War of 1812

[Anonymous]

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

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.

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.

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)

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.

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]

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]

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?

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]

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).

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.

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?

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.

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....

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!

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.

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]

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

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 ?

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Anonymous]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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

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]

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

At present, Germany has around 2,000 troops stationed in Afghanistan and up until now has limited its intervention to the capital city of Kabul. The decision by the so-called "security cabinet" of the German chancellery to expand the German military presence in Afghanistan means that the German army will, at least indirectly, become part of "Operation Warrior Sweep"—the name given to the military offensive by the US army to repulse Afghan resistance. German relief of the US army in the north of the country is aimed at allowing US troops to intensify their military offensive in the south. At the same time, German reinforcements in Afghanistan enable the US to free up troops for its war in Iraq.
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/sep2003/afgh-s04_prn.shtml

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.

The Germans are part of the NATO-run International Security Assistance Force, which patrols most of northern Afghanistan, as well as the capital Kabul, with 8,500 troops.

A spokesman for the force, Canadian Lt. Cdr. Ken Mackillop, said a pamphlet found near the scene threatened a "number of groups" without mentioning ISAF.

Foreign troops regularly come under attack in Afghanistan, particularly the separate 18,000-strong American force pursuing Taliban and al-Qaeda holdouts in the south and east. A homemade bomb killed two U.S. soldiers and wounded another in southern Uruzgan province on Wednesday.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2004-11-27-afghan-attack_x.htm

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]

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.

Where and when was this agreed?????
Its not in the Treaty Of Ghent.

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.

Have you any proof the British government supplied these weapons?
They also found large numbers of American weapons. Was the US government supplying the Indians as well then ???, or was it like with the British weapons, local traders sold them the weapons as trade

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.

Yes, resist not invade, but the British governments support never went as far as supplying weapons to the Indian Tribes

The British reniged on their promises to support an Indian nation in the Treaty of Ghent, and never supported the indians again.

Yes, the subject of an independent nation for the Indians wasn't mentioned in the treaty, but then again the subject of Britain supporting the Indians in future wasn't either.

It may not have been formally stated in the treaty,

Is that RG_Lunatic speak for OK then, it wasn't in the treatyl

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

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

 

[Anonymous]

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.

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.

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.

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".