as a kid, RG. Just a feeling.

And in regards to you comment that Europe is not helping the the US in its time of need and repaying its debts in this way. Whatever man, Germany is serving side by side with US troops in Afganistan. German troops have died in Afganistan. A very close friend of mine actually has doen 2 tours to Afganistan. *Hello news flash he is german!* Yes German troops are not in Iraq but why should Germany send troops to a war they do not believe in? Just to satisfy your need for payback? Whatever. In Iraq I worked with *Polish, British, Ukranian, Italian, and Georgian* troopsl. Hello News flash all from Europe!



> The recent decision by the German government to increase the number of German troops deployed in Afghanistan and transfer 250 soldiers to the city of Konduz in the north of the country is directly bound up with increasing Afghan resistance to the American occupation.
> 
> Armed conflicts with the Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters, some of whom have evidently allied themselves with the rebel warlord Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, have been growing. Last weekend two US soldiers were killed in a shootout in the south of the country. Two months ago, four German soldiers were killed and another 29 injured, many seriously, in an attack on German troops in Kabul.
> 
> ...





> Bomb wounds three German troops from NATO-led force in Afghanistan
> KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) — A remote-controlled bomb exploded near a vehicle carrying German soldiers in northern Afghanistan, injuring three of them, NATO said Saturday.
> The homemade bomb damaged one of the two military vehicles carrying soldiers on patrol near Kunduz on Friday evening, a military statement said. The casualties, whose names were not released, were treated for hearing difficulties at a military camp in Kunduz, it said. Their injuries were described as minor.
> 
> ...





> As of May 9, 2005, there have been 219 coalition deaths in Afghanistan and other theaters of war during Operation Enduring Freedom -- 182 American, *14 German, 7 Canadian, 4 British, 3 Danish, 3 Romanians, 2 French, 2 Italians, 1 Australian, and 1 Norwegian.*


----------



## redcoat (May 16, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> redcoat said:
> 
> 
> > RG_Lunatic said:
> ...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 16, 2005)

No he will not admit to anything that he may have stated wrong.


----------



## Anonymous (May 16, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> RG_Lunatic said:
> 
> 
> > And France and Germany... well if I go into that I'm sure I will piss off Adler and Udet big time!
> ...



Oh you are such a bad dude Adler... I'm trembling. You're gonna beat up huh? ROFL

This is about the 3rd time you've threatened me with your vast personal combat skills, not counting the threats in private. What's up with that?

You need to grow up Adler - you can't take even the slightest of jokes.



DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> RG_Lunatic said:
> 
> 
> > In the first year I had the crap beaten out of me by gangs of British kids just for being an American many times. One time I had a concussion and had to have 25 stitches in my scalp when the bunch of them knocked me down and kicked me with their boots. Another time I had two broken ribs from being kicked while on the ground. The police would do nothing. But when I beat the snot out of two of the kids who cornered me and thought they could beat me up without a gang near the end of our stay, my mom was dragged into the police station and I was expelled from the school.
> ...



Yeah right - I was 4 years old, and I got pounced by half a dozen kids as soon as I left the classroom on my first day and ended up in the hospital.

I never even spoke a word to them Adler - they jumped me because I was an American and for no other reason whatsoever. The only thing they said was "Dirty american go home".


----------



## Anonymous (May 16, 2005)

Redcoat said:


> RG_Lunatic said:
> 
> 
> > It may not have been formally stated in the treaty,
> ...



In the language of the times it was in the treaty. "Uninversal peace" means no support to foes.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 16, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> This is about the 3rd time you've threatened me with your vast personal combat skills, not counting the threats in private. What's up with that?



Who said anything about combat skills. I sure did not. I was just refering to a good old fashioned *** whooping that you probably know all about! Heres another yellow card by the way, keep pushing my buttons.


----------



## plan_D (May 16, 2005)

It is obvious that there were Americans that wanted parts of Canada. Obvious to everyone but you. What terrority did the U.S capture in the War of 1812, RG? The British forces counter-invaded the U.S and pushed all the way down to New Orleans and before the battle for New Orleans had started, the war was over. 

In your mind it implies, to everyone else it's universal peace. No aggression on either side. No where does it state out and out that the British government shall cease supporting Native American [or Indian] tribes. 

It's difficult to cross a river, even if you own one side. Do you want to inform people in World War 2 it was easy to cross a river when you own one side?

Your bitterness towards Europe is obvious. The bitterness towards America from Europeans stems from people like you, RG. People who believe that they and the U.S is better than them. 

I do not believe that children beat you up because you were American. I've never encountered that here, even though we had Canadians and Americans in my school. They all got on well with everyone. 
I imagine you did do something or say something to tick them off. I will admit, that can be little in Britain. Little for everyone because the slightest thing can get you in a fight.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 16, 2005)

I remember when I had a girlfriend from England and we would go to her home for the weekend, there were these Irish Gypsies that would beat everyone up just for the hell of it. I got in some rounds with them just because I was sitting on a wall that they thought was theres. Once you stood up to them though, they did not mess with you anymore.


----------



## plan_D (May 16, 2005)

That's how it is but there's also the ones that never learn. You just have to keep beating them up.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 16, 2005)

Yeah you have that everywhere. And then you have the ones that never learn and want to get beat up!


----------



## Anonymous (May 16, 2005)

plan_D said:


> It is obvious that there were Americans that wanted parts of Canada. Obvious to everyone but you. What terrority did the U.S capture in the War of 1812, RG? The British forces counter-invaded the U.S and pushed all the way down to New Orleans and before the battle for New Orleans had started, the war was over.



When the treaty was signed the USA held significant parts of Upper Canada out in the Lake Erie region, and the entire Lake. This was the only land that had changed hands at that point.



plan_D said:


> In your mind it implies, to everyone else it's universal peace. No aggression on either side. No where does it state out and out that the British government shall cease supporting Native American [or Indian] tribes.



"Universal peace" is a term that clearly means you will not engage in or support agression against the other country. It is quite specific, and was used in quite a few treaties in the 18th and 19th century.



plan_D said:


> It's difficult to cross a river, even if you own one side. Do you want to inform people in World War 2 it was easy to cross a river when you own one side?



That is totally different, that is when the war is engaged, and numbers involved are sufficient to fully defend the opposing bank.

The relevant facts are that in 1830 had the USA attacked Canada, there would have been no opposition to a river crossing and the British lacked any ability whatsoever to protect significant stretches of the north bank.



plan_D said:


> Your bitterness towards Europe is obvious. The bitterness towards America from Europeans stems from people like you, RG. People who believe that they and the U.S is better than them.



You misunderstand entirely. I'm just disappointed in how little support most of Europe has given the USA since 911. When Europe was in need, the USA responded in a big way - when the USA was in need, well aside from the Brits...

I just expected more from our European "Allies" - especially the French who really do owe their freedom to the USA.



plan_D said:


> I do not believe that children beat you up because you were American. I've never encountered that here, even though we had Canadians and Americans in my school. They all got on well with everyone.
> I imagine you did do something or say something to tick them off. I will admit, that can be little in Britain. Little for everyone because the slightest thing can get you in a fight.



Plan, now is a very different time than the early 60's. Resentment against Americans was very prevelant in Britain at that time, for a variety of reasons - but mostly because the British resented that in the post war world the USA, not Britain, was the "super-power".

I was about 4 and a half years old. I went to school my first day, and as soon as the day was done and I was walking through the hallway to where my Mom was to pick me up, when I went around the side of the building I was jumped by a bunch of kids, thrown down on the ground, and kicked and called a "dirty american". A month later when I returned to school, it was only a few days before it happened again. I didn't have a chance to piss anyone off, I didn't say hardly a word that first day other than to give my name and where I was from.

And as a side note: I was a late "talker". When I was 4 and a half years old, I almost never spoke.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 16, 2005)

I am not touching it.


----------



## plan_D (May 16, 2005)

If Britain didn't achieve any land grab in the U.S, what were they doing in New Orleans!?! Did they teleport there?

You don't need equal numbers to hold a river, the defending side can have a vast disadvantage in numbers. Consider a river a vast moat, easily defended!
Also, English troops in Canada would not wait for a confirmation from England to act. They would act on their own initiative and send the word to England. 

The U.S doesn't required money or direct military assistance. What the U.S provided in World War 1 and World War 2 was against an obvious enemy. The U.S [and free world] today is under-threat from an invisible enemy, political support to wage war in those countries that are known supporters is all the U.S needs. Military assistance isn't needed!

If European nations don't want to go to war in a country they don't believe is a threat, it's their choice. The U.S saw Germany as a threat in World War 2.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 16, 2005)

I guess my post showing the number of European soldiers that have died in Afghanistan does not mean anything. Tell that to the families of the soldires that died.


----------



## Anonymous (May 16, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Yeah you have that everywhere. And then you have the ones that never learn and want to get beat up!



Little hint for you here Adler, upon my return to the USA, from 1st grade on I never started a fight, but I never lost one that I could not reasonably avoid.

You learn how to fight pretty well when you are moving into a new school every 6-9 months. You don't have a choice, especially when you enter a new school in the middle of the year, which I did 7 times by the 5th grade.

The trick is, when they corner you, pretend to be afraid. This way, one of the less tough kids is likely to think its his chance to earn some status. When the moment comes he will usually start by shoving at you rather than punching. At that moment, as quick as possible, let him have it as hard as you can in the solar plexis with a left jab, grab his hair with your right hand and take him down over your left leg onto his back making sure his head does not hit the concrete or asphalt. Once you have him down, jerk is head to the side, put your palm on the side of his forhead, and slide the side of the back of his had hard across the ground. Then put your hand in the resulting pool of blood and wipe them together as you get up and start to stalk the next in line.

Walla! No one will mess with you at that school again!

The difference between my US experiance and my British experiance was that I was only 4 and a half years old in Britain and it was my first school experiance, and I was attacked by 5 or more kids at once. In the USA, its almost always 1 vs. 1 in such fights between kids (probably normally in Britain too unless its an American kid they're beating up).


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 16, 2005)

Well I dont need any hints on how to defend myself.


----------



## plan_D (May 16, 2005)

Are you kidding? In Britain you need to know how to fight against gangs and single people. You will be jumped by 4,5 or 6 people if you don't know your area or don't know how to look out for yourself!


