The Burning of Washington: The British invasion of 1814
Churchill
Perhaps, if these memories were more clear they would comprehend the
potential threats and danger from Terrorists and WMD !
Cordially
The Rifleman
France, Spain, India, the far East Egypt and other campaigns, we could have
given the north american colony our full attention, and in those thankfully
long gone days his Majesties troops knew how to deal with traitors . Still
what the rifle regiments did to Washington DC is being repeated today by the
bloods and the crips :o)
Gunner
Sometimes Canadians and the British forget American resolve....
"The British withdrew once the capital lay in ruins, sailing on to the
more economically promising targets of Alexandria and Baltimore. The
latter city's successful resistance demonstrated that the British were
not invincible. Even militia, given competent commanders and
sufficient numbers, could blunt the edge of a raiding force unable to
replace its own losses. At least as significant, according to Pitch,
was the decision not to relocate the capital even temporarily, but to
continue governing from the ruins, which conveyed the message that,
like its predecessor, this second war of independence would be fought
to a finish. In a Britain weary of conflict, that was a powerful
incentive to initiate negotiations that within four months produced
the Treaty of Ghent and confirmed America's identity as a nation."
Gunner
Confronting Liberals with the facts of reality is very much akin to
clubbing baby seals. It gets boring after a while, but because Liberals are
so stupid it is easy work." Steven M. Barry
Gunner
Just goes to show that the British simply couldnt get along with
anyone.
<G>
pyotr filipivich
<gun...@lightspeed.net> wrote back on Sat, 02 Oct 2004 13:00:12 GMT in
misc.survivalism :
>On Sat, 2 Oct 2004 06:45:16 -0400, "Churchill" <y...@yes.com> wrote:
>
>>Sometimes Americans forget what we Canadians and British did to them!
>>
>>http://www.amazon.ca/exec/obidos/ASIN/1557506922/qid=1096713303/sr=1-3/ref=sr_1_0_3/701-2197787-6887567
>>
>>Perhaps, if these memories were more clear they would comprehend the
>>potential threats and danger from Terrorists and WMD !
>>
>>
>>
>>Cordially
>>
>Sometimes Canadians and the British forget American resolve....
>
>"The British withdrew once the capital lay in ruins, sailing on to the
>more economically promising targets of Alexandria and Baltimore. The
>latter city's successful resistance demonstrated that the British were
>not invincible. Even militia, given competent commanders and
>sufficient numbers, could blunt the edge of a raiding force unable to
>replace its own losses. At least as significant, according to Pitch,
>was the decision not to relocate the capital even temporarily, but to
>continue governing from the ruins, which conveyed the message that,
>like its predecessor, this second war of independence would be fought
>to a finish. In a Britain weary of conflict, that was a powerful
>incentive to initiate negotiations that within four months produced
>the Treaty of Ghent and confirmed America's identity as a nation."
People tend to forget the British have a history of long wars, and of
deciding towards the end, that some sideshow isn't worth the candle. What
we call the war of 1812 occurred at the end of a ten year period of war
with Napoleon. The War in the Americas ended pretty much when the British
could shift seasoned Regulars from the a now quiet Europe elsewhere.
Likewise in 1948. A lot of places were granted independence because of
war weariness as much as anything. Hmmm, I wonder if any ex-British
soldier put on a job application under occupation "Machine Gunner"? Unless
he was applying to one of the Mercenary outfits.
--
pyotr filipivich
"With Age comes Wisdom. Although more often, Age travels alone."
Carl.
news:cjm7ak$h70$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
> Just think what we could have done if we were not already fighting in
> France, Spain, India, the far East Egypt and other campaigns, we could
> have
> given the north american colony our full attention, and in those
> thankfully
> long gone days his Majesties troops knew how to deal with traitors .
Of course, the British method of colonizing is exactly what got them into
those wars with France, Spain, India, Egypt, etc, so it is unlikely that
they would have ever been involved only in a single battle. Why would there
be just this one place?
