A
Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous said:
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
War of 1812
- Thread starter plan_D
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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
A
Anonymous
Guest
Admins - "GUESTS" should not be allowed to post, for obvious reasons.
No offense intended to this guest.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nowhere on this page does it say anything of the sort. What it does say is:
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.
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
No offense intended to this guest.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous said:
Nowhere on this page does it say anything of the sort. What it does say is:
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:
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
- Thread starter
- #23
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.
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.
A
Anonymous
Guest
plan_D said:
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:
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:
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:
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:
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:
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:
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
"Shooter"
RG_Lunatic said:
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?
- Thread starter
- #26
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.
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.
- Thread starter
- #28
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.
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.
A
Anonymous
Guest
evangilder said:
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
"Shooter"
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
Master Sergeant
Besides, it's always good to hear someone else's view apart from the regulars on here
A
Anonymous
Guest
plan_D said:
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:
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:
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:
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:
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:
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:
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:
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:
I suggest you read THE AMERICAN TROOPS IN THE ATTACK TO THE SOUTH OF SOISSONS 18th. - 22nd. July 1918.
plan_D said:
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
A
Anonymous
Guest
evangilder said:
I don't understand what positive there is to allowing anonymous posts? Since registration is free, why not require registration?
evangilder
"Shooter"
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.
A
Anonymous
Guest
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.
Not a huge deal to me evan, just a known mistake as learned by many other boards.
- Thread starter
- #37
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?
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?
Not true.RG_Lunatic said:
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
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
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
redcoat said:Not true.RG_Lunatic said:
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
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
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.
A
Anonymous
Guest
plan_D said:
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:
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:
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:
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:
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:
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