----------



## mosquitoman (May 16, 2005)

That's why you make friends, so you've got 2 or 3 people with you in case you do get jumped


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 16, 2005)

plan_D said:


> Are you kidding? In Britain you need to know how to fight against gangs and single people. You will be jumped by 4,5 or 6 people if you don't know your area or don't know how to look out for yourself!



Same in my native New York City - you tend develope an equalizer to deal with the problem. In my neighborhood I was known as "JOEY BATS."


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 16, 2005)

Or in the case of some people, you can not even get anyone to have your back.


----------



## mosquitoman (May 16, 2005)

I prefer not to fight I just run like hell- it works


----------



## plan_D (May 16, 2005)

Well some of you have seen my choice of weapons in that other thread.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 16, 2005)

plan_D said:


> Well some of you have seen my choice of weapons in that other thread.



Yep - Also known as "EDUCATION TOOLS"


----------



## Nonskimmer (May 16, 2005)

Even lovely old Halifax has swarmers. 
The best defence? Bigger swarmers. A size 12 steel toe helps too.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 16, 2005)

Sometimes you have no choice but to fight.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 16, 2005)

Nonskimmer said:


> Even lovely old Halifax has swarmers.
> The best defence? Bigger swarmers. A size 12 steel toe helps too.



I was bringing a box of items to a neighbor's house for my mom when I was about 11. I looked in this box and noticed there were a bunch of kitchen tools, paying no mind to the contents, I continued on my journey. On the next block I got confronted by 3 or 4 local bullies. I grabbed the first thing I could get my hands on from the box. IT TURNED OUT BE BE A MEAT CLEAVER! Didn't even have to take a swing, I think they're still running away!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 16, 2005)

That would have made me run too.


----------



## Anonymous (May 16, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I guess my post showing the number of European soldiers that have died in Afghanistan does not mean anything. Tell that to the families of the soldires that died.



Oh no, it matters. But don't you think those numbers, 



DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> As of May 9, 2005, there have been 219 coalition deaths in Afghanistan and other theaters of war during Operation Enduring Freedom -- 182 American, 14 German, 7 Canadian, 4 British, 3 Danish, 3 Romanians, 2 French, 2 Italians, 1 Australian, and 1 Norwegian.



have to be taken in perspective?

US population: ~295 million
US losses in Afghan per capita: 0.61 / million

European (countries you listed only) population: 347 million.
Euro losses in Afghan per capita: 0.1 / million.

For every European family that has lost someone in Afghanistan, there are almost seven such American familes.

Is this the kind of support that Europe recieved from the USA when it was in need?


----------



## Nonskimmer (May 16, 2005)

Right on, FJ! Much more menacing than a spoon!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 16, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
> 
> 
> > I guess my post showing the number of European soldiers that have died in Afghanistan does not mean anything. Tell that to the families of the soldires that died.
> ...



Does it matter. The point is, they are there. YOu can not count Iraq because technically it is not the same thing as Afganistan. I do not blame them for not being in Iraq.


----------



## Anonymous (May 16, 2005)

Adler - what justification do you have for banning me?

Lunatic


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 16, 2005)

I dont need justification and I am ending it right now.


----------



## Anonymous (May 16, 2005)

And I didn't count Iraq Adler, that's just Afghanistan.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 16, 2005)

No all of us Admins have decided to ban you. Obviously this red card thing does not work, so I am going to ask you to stop posting here until we get this thing sorted out and then you will not be allowed to do so.


----------



## Anonymous (Jul 17, 2005)

when you talk of ww 1 it should be noted that the black troops of the us army were the first on line and stayed on line the longest they were made to serve with the french and to wore french uniforms /every war the the us has fought black men have had to prove over and over again they would and could fight///the irony of this is up until the viet nam war the revolutionary army was the most intergrated force the us had fielded
jasman


----------



## plan_D (Jul 17, 2005)

All the original U.S troops in World War 1 had to serve with the British and French because they lacked combat experience. Do you have any proof that African-American troops were the first on the U.S lines and were the longest on the lines?


----------



## James Pickering (Dec 25, 2005)

British American naval edged weapons and small arms references:


edged weapons: http://jp29.org/fsew.htm

small arms: http://jp29.org/fssa.htm


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 25, 2005)

Lets get back to the war of 1812 and the british and american relations up to the end of the US civil war.

Its fascinating stuff.

How many of you here have ever heard fo the "Trent" incident of 1862?


----------



## plan_D (Dec 25, 2005)

I have. The Union came extremely close to destruction with that - after all, both Britain and France were willing to join a war together against the Union. 

But events like that show to us all how tightly bonded the U.S and U.K are. The relationship has been built on argument then compromise, which has created the strongest bond between two world powers - a bond, that I think is unbreakable from the outside.


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 25, 2005)

plan_D said:


> I have. The Union came extremely close to destruction with that - after all, both Britain and France were willing to join a war together against the Union.



I disagree. I did my thesis about this in my college class on the history of England.

In 1862, the Union was growing stronger by the month and there was no way a combined English/French army could be formed to seriously threaten the Union.

Remember that the Union was industrializing and had an interior communications system made up of a good sized railroad network. The English/French forces would have to transport an army of 200,000 or so, over the Atlantic and would have to keep them supplied.

Also remember that a naval revolution had just occured with the Monitor and Merrimac. Any attempt at blockading the Union would have meant having to use wooden ships up against union ironclads.

My thesis said that if, and thats a might big if, enough forces could be sent to Canada, they would only be strong enough to fight to a draw with the eastern seaboard troops (because of the ineptness of the Union generals in the east). However, Union forces from the midwest and west would maul any European forces around the Great Lakes. I said that Canada would fall to the Union simply because of the logistics.

Fortunatly, President Lincoln saw the issue at hand was to fight the rebs, and not Britain. Plus the British govt didnt want a repeat of the War of 1812 where privateers tore up the commerce fleet. 

It was also great timing where President Lincoln issued his emancipation proclamation after the battle of Antietam in late 1862. Once the war was defined politically as a fight to end slavery, then there was no way the British or French govts could actively intervene on the side of the confederacy.


----------



## plan_D (Dec 26, 2005)

Are you honestly trying to state that the Union could fend off the Royal Navy and the French Navy? Then state that the Union could fight, effectively, three countries at once? One of which being the most powerful nation in the world? 

If Britain can manage to supply forces all over the planet, in the farthest reaches of it's Empire. I'm pretty sure it could repeat the performance of 1812 logistically. 

You seem to be forgetting that the Royal Navy still was the largest, and most powerful navy on the planet. Any commercial vessels going to or from the United States would vanish beneath the waves. The Royal Navy could have easily lifted the Union blockade of the Southern States - and most likely would have used the South as a supply base. 

On top of that, both France and Britain could have just sent over the manpower to join the Confederacy. I know you're all patriotic - so much so ...you blatantly lie about Budweiser being a good beer ... but you cannot honestly say that the Union could have defeated Britain, France and the Confederacy.

I forgot to mention, concerning the Union ironclads - have you never heard of HMS Warrior - 1861? Research it.







There's a picture of it, for you.


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 26, 2005)

plan_D said:


> ..... ...you blatantly lie about Budweiser being a good beer ... but you cannot honestly say that the Union could have defeated Britain, France and the Confederacy......



Come on now, arguing about beers was for fun and jest.

The Union navy could not have defeated the royal navy in the long run, but would have inflicted punishing damage and loss's. All the Union ironclads had to do was sail a few hundred miles to the confederate ports and take on any foreign navies. 

And unlike the royal navy, which was a beaurocracy that wasnt known for moving quickly, the Union navy was being built from scratch using ironclad warships as its heart. The loss's of the three wooden ships to the Merrimack made a deep impression on the Union naval commanders, and they learned the bitter truths from defeat.

You have to look at a the logistics of the civil war to see the Union was going to win. No matter how much help the Brits or French could help the confederates, the end result would still be a union victory. You add troops to the confederacy, the union gets troops from the border states that would be offended by foreign troops on American soil. 

In any scenario, you pose, I can counter that the superior logistics and communications of the Union would more than cancel out any hypothetical force you could muster. For instance, a dozen cannon cast in Pennsylvania could be readied and shipped to any location in the north within a few days. You would need three weeks to do the same to cast a cannon in England and ship it to a Candian port and then hope it can get to where its was needed.

As I said, the Union armies of the eastern seaboard were ineptly commanded and although more than able to stop an English/French invasion coming south from Canada, wouldnt have been able to invade northwards. However, the Union army in the west (Army of the Cumberland/Ohio) was an army that could have decisevely defeated any European army in its path. 

In the end, my scenario was that Union forces were strong enough to defeat any confederate invasion into the north, while enough forces in the west would have invaded Canada through the Great Lakes and flanked your armies. The most you Britain could spare was 100,000. The Union was more than capable to raise more than that number.


----------



## plan_D (Dec 26, 2005)

I was hardly bringing the beer up as a serious point, sys. 

The Union Navy wouldn't have been able to handle itself in any situation against an obviously superior Royal Navy that was then building all it's ships as Ironclads, which were superior in design to anything from the North American continent. 

The Royal Navy couldn't be slow - for the simple reason that it had to protect an the Empire. Once war had been declared, the Royal Navy would be on the spot in the double quick time. That was the whole purpose of the navy, it was the mobile fire brigade of the Empire. 

You seem to be forgetting, while mentioning logistics, that Britain in 1812 managed to combat both the U.S and Napoleon. While, I admit, that fighting over in North America would be hard on the supply system of the British forces - previous wars in the same situation that Britain managed to wage prove that, once again, Britain would be able to wage effective war in the same situation. 

You make out as if the European armies of the late 19th Century were a laughable rag-tag bunch of school children playing soldiers, sys. These were not ill-trained men, these would be fighting soldiers of the two great world powers. Both of which probably still contained seasoned veterans of the Crimean War - which you only need to look at to see how well British troops fought. 

Numbers do not always win wars, sys. And what Generals have Britain given to lead the armies? Blind, disabled ferrets? You make the destruction of armies sound so simple. Any attempt by Union forces to move into Canada would most likely be a follow up of the War of 1812 - only in the 1860s, there's France fighting alongside Great Britain. 