> Still
> what the rifle regiments did to Washington DC is being repeated today by
> the
> bloods and the crips :o)
Criminal as they may be for other reasons, they are at least American enough
to arm themselves in spite of laws that violate the constitution.
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.771 / Virus Database: 518 - Release Date: 9/28/2004
Bill
Hey Stupid,
You posted this to: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical, misc.survivalism,
rec.knives, and soc.history.war.misc.
Do you understand what individual groups are for? What part of "topic" don't
you understand?
Try looking up the definition of internet troll sometime. You qualify.
Reported to ab...@sympatico.ca
--
Bill H. [my "reply to" address is real]
www.necka.net
Molon Labe!
JP
The Rifleman <st...@nospamdaily3747.btnet.com> wrote in message
news:cjm7ak$h70$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
Wrong city <g> (gang names)
K Horner
british lost the war. And just over a hundred years later "needed" the
upstart Americans to pull their ass out of the fire. Then, we did it again
twenty odd years later. It's a good thing we don't hold a grudge. What
with the royal families friendship with the Nazi party.
Cordially
"Churchill" <y...@yes.com> wrote in message
news:YAv7d.26701$MD5.1...@news20.bellglobal.com...
brian w edginton
>Tis true the british burned Washington D.C. But, if I recall correctly, the
>british lost the war. And just over a hundred years later "needed" the
>upstart Americans to pull their ass out of the fire. Then, we did it again
>twenty odd years later. It's a good thing we don't hold a grudge. What
>with the royal families friendship with the Nazi party.
>
What about Preston Bush's banking services to the Nazis?
Went on while Europe was fighting for its life.....only stopped when
it was banned by the US govt after(from memory}, Pearl Harbour.
Which, btw, was why the US entered the war....wasn't to save anyone's
arse but their own.
But, I do thank them...they saved my arse in the process.
brianWE
Please ignore any advice I offer...
if I was smart, I wouldn't be talking to you.
raymond o'hara
"JP" <j...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:kIF7d.117$C4....@eagle.america.net...
both gangs have chapters nation wide, there are bloods and crips in boston,
new york, detroit and not just l.a.
JP
raymond o'hara <re...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:BRH7d.157899$MQ5.131062@attbi_s52...
Right........*chapters*. The actual gangs are in LA.
Mike Kirkland
>Tis true the british burned Washington D.C. But, if I recall correctly, the
>british lost the war.
Wrong. There was a peace agreement. Niether side won. But the invasion
of Canada was stopped in its tracks so in theory *you* lost.
raymond o'hara
go to one of these chapters and tell them that.
they are national organizations like the hells angels.
raymond o'hara
"Mike Kirkland" <n...@email.here> wrote in message
news:46pul09m0l5lpm25i...@4ax.com...
.
the invasions of La. and NY were foiled too, both with significant defeats
. Plattsburg Bay on Lake Champlain and at New Orleans so if invasions
stopped is the criteria the US stopped 3 , the Niagara frontier was a
disaster for the brits too. so you guys lost too.
JP
Lol. Sheesh, ok, whatever you say <rolls eyes>
>
>
Gunner
Raymond is indeed correct. They are simply chapters of the national
organizations. Taxes are submitted, personell are interchanged (often
hit men), drug shipments are shared..the usual
William Black
>
> go to one of these chapters and tell them that.
> they are national organizations like the hells angels.
The Hell's Angels Motorcycle Club is international.
--
William Black
------------------
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords
is no basis for a system of government
William Black
> the invasions of La. and NY were foiled too, both with significant
defeats
> . Plattsburg Bay on Lake Champlain and at New Orleans so if invasions
> stopped is the criteria the US stopped 3 , the Niagara frontier was a
> disaster for the brits too. so you guys lost too.
I think you'll find that New Orleans was fought after the treaty was signed.
Dallas Patterson
William Black wrote:
> "raymond o'hara" <re...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:4qK7d.165226$D%.160836@attbi_s51...
>
>
>> the invasions of La. and NY were foiled too, both with significant
>>
> defeats
>
>>. Plattsburg Bay on Lake Champlain and at New Orleans so if invasions
>>stopped is the criteria the US stopped 3 , the Niagara frontier was a
>>disaster for the brits too. so you guys lost too.