You're talking of a situation where the Union is surrounded by the Confederates, United Kingdom and France. The Union Navy is out-gunned by the Royal Navy alone, let alone the combined fleet of the English and French navies. 

You say Britain can only spare 100,000? May I ask where this figure popped up from? And what of France, who had at least double the population of Great Britain in the 19th Century...


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 26, 2005)

plan_D said:


> The Union Navy wouldn't have been able to handle itself in any situation against an obviously superior Royal Navy that was then building all it's ships as Ironclads, which were superior in design to anything from the North American continent.



The Union navy was building monitors with turrets and very low profile. They werent the most seaworthy of ships, but only slight modifications were needed to at least get them out of port on stormy days and go hunting for your ships. Quite simply, they would have been well below your gun's field of fire.



plan_D said:


> The Royal Navy couldn't be slow - for the simple reason that it had to protect an the Empire. Once war had been declared, the Royal Navy would be on the spot in the double quick time. That was the whole purpose of the navy, it was the mobile fire brigade of the Empire.



The royal navy was just like most navies in having a vast fleet that was out of date. Key point is on how many iron clads were available. And of course you just admitted that your fleet was deployed world wide. How many months untill you could concentrate them into the Atlantic and not worry about the Indian Ocean, the Med and the Pacific from privateers?



plan_D said:


> You seem to be forgetting, while mentioning logistics, that Britain in 1812 managed to combat both the U.S and Napoleon. While, I admit, that fighting over in North America would be hard on the supply system of the British forces - previous wars in the same situation that Britain managed to wage prove that, once again, Britain would be able to wage effective war in the same situation.



We are talking about 1862, which was nearly 50 years after the end of the War of 1812. In those 50 years, the US has grown far more powerfull relative to you. Remember, you would have to be suppling a huge army across an ocean against an opponant that was your equal, fighting with interior lines of contiental communications.



plan_D said:


> You make out as if the European armies of the late 19th Century were a laughable rag-tag bunch of school children playing soldiers, sys. These were not ill-trained men, these would be fighting soldiers of the two great world powers. Both of which probably still contained seasoned veterans of the Crimean War - which you only need to look at to see how well British troops fought.



The Crimean War was not a high point in English Warfare. In fact, a war in North America would be totally unlike one that the RA had fought in its recent memory. 



plan_D said:


> Numbers do not always win wars, sys. And what Generals have Britain given to lead the armies? Blind, disabled ferrets? You make the destruction of armies sound so simple. Any attempt by Union forces to move into Canada would most likely be a follow up of the War of 1812 - only in the 1860s, there's France fighting alongside Great Britain.



Dont rely on the French at this time period. Remember, they couldnt even beat the Mexican peasant army in 1867. And did you realize that the US civil War was rapidly becoming the first industrial war in history? I dont think you have ever read accounts on how the Union and Confederate armies in the west fought. Totally unlike anything the RA would have seen. These were frontiersman with just enough discipline to fight as savagely as needed plus plenty of self reliance to be their own engineers.

Just out of numbers, the Union forces would have won. 1812 was a half century ago. Things had changed since then. By the way, you are aware that the finest generals of the war (for the union) were commanding the western forces?



plan_D said:


> You're talking of a situation where the Union is surrounded by the Confederates, United Kingdom and France. The Union Navy is out-gunned by the Royal Navy alone, let alone the combined fleet of the English and French navies.



You forget to factor in the huge population of the Union, which would be fighting on its own ground, with a war economy picking up steam, with a top notch railroad system to move things around, with a large number of southern troops who would rally to the union because of british (and french) troops on American soil. And the Union navy of ironclad warships is just beginning to get deployed, who in the past proved perfectly capable of bloodying the nose of the RN.



plan_D said:


> You say Britain can only spare 100,000? May I ask where this figure popped up from? And what of France, who had at least double the population of Great Britain in the 19th Century...



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trent_Affair And it doesnt matter if France had so many people. The issue is how many troops could they transport and SUPPLY. And besides, you still had an empire to maintain, which is labor intensive.


----------



## plan_D (Dec 26, 2005)

The Royal Navy was more advanced than any other navy of the day, it was large and advanced. Lessons learnt in the Crimean had already paved way for armoured ships, and the first fully iron vessel - the HMS Warrior was so much more advanced than anything the U.S had. 

Since when was the Royal Navy out of date in the 1860s? It was far from out of date, and it was still the most powerful navy on the planet. It wouldn't need to concentrate all it's forces into the Atlantic. The Union Navy wasn't capable enough to combat the Royal Navy in open conflict - a war of attrition or desicive conflict would be everything the union navy would want to avoid. 

The U.S was not the equal of Britain - the U.S wasn't even considered a world power until 1918. There's also a civil war going on in the U.S...the world may have changed, but the supply situation is exactly the same - only now the ships are faster. 

The Crimean War was a high point for the individual soldier - there were logistical mistakes but not something that was dealt with. It, after all, was a victory against one the largest opponents on the planet. 

The British forces had seen it all - the Union wouldn't provide anything new for them. It seems to me that you need to study the military history of Great Britain in more detail before putting down the skill and prowess of the Red Coats in combat. Savage? Fighting Africans and Indians is enough to encounter a savage opponent. 

Read some of the accounts of the Crimean from the Charge of the Light Brigade, to the Thin Red Line ... those soldiers are the kind of soldiers the Union would have to face. There's nothing that the British Army would find difficulty with in combat...the Crimean was only a few years previous - and lots of lessons for a more modern warfare had been learnt. Britain understood the importance of railways for supply - after all we did lay our own in Crimea. 

The supply system of that distance had been overcome 50 years ago, the political climate might have changed but the Atlantic didn't get any bigger. 

Now, here's a factor I left out - which your source has provided, Canadian manpower;

_"The British colony of Canada felt directly threatened by the affair. The Canadian militia grew substantially as the Canadas and Maritime colonies were called on by the colonial Minister of Militia and Defence, John A. Macdonald (a future Father of Confederation and later the first Prime Minister of Canada), to increase their active militia from 50,000 men to 100,000. The colony of Nova Scotia alone trained and armed 45,000 men. Britain and the Southern states had close economic links because of their mutual involvement in the cotton trade."_

That is 100,000 militamen for Britain from Canada. 

_"These would have made approximately three runs each by the time campaigning season started in March and thus raise British regular fighting strength in the Americas to approximately 50,000 (there were approximately 100,000 troops available for deployment to the Americas). Both the US and British government estimates that the maximum number of US troops available for service against Canada was 50,000. Due to the US capitulation while the first wave of reinforcement troops were still at sea, no further reinforcements were sent."_

And from this, it's quite clear that the U.S forces sent against British forces in Canada would be out-numbered 2-1. And that's not including any French forces. 

If Britian had 100,000 soldiers to spare, that's to spare ...ready to ship to America. The Empire would still be covered. And France has more people, with less of an Empire. 

Just look at the ships ready to combat the Union Navy straight away;

_"Admiral Milnes North America and West Indies Squadron already had 9 Steam Battleships, 7 Cruisers and the Ironclad HMS Terror. The British Channel Fleet concentated at Lisbon, Portugal, with the massive ironclads Warrior, Black Prince, Defence, and Resistance, in addition to many wooden steamships, including the flagship, HMS Queen."_

Notice the inclusion of Ironclads in the list - the Royal Navy was *not* out of date. It was the most advanced navy on the planet!

_"...the Warrior around a unique combination of steam power, an armoured iron hull and a screw propeller, a combination that resulted in a ship faster, larger and more powerful than any other of her day."_

These are the words for the HMS Warrior - would that be a ship of an "out-of-date" navy?

It seems to me you believe that American troops were better than the British soldiers of the day - obviously forgetting that most modern armies of the day would base themselves off British principles with cultural adaptations. Anyway;

_"The British never entered the war as a nation, but many individuals served in both armies, most of them in the Confederate Army. There were never many of them but they were noted for their previous military service and often became leaders. One member of a Union unit wrote home:

*The Corporal of our detachment is an Englishman and celebrates today as the anniversary of 'Inkerman' and wears his medals on his jacket, including the Victoria Cross with silver bars, possibly the greatest honour an Englishman can earn. He was Sergeant Major in the Rifle Brigade and I can assure you he is by far the best soldier in our company. I find it worthy of mention that there are about 20 Englishmen in our Company (about a fifth) and although we are small in proportion, every Sergeant is English excepting the Quartermaster Sergeant who is Scots.*

British nationals in the Union Army won 67 Congressional Medals of Honor4 during the Civil War. Many who fought for the Confederacy were undocumented, but a number of senior officers were British. As ever in fields of battle, there was a generous representation from Ireland, including General Patrick Cleburne of the Confederate Army, born in Cork, commanding a division in the Army of Tennessee. He too had served in the British Army, the 41st Regiment of Foot, in which he reached the rank of Corporal."_


----------



## Nonskimmer (Dec 26, 2005)

Excellent post, D. 
All of it bang on.


----------



## pbfoot (Dec 26, 2005)

In fact in late 1865 til 1866 the newly found IRB or Irish Republican Brotherhood later to become IRA decided to invade Canada from the south with troops of Irish extraction most of who had served with the american forces in Civil War they recieved the blessing of then president Andrew Jackson there was only one battle it was fought locally called the Battle of Ridgeway casualties were modest mostly from the Queens Own Rifles of Canada the "invasion" turned into a debacle but was a key motive for the confederation of Canada in 1867


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 26, 2005)

plan_D said:


> The Royal Navy was more advanced than any other navy of the day, it was large and advanced. Lessons learnt in the Crimean had already paved way for armoured ships, and the first fully iron vessel - the HMS Warrior was so much more advanced than anything the U.S had.



....her coal capacity of 850 tons was insufficient alone for extended cruising. I would suspect she would have been incapable of extended blockade duty


> Since when was the Royal Navy out of date in the 1860s? It was far from out of date, and it was still the most powerful navy on the planet. It wouldn't need to concentrate all it's forces into the Atlantic. The Union Navy wasn't capable enough to combat the Royal Navy in open conflict - a war of attrition or desicive conflict would be everything the union navy would want to avoid.



The RN had an empire to protect. The US didnt. You had to deploy your forces in many area's. Plus, once hostilities commenced, the US had plenty of naval capacity to build and man brand new ironclads and monitors to do battle with. Remember, this was not going to be a repeat of 1812 in which we only had a dozen or so first rate warships. And as events rapidly unfolded in 1862 and 1863, the technology shift in naval architecture was as swift as the introduction of the jet fighters in 1944.



> The U.S was not the equal of Britain - the U.S wasn't even considered a world power until 1918. There's also a civil war going on in the U.S...the world may have changed, but the supply situation is exactly the same - only now the ships are faster.



Correct and incorrect. The US didnt have a standing army and navy the equal as Britain, but the Union had the industrial and manpower capacity to quickly arm and catch up. You seem to be forgetting that the US civil war was also the first industrial war in which industrial and transport resources were ever more critical. And it still doesnt matter on the ammount f time to move men and supplies to Canada. The US rail system could transport whole armies and supplies from the Mississippi river in the west to anywhere on the Atlantic seaboard within days.



> The Crimean War was a high point for the individual soldier - there were logistical mistakes but not something that was dealt with. It, after all, was a victory against one the largest opponents on the planet.



It was small potato's compared to the battles that were about to be fought in North America. 



> The British forces had seen it all - the Union wouldn't provide anything new for them. It seems to me that you need to study the military history of Great Britain in more detail before putting down the skill and prowess of the Red Coats in combat. Savage? Fighting Africans and Indians is enough to encounter a savage opponent.



The RA had never fought against the Union armies made up of the soldiers from the western states. Even the confederate armies had the same charchteristics. If there was one common element that was shared from the foot soldier up, it was no nonsense, lets fight and above all, be mobile. It was improvise as we go, and throw out the book while doing it. 



> ....The supply system of that distance had been overcome 50 years ago, the political climate might have changed but the Atlantic didn't get any bigger....



Like I said, the the railroad system of the Union could move whole armies about within days while the RN (if they could) move a similar size force around in months.

[/quote] And from this, it's quite clear that the U.S forces sent against British forces in Canada would be out-numbered 2-1. And that's not including any French forces. [/quote]

The Union states, (minus the western territories) had an approx population in 1860 of 20 million. Canada had a population in 1860 of about 3 million. In the long run, the Union could field more troops than the empire could send to and supply to Canada.

[/quote] If Britian had 100,000 soldiers to spare, that's to spare ...ready to ship to America. The Empire would still be covered. And France has more people, with less of an Empire. [/quote]

Once the other European nations (France included) saw your country begin to ship more and more troops to Canada, they sure would begin to cause trouble for you around the globe. You had to keep troops and ships deployed in the colonies to keep the status quo.



> Just look at the ships ready to combat the Union Navy straight away



An impressive list that would be matched by a Union ship biulding program. Remember, for the Union to win, all they have to do is blockade the southern ports and keep the northern ports open. They could do this as they would be fighting from home. Your ships would be fighting from far away from home.



> It seems to me you believe that American troops were better than the British soldiers of the day - obviously forgetting that most modern armies of the day would base themselves off British principles with cultural adaptations. Anyway;



Events were soon to prove that the "way" of doing battle was not going to last long. 



> The British never entered the war as a nation, but many individuals served in both armies, most of them in the Confederate Army. There were never many of them but they were noted for their previous military service and often became leaders.



Just goes to prove that the mavericks in the RA who chaffed under your system could prosper under the Union/Confederate system of doing things.


I would suppose that if anything, hostilities would not break out sooner than April 1862. By then the Union had two solid armies in the field and could invade Canada from two directions.


----------



## Glider (Dec 26, 2005)

Syscom. The main thrust of your argument is that the USA could build modern warships faster than the UK. I say this as your awnser to most points is that USA had the industrial capacity to rearm and equip quickly.
I think you are badly underestimating the ability and capacity of the UK to rearm and rebuild,
When we launched the Dreadnought it without question made every other capital ship in the world obsolete at a stroke, ours as well as anyone els's. Every country that wanted to match us could start with a level playing field. However it didn't happen. It didn't happen as the UK built more and better modern warships than the rest of the world put together and in most countries (incl USA) the ships that were built were lacking some of the major improvements. 
There is no way that a Union building programee could match the British building capacity. Its like claiming that the K in WW2 could match the production capacity of the USA, it just wasn't possible.

If we could do this in the 1900's when our lead was less than in the period you are talking about, why couldn't we do it then. The USA built monitors and ironclads. The RN didn't build any Monitors as they were a flawed design for any Navy intending to leave coastal waters.

As for the logistics of any army or campaign, the one thing the British armed forces could do was live without railroads and use them where they existed.


----------



## plan_D (Dec 26, 2005)

The HMS Warrior had sails to share the burden of travel, it could cruise. It would also be able to destroy any Union ship with ease. It's weaponary, speed and armour were much more advanced than anything the Union had. And this wasn't the only Ironclad that the Royal Navy had, nor had they stopped building Ironclads. In the 1860s a naval arms race developed in Europe, and it was a race that the Royal Navy led from start to finish. 

The Royal Navy had been dealing with trouble spots, several at once, for centuries. There were already British ships stationed in the Americas, the Royal Navy was split into fleets for areas of protection and then reserve fleets in any trouble areas. The British would easily lift the Union blockade of Southern ports, operating out of the Caribbean they'd smash any Union ship out of the water and pile drive their way through. 
Blockade runners had been operating throughout the American Civil War - and the Union blockade only stopped 18% of the British vessels racing through. So much of a failure to stop arms imports that the British called it a paper blockade. 

You remember that the Royal Navy was the largest, best trained, and most advanced navy on the planet - by a long shot. 

The industry of the U.S wasn't able to catch up to Britain in double quick time. Britain had the industry, had the manpower, had the standing army and had the navy - which were all superior to the U.S. It took the Union years to defeat the Confederates - and they just wouldn't have defeated Britain. You seem to be forgetting that Britain started the industrial revolution - and that Britain knew all about the railway for supply, we had used one (actually built it when we got there) in Crimea. But British troops could also live without one, we'd done so before and we'd do so again. As long as the British Army was supplied enough to fight, it'd win. And there was no way the Union could stop the supply. Sure, with a railway at their back the Union might have more supplies - but an abundance of supply doesn't create victory on the field of battle. 

And you don't think British generals were capable enough to step up centuries of experience to the larger scale? You seem to think that Britain was incapable of waging war. You are thinking of the Britain that conquered one third of the world, right?

Well, if you didn't notice, a lot of NCOs in both American armies were British! The British Army was a disciplined, brave and destructive killing machine. It could live off the land, it was mobile and it was talented. 

Canada had a standing militia of 50,000 troops, it was training up to 100,000. Nova Scotia alone trained 45,000 militia, all of which were armed. That's an army of 100,000 straight away. Combined with another 100,000 _standing army_ soldiers from Britain. And about another 100,000 from France. So, that's 200,000 _standing army_ soldiers and 100,000 militia-men against the 50,000 men that the Union had to spare against Canada. The U.S might have had more population - but it's a case of arming and training them first.

Britain and France were on relative good terms, and France had already threatened war against the Union at the exact time that Britain did. They'd already been in a war together, and knew a strong alliance would create a stronger position in the world. Spain was no threat. Russia was reeling from Crimea. In fact, no European power would have been a problem. And any garrison troops in the far reaches of the Empire would still be there. 

Building a ship takes time, the Royal Navy had those ships in the Caribbean - ready for instant action. Lifting the blockade of Southern ports would be easy, all too easy in fact. 

What way was that, sys? The way that Britain kept winning? You do realise that Britain had used trenches in the Crimea?! (If that's what you're talking about)

No, it just proves that the American armies were better off with British troops commanding them. Because these men were experienced combat soldiers with a clue about war. I'd hardly consider a man with a VC a failure in the British system - it is, after all, the highest honour for a British military man. Only the American armies had a few of these people, the British Army was full of them. 

By April 1862, France, Canada and Britain all had at least 100,000 man armies each. Britain and Frances armies are better trained, better equipped and more experienced than anything the Union could field.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Dec 26, 2005)

I find it strange syscom how you seem to only sometimes be ready to accept the hypothetical. It doesn't _always_ seem to be the case.


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 26, 2005)

Nonskimmer said:


> I find it strange syscom how you seem to only sometimes be ready to accept the hypothetical. It doesn't _always_ seem to be the case.



I accept the hypothetical when it's a possible conclusion, supported by facts.

"the RN would have sunk every ship the union had" is a hypothesis without fact.

"the union was capable of matching the RN in ironclads and inflicting punishment back" is a hypothesis that does have a basis in fact.


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 26, 2005)

Glider said:


> Syscom. The main thrust of your argument is that the USA could build modern warships faster than the UK. I say this as your awnser to most points is that USA had the industrial capacity to rearm and equip quickly.



I didnt think the Union had the capacity in the short term to match you ship for ship. But given enough time, we could have matched your production. Remember, we only had to build ships to operate off of North America, you had an empire to protect.



> ....... Dreadnought it without question made every other capital ship in the world obsolete at a stroke, ours as well as anyone els's. ......



Wasnt the Dreadnought built in 1906, 51 years after the end of the civil war? 



> There is no way that a Union building programee could match the British building capacity. Its like claiming that the K in WW2 could match the production capacity of the USA, it just wasn't possible.



The Union had the shipyards, the iron mills and the coal fields to build what was needed.



> If we could do this in the 1900's when our lead was less than in the period you are talking about, why couldn't we do it then. The USA built monitors and ironclads. The RN didn't build any Monitors as they were a flawed design for any Navy intending to leave coastal waters.



I should have made it more clear, that the monitors were perfect to bottle up ports, not to go out into the deep sea.



> As for the logistics of any army or campaign, the one thing the British armed forces could do was live without railroads and use them where they existed.



All the combatants were about to learn about the ever increasing role of logistics in this first of the big wars of the industrial age. One of the key reasons the Confederacy lost the war was its lack of railroads. The RA without railroad support would find itself on a short leash compared to the Union armies that could be transported around the country at will.


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 26, 2005)

> The HMS Warrior had sails to share the burden of travel, it could cruise. It would also be able to destroy any Union ship with ease. It's weaponary, speed and armour were much more advanced than anything the Union had. And this wasn't the only Ironclad that the Royal Navy had, nor had they stopped building Ironclads. In the 1860s a naval arms race developed in Europe, and it was a race that the Royal Navy led from start to finish.