>>
>
> I think you'll find that New Orleans was fought after the treaty was signed.
>
>
So what? Britain made yet another failed attempt to invade and divide
the United States. Britain's objectives from the end of the American
Revolutionary War until sometime after the American Civil War were to
bring about the breakup of the United States and maintain control of
Canada. Britain failed to accomplish the former and succeeded at
accomplishing the latter objective. The war objectives of the United
States was to keep Britain from breaking up the United States, bring an
end to impressments of American sailors, and bring the
British-Amerindian terrorism raids on the American frontier communities
from Canada and Spanish Florida to an end. The United States succeeded
at keeping Britian from breaking up the United States, bringing a
virtual end to the British impressment of American sailors, and bringing
Brtiish-Amerindian terrorism raids on the American frontier communities
to an end, without capturing Canada to do so. Canada was no more secure
after the war than it was before the war. The United States was far more
secure after the war than it was before the war. The United States won
objectives of far greater importance to the postwar security of its
territories and people than did Britain and Canada. The United States
simply wouldn't exist today, if the United States weren't the overall
victor of the War of 1812.
The Rifleman
"K Horner" <k...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:DzG7d.57549$He1.34492@attbi_s01...
> Tis true the british burned Washington D.C. But, if I recall correctly,
the
> british lost the war.
It was not really a war as such in british eyes because they simply viewed
it and a colony not even fully established, If we were established as a
truly recognised place we would have done they same as we did with the
established colony in the Falklands
And just over a hundred years later "needed" the
> upstart Americans to pull their ass out of the fire.
Needed??? I dont think so, welcome none the less but US forces only
arrived in the dying months of the war
Then, we did it again
> twenty odd years later
Sorry old chap but once aggain you are wrong, the War started in 1939 you
good chaps did not join in til Dec 1941 long after the tide of war had
turned against the germans, esp as the russians had already got stuck in,
but you major contribution was once again very welcome and certainly
shortened the war.
. It's a good thing we don't hold a grudge.
Nor do we for rescuing the US in Korea or teaching the US how to fight in
Vietnam
What
> with the royal families friendship with the Nazi party.
Would that be the same Nazi party that was still active in the US as late as
Sept 1941??, Would that be the same Nazi party whose members were taken to
the US to create NBC weapons for the US of A ? ;0)
>
> Cordially
Quite
The Rifleman
"raymond It must be a real bitch for the americans to remember it was the
French Navy who saved the US in the end when it snuck up behind the British
forces, the US was created by the Cheese Eating Surrender monkeys and an act
of treason against your homeland, rather a sad start :o)
The Rifleman
> I think you'll find that New Orleans was fought after the treaty was
signed.
>
> --
> William Black
The Rifleman
The United States won
> objectives of far greater importance to the postwar security of its
> territories and people than did Britain and Canada.
Yet the US has failed to expand , Nay it is culturally and economically in
decline whilst the commonwealth continues to flourish, Brits can still
travel the world in general without harm whilst many americans have to
pretend they are Canadians when they go overseas.
Jim Voege
> news:46pul09m0l5lpm25i...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 23:10:27 GMT, "K Horner" <k...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> >Tis true the british burned Washington D.C. But, if I recall correctly,
> the
>> >british lost the war.
>>
>> Wrong. There was a peace agreement. Niether side won. But the invasion
>> of Canada was stopped in its tracks so in theory *you* lost.
>
> .
> the invasions of La. and NY were foiled too, both with significant defeats
> . Plattsburg Bay on Lake Champlain
Did the British have territorial designs on US territory? Not that I'm
aware although I invite you to correct this. But if not, then any raids
("invasions) is too large a word, need to be seen for what they were --
aggressive-defensive operations which, BTW, were entirely successful,
regardless of tactical outcomes.
> and at New Orleans
As noted by William, battle that occurs after the ultimate treaty is signed
is necessarily irrelevant to the question of who "won".
> so if invasions
> stopped is the criteria the US stopped 3,
Many more than 3 actually, just as there were many more incusions by the US
into Canada that you are note taking into account and all of them were
similarly turned back -- not exactly what the U.S. had hoped for when they
initiated the war while, on the other hand, the British in Canada were
entirely satisfied with a return to the status quo ante bellum. They badly
betrayed their Indian allies in the process however.
> the Niagara frontier was a
> disaster for the brits too. so you guys lost too.
>
A disaster? How so? If you are referring to the casualties taken at
Lundy's Lane, they were indeed approximately equal to American casualties,
slightly greater actually IIRC. And depredations against civilians on
either side of the Niagara River appear to have been about equally matched.
But the bottom line is that at the end of the day the Americans had been
forced back onto their own side of the river.
Jim
Churchill
> Sorry old chap but once aggain you are wrong, the War started in 1939 you
> good chaps did not join in til Dec 1941 long after the tide of war had
> turned against the germans, esp as the russians had already got stuck in,
> but you major contribution was once again very welcome and certainly
> shortened the war.
>
> . It's a good thing we don't hold a grudge.
Well, the US did have the Lend Lease Agreement and supplied the Russians
too.
Gregory E. Garland
"Jim Voege" <jfvo...@SPAMsympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:x_R7d.47$k17....@news20.bellglobal.com...
>
> Did the British have territorial designs on US territory? Not that I'm
> aware although I invite you to correct this.
They wanted most of the Northwest Territory to ensure their control of the
fur trade and give them access to the Mississippi River. The actual proposal
was to create an "Indian" buffer state which would be garrisoned by British
military forces.
Jim Voege
"Dallas Patterson" <n...@fidalgo.net> wrote in message
news:415FC4B4...@fidalgo.net...
>
>
> William Black wrote:
>
>> "raymond o'hara" <re...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:4qK7d.165226$D%.160836@attbi_s51...
>>
>>
>>> the invasions of La. and NY were foiled too, both with significant
>>>
>> defeats
>>
>>>. Plattsburg Bay on Lake Champlain and at New Orleans so if invasions
>>>stopped is the criteria the US stopped 3 , the Niagara frontier was a
>>>disaster for the brits too. so you guys lost too.
>>>
>>
>> I think you'll find that New Orleans was fought after the treaty was
>> signed.
>>
>>
>
>
> So what? Britain made yet another failed attempt to invade and divide the
> United States. Britain's objectives from the end of the American
> Revolutionary War until sometime after the American Civil War were to
> bring about the breakup of the United States
Source?
> and maintain control of Canada. Britain failed to accomplish the former
Strawman.
> and succeeded at accomplishing the latter objective. The war objectives of
> the United States was to keep Britain from breaking up the United States,
> bring an end to impressments of American sailors, and bring the
> British-Amerindian terrorism raids on the American frontier communities
> from Canada and Spanish Florida to an end.
The primary war objective of the U.S. was to capture Canada -- something it
had been attempting since 1775. It failed. Again.
> The United States succeeded at keeping Britian from breaking up the United
> States, bringing a virtual end to the British impressment of American
> sailors,
It is my understanding that this, *to the knowledge of the American
administration* had already been accomplished before the U.S. declaration of
war. Another strawman.
> and bringing Brtiish-Amerindian terrorism raids on the American frontier
> communities to an end, without capturing Canada to do so.
If they really wanted to stop Indian raiding all they had to do was to
respect Indian territory. However, the impulse to expand was too strong --
and the root cause for the War of 1812.
> Canada was no more secure after the war than it was before the war.
I don't follow this. Before the war Canada would eventually face an
attempted American annexation. After the war, no such attempt was ever
again made. I'd say that Canada was infinitely more secure after the war.
In point of fact, the U.S. recognized that it had a small window of
opportunity whilst Britain was still entangled in Europe. It missed the
window and, knowing that, sued for peace.
> The United States was far more secure after the war than it was before the
> war. The United States won objectives of far greater importance to the
> postwar security of its territories and people than did Britain and
> Canada. The United States simply wouldn't exist today, if the United
> States weren't the overall victor of the War of 1812.