It was a big ship that had a vulnerable rudder and wasnt known for maneuverability. The skippers of the Union were not idiots and wouldnt have tried to fight it to its strengths.



> The Royal Navy had been dealing with trouble spots, several at once, for centuries. There were already British ships stationed in the Americas, the Royal Navy was split into fleets for areas of protection and then reserve fleets in any trouble areas. The British would easily lift the Union blockade of Southern ports, operating out of the Caribbean they'd smash any Union ship out of the water and pile drive their way through.
> Blockade runners had been operating throughout the American Civil War - and the Union blockade only stopped 18% of the British vessels racing through. So much of a failure to stop arms imports that the British called it a paper blockade.



The RN would have been in the largest fights it had been in since the war of 1812. Just dealing with the Union monitors in the coastal area's would have given you a handfull to deal with. Not to mention the hundreds of privateers (many from nations who had zero love of John Bull) would have spread your navy razor thin throughout the globe.



> You remember that the Royal Navy was the largest, best trained, and most advanced navy on the planet - by a long shot.



Famous last words. Eight decades after the civil war ended, both the US and UK thought the same thing about the IJN. By the way, you ever hear of the USS Constitution and how it humbled the RN many many times?



> The industry of the U.S wasn't able to catch up to Britain in double quick time. Britain had the industry, had the manpower, had the standing army and had the navy - which were all superior to the U.S.



By 1863 the most powerfull armies in the world were in the Union and Confederacy. Those were the armies that were fighting the modern battles with the modern weapons. 



> It took the Union years to defeat the Confederates - and they just wouldn't have defeated Britain.



It took the Union three and a half years to effectively beat the Confederates. Not bad considering it was a fight to the finish on a contiental scale. 



> You seem to be forgetting that Britain started the industrial revolution - and that Britain knew all about the railway for supply, we had used one (actually built it when we got there) in Crimea.



That was then, "this is now". 



> But British troops could also live without one, we'd done so before and we'd do so again. As long as the British Army was supplied enough to fight, it'd win.



You would need a very large army, being supplied from its factories three weeks away, on a supply line that could be interupted.



> And there was no way the Union could stop the supply. Sure, with a railway at their back the Union might have more supplies - but an abundance of supply doesn't create victory on the field of battle.



Privateers could disrupt the supplies. An abundance of supply increases the effectiveness of an army. And if the hypothetical war in Canada ended up a slugging match of attrition, the side who is supplied best is the one who will probably win.



> And you don't think British generals were capable enough to step up centuries of experience to the larger scale? You seem to think that Britain was incapable of waging war. You are thinking of the Britain that conquered one third of the world, right?



Im saying that the logistics of equiping the size of an army that would have been needed to be sent to Canada would have limited its effectiveness. The Union had neither the manpower nor logistics issues you would have to deal with. And conquoring all those colonies wasnt that difficult as you were a century ahead of them in technology.



> Well, if you didn't notice, a lot of NCOs in both American armies were British! The British Army was a disciplined, brave and destructive killing machine. It could live off the land, it was mobile and it was talented.



These were some RA NCO's in the Union army. But there werent that many at all. And I dont believe an RA army was ever cut loose to live off the land like Gen Grant and Sherman did in the Vicksburg campaign in 1863 or the March through Georgia in 1864.



> Canada had a standing militia of 50,000 troops, it was training up to 100,000. Nova Scotia alone trained 45,000 militia, all of which were armed. That's an army of 100,000 straight away. Combined with another 100,000 _standing army_ soldiers from Britain. And about another 100,000 from France. So, that's 200,000 _standing army_ soldiers and 100,000 militia-men against the 50,000 men that the Union had to spare against Canada. The U.S might have had more population - but it's a case of arming and training them first.



The Union would have been able to raise and support and army of 500,000. The Canadians would have been able to support their army of 100,000. But all those troops from Europe would need to be supplied. Thats a problem for you. Plus the Union had a secret weapon...... thousands of Irishman who would have plenty of motivation to settle scores with the RA. 25,000 angry Irishman = 100,000 Brits!



> Britain and France were on relative good terms, and France had already threatened war against the Union at the exact time that Britain did. They'd already been in a war together, and knew a strong alliance would create a stronger position in the world. Spain was no threat. Russia was reeling from Crimea. In fact, no European power would have been a problem. And any garrison troops in the far reaches of the Empire would still be there.



There you ago, another anglo-french war of alliance. The Union wins by default over this because of the inevitable paralysis your command will have. For every anglo-french soldier recruited to fight in Canda, would be offset by someone somewhere wanting to settle a score with Britania.



> Lifting the blockade of Southern ports would be easy, all too easy in fact.



The monitors would have turned your wooden ships away with no problem. And if you brought out ironclads, well the mines would do them in. Note, this hypothetical war would not have started any sooner than April 1862. Plenty of time for the Union to be ready.



> What way was that, sys? The way that Britain kept winning? You do realise that Britain had used trenches in the Crimea?! (If that's what you're talking about)



Speaking of the Crimean War, its actually famous for the RA inefficencies, blunders and mismangement. Its a classic case of the side that blunders the least wins the war. If you were to fight this Canadian war like you fought the Crimea, then the Union would have no problems.



> No, it just proves that the American armies were better off with British troops commanding them. Because these men were experienced combat soldiers with a clue about war. I'd hardly consider a man with a VC a failure in the British system - it is, after all, the highest honour for a British military man. Only the American armies had a few of these people, the British Army was full of them.



STOP THE PRESS'S!!!!!!!!!!!! NEWLY MENTIONED INFORMATION INDICATES THAT THE UNION ARMIES WERE ACTUALLY LED BY BRITS!!!!!!!! heheheheheh. In all actuality, as in every army in battle. Some natural born leaders rise to the occasion and some highly trained officers fall flat on their faces. By the way, did it ever occur to you that many of the middle level officers at the start of the war were veterans of the Mexican-American war and the indian wars? Hmmm..... I thought not.



> By April 1862, France, Canada and Britain all had at least 100,000 man armies each. Britain and Frances armies are better trained, better equipped and more experienced than anything the Union could field.



Point taken. You could field 300,000 against a probable combined Union army of the same strength. But we had a better logistical situation than you.


----------



## plan_D (Dec 26, 2005)

_"It was a big ship that had a vulnerable rudder and wasnt known for maneuverability. The skippers of the Union were not idiots and wouldnt have tried to fight it to its strengths."_

So, in other words, the Union vessels would run away because they couldn't hope to defeat the HMS Warrior. That's no good when you're trying to blockade Confederate ports. Even without Royal Navy military vessels, the Union blockade only achieved an 18% block on arms imports. That's not very impressive, in fact that's extremely poor. 

_"The RN would have been in the largest fights it had been in since the war of 1812. Just dealing with the Union monitors in the coastal area's would have given you a handfull to deal with. Not to mention the hundreds of privateers (many from nations who had zero love of John Bull) would have spread your navy razor thin throughout the globe. "_

Privateers are no new threat to the Royal Navy, they're something Britain had been dealing with for centuries. It's simple enough to escort the major supply convoys and troop transports. I'd like to see Privateers take on a convoy escorted by one half of the Channel fleet in 1861. 

_"Famous last words. Eight decades after the civil war ended, both the US and UK thought the same thing about the IJN."_

Too bad for you, it's a fact that the Royal Navy was more advanced and considerably larger than the Union navy though. I only have to mention the likes of HMS Warrior, and HMS Black Prince to point out the advanced nature of the Royal Navy. And the size doesn't even need mentioning. 

_"By the way, you ever hear of the USS Constitution and how it humbled the RN many many times?"_

I'd hardly consider the destruction of eight vessels, four of which were military vessels (three frigates and a sloop) humbling the Royal Navy. The Constitution was a larger than normal frigate, and while impressive was still not comparable to the Ships of the Line that the Royal Navy could have brought to bare. It almost got trashed at the start of the War of 1812 anyway. Several times it was blockaded or put out of action for months at a time. 

So, one ship causing some irritation for the Royal Navy, 50 years previous, is your argument that the Union Navy was on par with the Royal Navy?

_"By 1863 the most powerfull armies in the world were in the Union and Confederacy. Those were the armies that were fighting the modern battles with the modern weapons."_ 

The British Army was better trained than both the Union and Confederacy, both of which were largely made up of militia men thrown into uniform. 

You keep mentioning the American Civil War being "modern" but you fail to point how it being "modern" would hamper British military efforts, when all that happened in the American Civil War - the British Army had done before. 

And the modern weapons, were mostly European! The P1853 "Enfield" (English) was second only to the Springfield in popularity, the Whitworth rifle used by the Confederates was the rifle that killed General Sedgewick and the Austrian Model 1854 was the second most used rifle by the Confederates. In fact, the Whitworth was prefered by the Southern Armies over any American made rifle. 

The most common artillery piece of the war, the Model 1857 Howitzer (Napoleon) was a French design. The Whitworth Breech Loading Cannon used by the Confederate Armies was British. The Armstrong rifled cannon, was English, (Sir William George Armstrong) both sides imported this remarkable design, then built it in America. The Blakely, designed by Captain Alexander Blakely, was English! 

So, in conclusion, these modern weapons that America was using - were mostly of European origin. 

_"It took the Union three and a half years to effectively beat the Confederates. Not bad considering it was a fight to the finish on a contiental scale."_

The vast majority of the fighting took place on the East Coast, in Virginia, that's hardly a continental style conflict. 

_"You would need a very large army, being supplied from its factories three weeks away, on a supply line that could be interupted."_

Britain would need an army of around 70,000, combined with a French army of 100,000 and a Canadian militia of 100,000. The U.S on a whole was made up of green, poorly trained militia men in uniform. The U.S had an 'army' of 17,000 prior to the American Civil War. 

A constant supply line across the Atlantic would have been maintained. The Union had no way of interuppting it, any sea-faring vessels they did have were target practice for the Royal Navy. 

_"Privateers could disrupt the supplies. An abundance of supply increases the effectiveness of an army. And if the hypothetical war in Canada ended up a slugging match of attrition, the side who is supplied best is the one who will probably win. "_

You're putting a lot of the Union's efforts into Privateers - it's not like the Royal Navy has never encountered them before. And the odds are, with France involved the French Navy would also be roaming. 

In a war of attrition, you must be able to lower the enemy supply while increasing yours. If the enemy has adequete supply, then it doesn't matter how much you have. The Union would have to cut off British supply, and they're not going to do that because they can't. 

_"Im saying that the logistics of equiping the size of an army that would have been needed to be sent to Canada would have limited its effectiveness. The Union had neither the manpower nor logistics issues you would have to deal with. And conquoring all those colonies wasnt that difficult as you were a century ahead of them in technology."_

The logisitcal problems had been met fifty years before, there'd be no limit to the effectiveness of the British Army. The British had no manpower problems, and the hypothetical alliance certainly had none. 

Conquering all those colonies, syscom, took more than defeating Africans with spears. England has fought, and beaten, every European power except Portugal at some point or another. 

_"These were some RA NCO's in the Union army. But there werent that many at all. And I dont believe an RA army was ever cut loose to live off the land like Gen Grant and Sherman did in the Vicksburg campaign in 1863 or the March through Georgia in 1864. "_

The fact that both American armies appreciated any English officer, or NCO, in their regiment goes to show that men of the day knew that English soldiers were some of, if not the, best. In the soldiers diary it clearly states that the Englishman is the best soldier they have!

Which century do you want for the English use of the land? 

_"The Union would have been able to raise and support and army of 500,000. The Canadians would have been able to support their army of 100,000. But all those troops from Europe would need to be supplied. Thats a problem for you. Plus the Union had a secret weapon...... thousands of Irishman who would have plenty of motivation to settle scores with the RA. 25,000 angry Irishman = 100,000 Brits!"_

Where's your proof that the Union would be able to maintain an army of 500,000 against Canada? All European armies would have been supported, Britain supported it's armies in Canada in 1812 and it'd do it again in 1860. 

I hope the comment on the Irish was a joke. 25,000 Irishman in a pitched battle against the British Army would be slaughter for the Irish. The British have fought, and destroyed, more "angry" opponents than you can ever imagine. 


_"There you ago, another anglo-french war of alliance. The Union wins by default over this because of the inevitable paralysis your command will have. For every anglo-french soldier recruited to fight in Canda, would be offset by someone somewhere wanting to settle a score with Britania."_

No, the command structure would have been fine. Even if it meant a splitting of the armies. 

Where are these people wanting to settle the score? Which ones are actually a threat? The 100,000 sent to Canada from Britain are spares - who in the world is then going to uprise and defeat Britain? Let me remind you that in 1812, Britain was fighting the U.S.A and Napoleons Empire at the same time. 

_"The monitors would have turned your wooden ships away with no problem. And if you brought out ironclads, well the mines would do them in. Note, this hypothetical war would not have started any sooner than April 1862. Plenty of time for the Union to be ready."_

If it were really this easy to defeat the Royal Navy - how on earth did they reach the top spot!? If the Union couldn't stop even 20% of the British blockade runners, how do you expect them to defeat the Royal Navy in pitched conflict?

_"Speaking of the Crimean War, its actually famous for the RA inefficencies, blunders and mismangement. Its a classic case of the side that blunders the least wins the war. If you were to fight this Canadian war like you fought the Crimea, then the Union would have no problems."_

It is famous for that. But it also contains trench warfare, use of railway and unbelievable soldier actions. The Charge of the Light Brigade was against the wrong artillery battery, but flanked by fire on three sides ...they still managed to destroy what they charged. Is suicidal bravery like that something the militia men of the Union would be able to stand up to?

_"STOP THE PRESS'S!!!!!!!!!!!! NEWLY MENTIONED INFORMATION INDICATES THAT THE UNION ARMIES WERE ACTUALLY LED BY BRITS!!!!!!!! heheheheheh. In all actuality, as in every army in battle. Some natural born leaders rise to the occasion and some highly trained officers fall flat on their faces. By the way, did it ever occur to you that many of the middle level officers at the start of the war were veterans of the Mexican-American war and the indian wars? Hmmm..... I thought not."_

And the British Generals had been through it all before. The vast majority of those that would be sent to America would have seen combat before. The experience of conflict is clearly on Britain's side. 

_"Point taken. You could field 300,000 against a probable combined Union army of the same strength. But we had a better logistical situation than you."_

True, your logistical situation was better but that didn't matter. We had better trained, more experienced soldiers to fight the war with. Plus, those hundreds of thousands of weapons the Union received from British private dealers - would not arrive. How are you going to equip your armies now?


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 27, 2005)

Youre putting your whole case on following points.

1) The "convoys" can all be suddessfully escorted on multiple three week voyages in the North Atlantic in winter.

That sure isnt going to happen as storms would occur, maybe even iceberg flows and the convoys would be scattered. just ripe for privateers.

2) The RN will be victorious in every single engagement with either the USN or a privateer.

The Union navy was just as competant as the RN and would win its share of victories. And all the privateers would have to do is avoid battle with a man 'o war and prey on merchant shipping.

3) The Union would not be able to build ironclads and monitors to break up a RN blockade of the ports.

The Union had extensive shipyards more than capable of building ironclads. Since they would be operating from close to base, they could easily return to safety for repairs and refit, while your ironclads would need to sail hundreds, if not thousands of miles for repairs.

4) The RA had never suffered defeat thus would automatically win. Again, famous last words.

Given that the ineptness of the russian army is what saved your troops from disaster in the Crimea, it is irrational that the same scenario would unfold again.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 27, 2005)

> That sure isnt going to happen as storms would occur, maybe even iceberg flows and the convoys would be scattered



no because the royal navy had never encountered those before, they wouldn't have a clue what to do in the atlantic, given they've never been there before  are you really that dense!



> The Union navy was just as competant as the RN and would win its share of victories



pD has already proved the RN to be superior navy of the day, they had the best sailors and the best ships, and more of both than all other nations



> And all the privateers would have to do is avoid battle with a man 'o war and prey on merchant shipping.



would this be the shipping being escorted by the RN??



> The Union had extensive shipyards more than capable of building ironclads



so did the british, and we'd already started with the advantage in numbers, fact is, we're always going to come out on top in terms of numers, quality and the experience of our sailors......

i'm sorry if i've ruined the flow of your argument by stepping in pD but he's really annoying me


----------



## pbfoot (Dec 27, 2005)

syscom just as interested observer the brits would be able to repair and supply in halifax st johns and the carribean the US navy did not really become a naval power until T Roosevelt for the most part naval warfare during 1812 was in the great lakes a prime example if my memory serves me was perry and don't give up the ship .The canadian maritme fleet was one of the largest at that time


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 28, 2005)

> i'm sorry if i've ruined the flow of your argument by stepping in pD but he's really annoying me



Are you a natural born schm**k or do you need to practice at it every day?

If you dont want to contribute to this otherwise good debate without insulting people, then stay out of it.


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 28, 2005)

pbfoot said:


> syscom just as interested observer the brits would be able to repair and supply in halifax st johns and the carribean the US navy did not really become a naval power until T Roosevelt for the most part naval warfare during 1812 was in the great lakes a prime example if my memory serves me was perry and don't give up the ship .The canadian maritme fleet was one of the largest at that time



I hadnt thought of that so thanks for the info. I did read today about the HMS Warrior being so large, it was kept near the UK for most of its career as the only drydock big enought to service it was in the UK. As soon as I find that info again, I will give you the link. I remember it was an official RN website.

It is true the USN wasnt a global maritime power (warship) untill the Spanish-American war in 1898. Also, the US has long had a huge maritime fleet for commerce. However, the strategy of the USN prior to that was more of a coastal supremecy doctrine, which we could do quite well. If the USN was going to slug it out with the RN far at sea, the USN was going to be destroyed just from attrition. If the RN was going to fight it out within a few sailing days from shore of the Union, it was going to suffer severe loss's.

What would happen in the Great Lakes is anyones guess as above Niagra Falls, only small boats were built and manned.


----------



## plan_D (Dec 28, 2005)

Britain had already proved that they could deliver, and supply, an army in North America. They did it in 1812, and they'll do it again. There's no new threats to the supply shipping and Privateers are old news. The fact of the matter is, Britain did it before and they'll do it again. 

The Union Navy wasn't comparable to the Royal Navy, in any aspect. Any pitched conflict between the Union Navy and Royal Navy would be disaster for the Union. The Union would have to avoid any Royal Navy fleet, and that alone has broken down the Union blockade of the South. 

The Union Navy wouldn't be able to build enough vessels to be on par with the Royal Navy, no. The Royal Navy wouldn't need to act in coastal waters if blockading the Union ports. Not all blockades are close blockades. 
Even then, a blockade of the North wasn't really needed. The hundreds of thousands of weapons that came from Europe to the Union could have been stopped in Europe. The vast majority of the weapons used in the American Civil War were European - and a lot of those were British. The British private dealers would be stopped from selling to the Union - thus, the weapons the Union did have in the real American Civil War wouldn't be there in this hypothetical war. 

In Crimea the Russian Army held advantages in terrain in every conflict, and massive advantages they were too. Situations in the Crimea did pave way for remarkable bravery and tactical genius from the British Army - and it's likely that they would unfold in North America. 

The Union would be under-equipped, out-numbered and out-matched on the field of battle. 

You are right about the HMS Warrior, the only dry dock able to take it is in Portsmouth. However, this is for extensive repairs. And the Warrior actually made a voyage to the Bahamas during it's career. But, I was never basing the Royal Navy Ironclads on the HMS Warrior.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 28, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> > i'm sorry if i've ruined the flow of your argument by stepping in pD but he's really annoying me
> 
> 
> 
> ...



that's a little uncalled for isn't it, i did contribute to the argument and that comment wasn't even adressing you.........


----------



## Nonskimmer (Dec 28, 2005)

Agreed lanc, that was rather uncalled for. Relax syscom, it's an open conversation and lanc's comments were completely valid.


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 28, 2005)

Lancs comments about me annoying him is valid? Hah.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Dec 28, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> Lancs comments about me annoying him is valid? Hah.



So he found you to be "annoying". Get over it. I know you've got thicker skin than that. Let's try to dazzle each other with our insights and not resort to name calling. 

Move along everyone.