>
Only if you assume that somehow the United States was threatened in 1812
which, quite frankly, is the ultimate strawman.
Jim
JP
Gunner <gun...@lightspeed.net> wrote in message
news:vj2vl0dqk4a37a562...@4ax.com...
Whoosh, right over the top.
J Craggs
<ab...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>The Hell's Angels Motorcycle Club is international.
Point of pedantic precision.
International, yes. Apostrephised, no.
Sod all to do with the burning of Washington
though. The Angels missed that particular 'jolly' ;-)
Gyppo
John Craggs - Writer - Adult Tutor - Storyteller
and All-Round Rogue
Need a laugh? Then subscribe to the free Monday Silly Digest:
mail to: gyp...@ntlworld.com With 'MSD SUB' as subject.
Gunner
<st...@nospamdaily3747.btnet.com> wrote:
>Sorry old chap but once aggain you are wrong, the War started in 1939 you
>good chaps did not join in til Dec 1941 long after the tide of war had
>turned against the germans, esp as the russians had already got stuck in,
>but you major contribution was once again very welcome and certainly
>shortened the war.
"long after the tide had turned against the Germans"......
Blink blink...in 1941? They held most of Europe as a client state,
had forced the British to a holding action defending the British
Isles, controlled most of North Africa and were pushing the Russians
back towards the east in droves.
The battle for Stalingrad didnt even occur until late in 1942 and the
Russians were in full retreat, scorching and burning their own lands.
Which tide was that you were refering to, again?
Steve, while your nationalism should be commended...on this particular
subject..its quite misplaced.
Frank White
Nonsense! We just declared the American Revolution the high point
of human history, ignored French actions in 1812, and glory in our
own importance!
With little in the way of collective memory, that's easy to do...
FW
raymond o'hara
the french navy was not involved with the war of 1812 in any way, now if
you mean the battle of the capes at the mouth of chesapeake bay on sept 5th
1781 we here in America are grateful, it must burn youe limey ass that when
it mattered the french chased you off and ruined your american empire.
the naval battles in 1812 ,put in bay{lake erie}, plattsburg bay, {lake
champlain}where all american endevors that saw the brits crushingly defeated
, at put in bay the entire brit squadron was taken,
"Sirs, we have met the enemy and they are ours. 2 ships,2 brigs,1schooner 1
sloop."
oliver hazard perry after the battle in a letter sent to washington.
Spiv
the
> upstart Americans to pull their ass out of the fire.
What would this be?
> Then, we did it again
> twenty odd years later.
Again, what would this be?
> It's a good thing we don't hold a grudge. What
> with the royal families friendship with the Nazi party.
>
> Cordially
>
> "Churchill" <y...@yes.com> wrote in message
> news:YAv7d.26701$MD5.1...@news20.bellglobal.com...
>
> > Sometimes Americans forget what we Canadians and British did to them!
>
Jim Voege
the war, they were absolutely superb on the water.
Jim
Mike Kirkland
wrote:
>So what? Britain made yet another failed attempt to invade and divide
>the United States. Britain's objectives from the end of the American
>Revolutionary War until sometime after the American Civil War were to
>bring about the breakup of the United States and maintain control of
>Canada. Britain failed to accomplish the former and succeeded at
>accomplishing the latter objective. The war objectives of the United
>States was to keep Britain from breaking up the United States, bring an
>end to impressments of American sailors, and bring the
>British-Amerindian terrorism raids on the American frontier communities
>from Canada and Spanish Florida to an end. The United States succeeded
>at keeping Britian from breaking up the United States, bringing a
>virtual end to the British impressment of American sailors, and bringing
>Brtiish-Amerindian terrorism raids on the American frontier communities
>to an end, without capturing Canada to do so. Canada was no more secure
>after the war than it was before the war. The United States was far more
>secure after the war than it was before the war. The United States won
>objectives of far greater importance to the postwar security of its
>territories and people than did Britain and Canada. The United States
>simply wouldn't exist today, if the United States weren't the overall
>victor of the War of 1812.