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 28, 2005)

He is annoying me


----------



## Nonskimmer (Dec 28, 2005)

Fine, fine, _now_ can we all please move along?


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 28, 2005)

I would presume this hypothetical war would unfold as following:

1) British reinforcements begin in earnest in Nov 1861

2) Naval hostilities would breakout in Dec 1861.

3) No land operations by the RA untill April 1862 at the earliest due to the spring muds and Union interceptions of some of the reinforcements.

4) No land operations by the Union untill May 1862 at the earliest, simply because Gen McClennan, commander of the Army of the Potomac was never ready to do anything. His plans to invade Richmond are put on hold and he shifts a good portion of his army northward into Pennsylvania and New York. He figures that if there were any confederate thrust northward, he can easily move troops southward via the rail system already in place.

5) The Army of the Cumberland in the west would continue operations to clear the Ohio river and Mississipi river. Battle of Shilo takes place as it does historically. The Union victory gives Lincoln the excuse to declare the emancipation proclamation, thus stopping the British govt from recognizing the Confederacy.

6) The Army of the Cumberland refits after the battle and consolidates its hold in Kentucky, western Tennessee and Missouri. This army would be available for use around July 1862.

7) Naval wise, the Union begins a crash program in Dec 1861 to build a fleet of iron clads to prevent a RN blockade or attack along the eastern seaboard. The Monitors were on the drawing board, so I wouldnt suspect them to be available in quantity for use untill late spring 1862.

8 ) Industry wise, the shortage of weapons is offset by a priority given to building arsenals for cannon and rifles. These would be online fairly quickly and the armies supplied well before the spring campaign season.

9) I am still thinking about the west coast. Will the Union attack and invade British Columbia?


----------



## Nonskimmer (Dec 28, 2005)

If I may just make a quick FYI. "RA" refers to Royal Artillery, not Royal Army as such. The British Army as a whole has always been called just that: the British Army.

Sorry, it was bugging me a little.


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 28, 2005)

Ok, I will call them the "BA's"


----------



## Glider (Dec 28, 2005)

Syscom. 
I think you missed assumption of yours. That the USA will build warshps to catch up with the RN, but that the RN will do nothing to meet this threat.


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 28, 2005)

"The vast majority of the fighting took place on the East Coast, in Virginia, that's hardly a continental style conflict."

Ummmmm...... I dont think you have read a book about the civil war or even looked at a map of the campaigns.

Ever hear of Shilo, Stones River, Chickamauga, Stone River (Murfreesboro) Stone Mountain (Chattanooga), Atlanta, Nashville, Franklin, Vicksburg, New Orleans, Mobile Bay, Pea Ridge (and thousands of other smaller skirmish's and fights hardly mentioned in the history books)?

Ever hear of Gen Grants brilliant campaign leading up to the fight for Vicksburg? Ever hear of the Gen Shermans brilliantly executed march through Georgia? Ever read the accounts of the campaigns to clear out the Mississippi River valley?

I thought you didnt.


----------



## pbfoot (Dec 28, 2005)

What would happen in the Great Lakes is anyones guess as above Niagra Falls, only small boats were built and manned.[/quote]
but large ships were on the great lakes including HMS St Lawrence which was 110 X 32lb mostly gun ship which was commissioned in 1814 on Lake Ontario


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 28, 2005)

I think the Great Lakes had been demilitarized after the War of 1812, where only small gunboats were allowed.


----------



## plan_D (Dec 29, 2005)

It's not called the Royal Army because of Oliver Cromwell and the parliamentary victory in the English Civil War - which led the Parliamentarians to be the leading army in Britain, after defeating the Royal Army. 

On point 5), sys, why assume that Britain wouldn't recognise the Confederates? If already at war with the Union, Britain would most likely join forces with the Confederacy - winning the war would be more important than politics. Plus, Britian still had strong trading with the south. 
In reality, the emancipation proclamation changed the face of British foreign policy toward the American Civil War - but a state of war between Britain and the Union would change everything entirely. 

Point 7), the Union Navy had no way of creating vessels on par with the Royal Navy. The Royal Navy wouldn't need a close blockade, this would make any coastal defence vessels pointless. The only ones that would be of any use would be those trying to blockade the south, and with the Royal Navy vessels being superior anyway - they'd smash their way through the blockade that only achieved an 18% block anyway!

Point 8), the Union would have to build more factories and train more people to build these weapons. This would take time, money and a lot more effort. The Union probably wouldn't have enough weapons to wage effective war until 1863. And all that ship space that went to supplying the Union, can be used to supply the British in Canada. Think of it as transport capacity, there's much surplus now Britain doesn't have to supply the Union armies. 

I said the vast majority, syscom, I never took away any of the other battles. The most important conflicts took place in Virginia. Don't worry, I won't degrade this argument to "I've read this book, you haven't ..."


----------



## James Pickering (Dec 29, 2005)

There are some interesting historical associations between the appended document, dated 1808, and the Model 1795 (contract of 1808) US Musket. A fellow collector of memorabilia relating to the war of 1812 gave the document to me because it referenced Timothy Pickering -- my familial name -- and he thought I should have it. Timothy Pickering was an important figure during the American Revolutionary war and the following Federalist period. He was a Colonel -- Adjutant General and Quartermaster General -- in George Washington's Army and the Postmaster General and Secretary of war in his Administration. He was Secretary of State in John Adam's Administration and was subsequently United States Senator representing Massachusetts. As far as I can ascertain I am not related to him.

As can be seen by the document (28 pages) cover it was intoduced to the Massachusetts Senate by John Quincy Adams (US Senator from Massachusetts at the time) for debate and discussion. The letter is Timothy Pickering's summary of the dispute between the United States and Britain relating to Britain's maritime blockade, boarding of American ships in order to impress sailors of British nationality -- and coincidentally naturalized (and defacto) American citizens -- or seizing them on the high seas. Timothy Pickering advocates caution and restraint arguing that the incidents to date have been minor and of no great import -- he is a pacifist in this regard. John Quincy Adams (son of John Adams and future President of the United States) is more of a war hawk and, through a series of notes appended to the letter, urges the Massachusetts legislature to join those States pressing for a declaration of war against Britain because of these "outrages and violations of United States sovereignty". 

As a collector of War of 1812 weaponry, the document has additional interest for me. The signature *Israel Bartlett* (a member of the Massachusetts Senate) at the top of the cover page indicates that this copy probably belonged to him. The Bartlett family was very prominent and influential in Massachusetts politics and commerce at this time. Two members of the family -- Asher Pliny Bartlett -- formed a firearms manufacturing company in Springfield and secured a US Government contract in 1808 to manufacture model 1795 US Muskets. They continued to manufacture muskets throughout the war of 1812. The musket depicted here is from my collection -- it is a ship's musket (42" barrel) likely procured by US Navy Purchasing agent George Harrison under a contract dated 3 March 1814 -- it possibly could have seen service in the defences of Washington and Baltimore. It is marked *Bartlett* and *1813* on the lockplate (powder burn corrosion obliterated US Eagle). 

Together, I think the document and musket make an interesting historical display.





.






*Personal photos*


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 29, 2005)

Thats an interesting piece of history you have there. Hope you take care of it.


----------



## bf109 Emil (Apr 9, 2008)

The war of 1812 was fought between Canada and the USA...what's with all the British trying to take credit...did the King declare war on the USA and sail ships from Britian...America tried to take a fort and establish control...Canadians and native Americans defeat or fought to a standstill and burnt the White house in reprisal for burning a fort....without the French army to assist the American militia...they lost as opposed to Lafaettes army and a handfull of American Mitia defeating the British and claiming Independance...Albeit, the French got hooped when the alliance they signed with the newly formed states,,,fell on deaf ears for assistance at Trafalgar...as the President decided that the agression was started by the French, and therefore violated or nulled their agreement to aid or assist...as Napolean was hoping Nelson, if a threat was sailed from the continental USA, Ships deemed as a blocking manuveur would have had to be split to meet this threat...thus leaving Nelson with an inadequite force to prevent the French/Spanish armada from escaping and taking over Great Britian...when this failed, he decided on Russia..kimda like Hitler with the same results, and same starting date for invasion, only Hitler started a day later on June 22 as opposed to the 21st as the French did...


----------



## plan_D (Apr 9, 2008)

...? Get a clue.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 9, 2008)

bf109 Emil said:


> The war of 1812 was fought between Canada and the USA.



_"In 1867, with the union of three British North American colonies through Confederation, Canada was formed as a federal dominion of four provinces. This began an accretion of additional provinces and territories and a process of increasing autonomy from the United Kingdom, highlighted by the Statute of Westminster in 1931 and culminating in the Canada Act in 1982 which severed the vestiges of legal dependence on the British parliament."_

Canada did not exist as a country in 1812 no matter how you look at it.


----------



## pbfoot (Apr 9, 2008)

bf109 Emil said:


> The war of 1812 was fought between Canada and the USA...what's with all the British trying to take credit...


I think you best brush up on the facts for example I don't believe there was any Canadian militia units in the fracas at Washington . York (Toronto)the capital of Upper Canada was burnt by the US and Washington was burnt in reply by the Brits. I'm pasting a little piece from the local Lincoln and Welland regiment website and it says it best
By the early 1800s, Lincoln County occupied all of what is now the Niagara Peninsula, and was a thriving farming community. All men, 16 to 60 were obligated by the Militia Act to serve in the militia, and Lincoln County reported 5 regiments at the beginning of the war.

The War of 1812 began in June 1812, and while *the few British regulars stationed in the province did most of the fighting,* the militia made significant contributions in both combat and support roles


----------



## bf109 Emil (Apr 13, 2008)

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lffkj9Xf8TY_
"Various full-time units were formed from members of the militia. Although usually intended for garrison duty only, several units saw action. All such Militia units were disbanded very soon after the war ended, and their men returned to their former occupations.

Particularly in Upper Canada, ordinary Militia contingents could not be kept in the field for long, especially around harvest time or the planting season when many militia would want to return to work on their farms. This was one reason for the formation of some of the full-time units." from wikipedia..

bf109 EMIL


----------



## pbfoot (Apr 13, 2008)

bf109 Emil said:


> _View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lffkj9Xf8TY_
> "Various full-time units were formed from members of the militia. Although usually intended for garrison duty only, several units saw action. All such Militia units were disbanded very soon after the war ended, and their men returned to their former occupations.
> 
> Particularly in Upper Canada, ordinary Militia contingents could not be kept in the field for long, especially around harvest time or the planting season when many militia would want to return to work on their farms. This was one reason for the formation of some of the full-time units." from wikipedia..
> ...


I just used this particular unit as this area was one of the most fought over areas in the war
Fort Niagara 
Fort George
lundys Lane
Chippawa 
Fort Erie
Queenston Heights
Battle of lake Erie
Etc so the LincolnWelland or Butlers rangers regiment is a fine example since they partook in most of these scraps


----------



## bf109 Emil (Apr 13, 2008)

hey you gotta love the falcon of Malta's pic...nice..

bf109 emil

thank you for lokking these up, as at times it seems like it is hard for the USA to swallow the fact they where defeated by Canadians...so they toss in British..much the same as when Lafayette French army defeated the British, yet Independance reviews hardly mention these, as it was the French whom defeated the British, thus allowing a group of Militia to claim Independance, and make George their first prez...

bf109 emil...still like Buzz's pic...sweet (leading North American born ace in the European theatre)


----------



## pbfoot (Apr 13, 2008)

bf109 Emil said:


> hey you gotta love the falcon of Malta's pic...nice..
> 
> bf109 emil
> 
> ...


But it was the for the most part Brits that played the dominant role ,Read about Brock


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 13, 2008)

bf109 Emil said:


> thank you for lokking these up, as at times it seems like it is hard for the USA to swallow the fact they where defeated by Canadians



Once again I'm going to point something out to you....

*"In 1867, with the union of three British North American colonies through Confederation, Canada was formed as a federal dominion of four provinces. This began an accretion of additional provinces and territories and a process of increasing autonomy from the United Kingdom, highlighted by the Statute of Westminster in 1931 and culminating in the Canada Act in 1982 which severed the vestiges of legal dependence on the British parliament."*

You saying that "Canadians" defeated Americans would be like saying "Americans" defeated France during the French/ Indian War. For someone talking so much sh!t you seem pretty ignorant of your own country's history.

I suggest you actually research when and to who Cornwallis' army surrendered to.

Today in History: October 19

Your ignorance is worse than someone from Ohio who thinks there's igloos in Toronto.


----------



## Freebird (Apr 14, 2008)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Your ignorance is worse than someone from Ohio who thinks there's igloos in Toronto.



And the Canadians come out during the annual herding of the Arctic Yaks down the main street in Toronto - to batter them to death in the traditional way, with Timbits...  {courtesy Rick Mercer}


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 14, 2008)

freebird said:


> And the Canadians come out during the annual herding of the Arctic Yaks down the main street in Toronto - to batter them to death in the traditional way, with Timbits...  {courtesy Rick Mercer}


I thought that took place on Yonge and Bloor????


----------



## bf109 Emil (Apr 14, 2008)

You saying that "Canadians" defeated Americans would be like saying "Americans" defeated France during the French/ Indian War. For someone talking so much sh!t you seem pretty ignorant of your own country's history.
Unsure about the above...but i do know it was the FRENCH whom defeated the British to give america it's Independance...as well as America not coming to Napoleans aid, from a pact signed to help each other in future wars...as Congress claimed France was not attacked, but declared war on Great Britian...Naploeans plan was sunk, and his grande armee, was turned east..but to fund this, Louisiana was sold for the sum of 15 million...


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=loG98vawjN4_
"In 1867, with the union of three British North American colonies through Confederation, Canada was formed as a federal dominion of four provinces.
In case there any doubtCanada became a self-governing dominion in 1867


----------



## Njaco (Apr 14, 2008)

Wow, you learn something new every day!

And I just found out the Washington Monument is actually a middle finger pointed to our neighbors to the north for burning the city. Fascinating!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 14, 2008)

bf109 Emil said:


> Unsure about the above...but i do know it was the FRENCH whom defeated the British to give america it's Independance


Was it??? The French helped - no doubt about it but it was a combined force.



> *In early October, approximately 17,000 American and French troops led by Generals George Washington and Jean-Baptiste Rochambeau, respectively, surrounded British-occupied Yorktown. Off the coast, French Admiral François de Grasse strategically positioned his naval fleet to control access to the town via the Chesapeake Bay and the York River.*





bf109 Emil said:


> ...as well as America not coming to Napoleans aid, from a pact signed to help each other in future wars...as Congress claimed France was not attacked, but declared war on Great Britian...Naploeans plan was sunk, and his grande armee, was turned east..but to fund this, Louisiana was sold for the sum of 15 million...


And that's another story...


bf109 Emil said:


> _View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=loG98vawjN4_


So are you one of those Canadians who talk sh!t about some Americans but in reality are just as ignorant????


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 14, 2008)

bf109 Emil said:


> hey you gotta love the falcon of Malta's pic...nice..
> 
> bf109 emil
> 
> ...



I think you are just sour because Canada is only known for being north of the United States....


















To all my Canadian Friends out there, I am only kidding...


----------



## pbfoot (Apr 14, 2008)

Where exactly did Canada defeat the US without Brit help , now I am also proud but not dumb please read your non school historys of the war of 1812 , a good start would be the 2 books by Pierre Berton called Flames across the Border and the Invasion of Canada 
The only reason the US didn't win was because they were inept


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 14, 2008)

pbfoot said:


> Where exactly did Canada defeat the US without Brit help , now I am also proud but not dumb please read your non school historys of the war of 1812 , a good start would be the 2 books by Pierre Berton called Flames across the Border and the Invasion of Canada
> The only reason the US didn't win was because they were inept



Although I'm not a great Wikipedia fan, I thought this was a pretty fair take on the whole thing, and PB you are more than correct about the US forces being "inept."


_The war started badly for the Americans in August 1812, when an attempt to invade Canada was repulsed by Major-General Isaac Brock and a force of 350 regular British troops he commanded (supported in turn by local militias and American Indians). This led to the British capture of Detroit. A second invasion on the Niagara peninsula was defeated on October 13, 1812 at the Battle of Queenston Heights at which Brock was killed. The American strategy relied in part on militias, but they either resisted service or were incompetently led. Financial and logistical problems also plagued the American effort. Military and civilian leadership was lacking and remained a critical American weakness until 1814. New England opposed the war and refused to provide troops or finance.

Britain had excellent finance and logistics, but the war with France had a higher priority, so in 1812–13 it adopted a defensive strategy. After the final defeat of Napoleon in 1814, the British were able to send veteran armies to the U.S., but by then the Americans had learned how to mobilize and fight.

At sea, the powerful Royal Navy blockaded much of the coastline, though allowing substantial exports from New England, which was trading with Britain and Canada in defiance of American laws. The blockade devastated American agricultural exports but helped stimulate local factories that replaced goods previously imported.

The American strategy of using small gunboats to defend ports was a fiasco, as the British raided the coast at will. The most famous episode was a series of British raids on the shores of Chesapeake Bay, including an attack on Washington D.C. that resulted in the burning of the White House, the Capitol, the navy yard and other public buildings, later called the "Burning of Washington". The Americans were more successful sending out several hundred privateers to attack British merchant ships; British commercial interests were damaged, especially in the West Indies. Although few compared to the Royal Navy, the American Navy's more powerful frigates prevailed in several battles against British ships.

The decisive use of naval power came on the Great Lakes and depended on a contest of building ships. In 1813, the Americans won control of Lake Erie and cut off British and native forces to the west from their supplies. The British ultimately held Lake Ontario, preventing any major American invasion. The Americans controlled Lake Champlain, and naval victory there forced a large invading British army to turn back in 1814.

The Americans destroyed the power of the native people of the northwest and southeast, securing a major war goal. The trade restrictions and impressment by the British ended with the defeat of France, removing another cause of the war. Both nations agreed to a peace that left the prewar boundaries intact.

In January 1815 after the Treaty of Ghent was signed but before the US Congress had received a copy to ratify, the Americans succeeded in defending New Orleans, and the British captured Fort Bowyer before news of the treaty reached combatants on the south coast.

The war had the effect of uniting Canadians and also uniting Americans more closely than either population had been. *Canadians remember the war as a victory by avoiding conquest, while Americans celebrate victory personified in Andrew Jackson, the hero of New Orleans, who became the 7th President of the United States in 1829.*_


----------



## pbfoot (Apr 14, 2008)

Brock was a great General when he captured Detroit he scared the occupants by making them think he had them outnumbered , he did this by having the same group of Indians run through a clearing visible to the fort and then running back unseen to repeat the process. The Fort Surrendered with little opposition


----------



## 102first_hussars (Apr 21, 2008)

You know for the longest time i stubbornly beleived that Brock was in fact a canadian, but one day i looked i up on Wikipedia felt like a sword went through my heart lol

Blissfull Ignorance


----------



## Sir Percy Ware-Armitage (Apr 20, 2017)

plan_D said:


> Much more than America was. What was America doing soon after it gained independance, RG? Trying to build an empire of itself, and they called the British imperialist.
> 
> If Britain wasn't a generous empire, why is that a lot of nations had respect for Britain? While they don't for America?



I agree with the above statement and one should also consider definite particularities. It also depends on the circumstances on how the "locals" were treated. I am French-Canadian and in our case, London was never a problem in fact, if one considers the old antagonistic attitudes of their long joint history (from the 100 years war and on adding to it a strong religious incompatibility), most of the problems were in Canada itself with the Upper Canadian population attitudes vis-à-vis Lower Canada (for instance Ontario's regulation 17 just prior to WW I which made French language School illegal. Here was the conflictual source which impeded recruitment in Quebec since the law in question was very similar to the laws that had been imposed on France's Alsace and Lorraine by the Germans).

Having said that, the war of 1812 was very much supported by all Canadians on both side of the linguistic divide. Quite a few individuals such as General Brock and Charles de Salaberry are true Canadian heroes (in fact my favorite since they represent so well our country's rich dual culture. Charles de Salaberry A Biography

As an aside, my great uncle volunteered on October 26, 1914 and served in France (R22R one of the very first from 1914-18. He passed away in the early seventies). My Father and his brother also volunteered when they became eligible in the RCAF. My dad spent most of the war in Gander in the 10BR.


----------