What a load of crap. The U.S. initially attacked Canada, not the other
way around. You were the asshole invaders, and you're still the
assholes trying to control us politically.
Mike Kirkland
Yep, yanks are nothing but a bunch of treasonous traitors to the
British Crown. Shame!
raymond o'hara
"Mike Kirkland" <n...@email.here> wrote in message
actually shithead the first offensive action of the war was the british
seizure of michilimackinac from the garrison which was unaware that war was
declared.
but like any true frostback you have no history and no interest in history.
raymond o'hara
"Jim Voege" <jfvo...@SPAMsympatico.ca> wrote in message
sackett's harbor, lundy's lane, chippewa, new orleans , thames. all land
defeats of british arms.
Jim Voege
a much, much longer list of clear British victories on land.
Jim
Spiv
> On Sun, 3 Oct 2004 12:07:21 +0100, "The Rifleman"
> <st...@nospamdaily3747.btnet.com> wrote:
>
> >Sorry old chap but once aggain you are wrong, the War started in 1939 you
> >good chaps did not join in til Dec 1941 long after the tide of war had
> >turned against the germans, esp as the russians had already got stuck in,
> >but you major contribution was once again very welcome and certainly
> >shortened the war.
>
>
> "long after the tide had turned against the Germans"......
>
> Blink blink...in 1941? They held most of Europe as a client state,
> had forced the British to a holding action defending the British
> Isles, controlled most of North Africa and were pushing the Russians
> back towards the east in droves.
Quite wrong. Just before Pearl Harbour the Soviets counter attacked near
Moscow taking around 30,000 German prisoners. The German advance had
stopped in the east. The German advance in the west was stopped with the
battle of Britain in 1940. BY the time the US came into the war the Germans
were pretty well on the defensive and had been stopped on two fronts. The
desert was a yo-yo affair until less than a year after Pearl Harbour when
the Germans were defeated at El Alamein, with the US hardly making any
fighting contribution up until that point.
When the US came into the war in earnest in fighting mode, the Germans had
been defeated in the desert and pegged back on two fronts going nowhere,
fighting more or less a defensive war.
Mudhead
As I recall you ended up with Detroit after the end of the war. That
in itself is a clear victory for the fledgling Canada.
raymond o'hara
"Mudhead" >
> As I recall you ended up with Detroit after the end of the war. That
> in itself is a clear victory for the fledgling Canada.
>
>
detroit was US land aftwer the rev but the brits maintained a post ther
illegally.
and hamilton ont is sooo much better.
raymond o'hara
"Jim Voege" > >
> Lundy's Lane was, at best, a draw. And as I'm sure you are aware, there
is
> a much, much longer list of clear British victories on land.
>
> Jim
>
>
start naming and make sure your list is longer . and i can add more if you
like.
Skip
wrote:
>
>What a load of crap. The U.S. initially attacked Canada, not the other
>way around. You were the asshole invaders, and you're still the
>assholes trying to control us politically.
But you are so lovable and charming, how could we resist? With that
funny little way of talking, having a leaf for a flag and wearing
those amusing plaid shirts, who could resist looking after you?
... eh?
----------------------------
"Base not your joy upon the deeds of others, for what is given can be taken away."
Jim Voege
armpit of the province, probably because of all the heavy industry along the
lake.
Is Detroit that bad?
Jim
Jim Voege
Chateauguay, Chrysler’s Farm, La Colle Mill, Fort Erie, Stoney Creek, Beaver
Dam ...
Jim
Mike Kirkland
wrote:
> but like any true frostback you have no history and no interest in history.
>
>
I'm a Brit, twatley.
adddress@spamfree.com CW
"Mike Kirkland" <n...@email.here> wrote in message
> Yep, yanks are nothing but a bunch of treasonous traitors to the
> British Crown. Shame!
And proud of it.
Mike Kirkland
wrote:
>And proud of it.
>
And who's now your closest ally? You don't deserve us if you are proud
of being a turncoat.
adddress@spamfree.com CW
"Mike Kirkland" <n...@email.here> wrote in message
news:uvc1m0t55e9a6gkp2...@4ax.com...
Gunner
>
>"Gunner" <gun...@lightspeed.net> wrote in message
>news:sa70m09fk6l51evau...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 3 Oct 2004 12:07:21 +0100, "The Rifleman"
>> <st...@nospamdaily3747.btnet.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Sorry old chap but once aggain you are wrong, the War started in 1939 you
>> >good chaps did not join in til Dec 1941 long after the tide of war had
>> >turned against the germans, esp as the russians had already got stuck in,
>> >but you major contribution was once again very welcome and certainly
>> >shortened the war.
>>
>>
>> "long after the tide had turned against the Germans"......
>>
>> Blink blink...in 1941? They held most of Europe as a client state,
>> had forced the British to a holding action defending the British
>> Isles, controlled most of North Africa and were pushing the Russians
>> back towards the east in droves.
>
>Quite wrong. Just before Pearl Harbour the Soviets counter attacked near
>Moscow taking around 30,000 German prisoners. The German advance had
>stopped in the east.
No. Just for the Winter.
> The German advance in the west was stopped with the
>battle of Britain in 1940.
Chuckle..the Germans were not willing to take Britian, they just
wanted them contained, and they largely were.
Operation Sealion (invasion of Britian) was only put on the back
burner because Hitler still had hopes of an alliance between the Brits
and Germany, or at the least, Britian being neutral. The only clear
superiority that the Brits enjoyed, was Naval. And the Brits were
clearly superior in this regard. As usual. After the Dunkirk
disaster, where 90% of British heavy weapons were lost..the Brits were
in no condition to even defend their land from an invasion. It was
only the superlative actions of the RAF that gave the Brits even a
hope of avoiding total German air superiority.
The Russians were bleeding men and equipment in horrifying numbers as
they fought a holding action so Western factories and workers could be
transported farther east, deeper into Russia. And they were not doing
so well. The Germans were only stopped at the gates of Moscow by the
weather. It wasnt until later in 1941 that the Winter Counter
Offensive began, and then the Russians gave a good accounting of
themselves. 2000 superb Russian tanks against 1400 odd German ones,
all subject to the long long supply lines needed to furnish men,
material and fuel. Much of which btw..supplied by the US via convoy
> BY the time the US came into the war the Germans
>were pretty well on the defensive and had been stopped on two fronts. The
>desert was a yo-yo affair until less than a year after Pearl Harbour when
>the Germans were defeated at El Alamein, with the US hardly making any
>fighting contribution up until that point.
The Germans had been indeed stopped at two fronts, but were advancing
on others.
As to Al Alamein, Monty had more than a bit of input on the usage of
the green as grass farmboys from the US. Afterall, the Brits had
been fighting for several years, while the US didnt enter the war
until late in 1941..enter the war by supplying troops. Materials on
the other hand..had been pouring into Britian by the convoy load.
>
>When the US came into the war in earnest in fighting mode, the Germans had
>been defeated in the desert and pegged back on two fronts going nowhere,
>fighting more or less a defensive war.
>
Only in the Desert, and inside Russia. So about the rest of Europe?
<G>
Mike Kirkland
wrote:
>You have a choice.
What do you have to be proud about? You are less free than Canada, you
rape the land of its resources, and your civil rights record is
atrocious.
Jeff Urs
> What do you have to be proud about? You are less free than Canada,
That is, as they say, debatable.
> you rape the land of its resources,
Guilty as charged.
> and your civil rights record is atrocious.
No worse than might be expected for our unique situation (although
much worse, of course, than could have been hoped for).
In most of the places into which the British introduced African
slavery, it seems to me, the slaves were imported in such numbers that
they became the largest ethnic group, making civil rights problems
unlikely when independence was achieved. Slavery was not nearly so
prevalent here, so the African-descended population is much smaller --
large enough to cause friction, not nearly large enough to give them
much political power.
By the way, remind me which side the British supported when we were
settling our slavery issue?
--
Jeff
Spiv
"Jeff Urs" <sta...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:m3llen6...@localhost.localdomain...
Both. The laid shipbuilders on the Mersey were building ships for both
sides on adjacent slipways.
Spiv
> On Mon, 4 Oct 2004 00:15:54 +0100, "Spiv" <nyl...@spam.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Gunner" <gun...@lightspeed.net> wrote in message
> >news:sa70m09fk6l51evau...@4ax.com...
> >> On Sun, 3 Oct 2004 12:07:21 +0100, "The Rifleman"
> >> <st...@nospamdaily3747.btnet.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Sorry old chap but once aggain you are wrong, the War started in 1939
you
> >> >good chaps did not join in til Dec 1941 long after the tide of war had
> >> >turned against the germans, esp as the russians had already got stuck
in,
> >> >but you major contribution was once again very welcome and certainly
> >> >shortened the war.
> >>
> >>
> >> "long after the tide had turned against the Germans"......
> >>
> >> Blink blink...in 1941? They held most of Europe as a client state,
> >> had forced the British to a holding action defending the British
> >> Isles, controlled most of North Africa and were pushing the Russians
> >> back towards the east in droves.
> >
> >Quite wrong. Just before Pearl Harbour the Soviets counter attacked near
> >Moscow taking around 30,000 German prisoners. The German advance had
> >stopped in the east.
>
> No. Just for the Winter.
No. Stopped for good. The Germans had advanced as fast as their armies
could move. Now they were stopped. The front, as in the desert, was toing
and froing but the Germans were on the defensive.
> > The German advance in the west was stopped with the
> >battle of Britain in 1940.
>
> Chuckle..the Germans were not
> willing to take Britian, they just
> wanted them contained, and they largely were.
They could not take it. They were facing the world's largest navy, with a
navy not worth talking about.
> Operation Sealion (invasion of Britian)
Was a ruse to press the UK for peace. The Germans did not want a war with
the UK. Look at D day. With all that specialist invasion equip,ment, even
then it was touch and go. The Germans were building concrete barges to be
towed over. Laughable.
> clearly superior in this regard. As
> usual. After the Dunkirk disaster,
> where 90% of British heavy weapons
> were lost..the Brits were in no condition
> to even defend their land from an invasion.
Briain had a large industry and could replace equpiment quite quickly.
During the Battle of Britain, 55 tanks were sent to the desert. The Germans
were going nowhere and the Brits and Germans knew it. If the Germans could
have taken the UK they would have.
> It was only the superlative actions of the RAF that gave the Brits even a
> hope of avoiding total German air superiority.
Admiral Raider, said to Hitler, that could not guarantee putting an army on
UK shores, even if the RAF was destroyed, while the RN was there. During
this time the UK also had a very large bomber fleet.
> The Russians were bleeding men and equipment in horrifying numbers as
> they fought a holding action so Western factories and workers could be
> transported farther east, deeper into Russia. And they were not doing
> so well. The Germans were only stopped at the gates of Moscow by the
> weather.
So, that counter-attack using the new T34s tanks taking 30,000 prisoners
stopping the Germans didn't matter then?
> It wasnt until later in 1941 that the Winter Counter
> Offensive began, and then the Russians gave
> a good accounting of themselves. 2000 superb
> Russian tanks against 1400 odd German ones,
Offensive? You mean the Germans fighting for their lives. They had been
stopped at Moscow and now the tooing and froing had begun. There was no
"offensive". The Soviets allowed them to go into the Caucasus knowing they
would consume men a equipment which they could not afford to take from the
main battle areas.
> > BY the time the US came into the war the Germans
> >were pretty well on the defensive and had been stopped on two fronts.
The
> >desert was a yo-yo affair until less than a year after Pearl Harbour when
> >the Germans were defeated at El Alamein, with the US hardly making any
> >fighting contribution up until that point.
>
> The Germans had been indeed stopped
> at two fronts, but were advancing
> on others.
On what front was that then?
> As to Al Alamein, Monty had more than
> a bit of input on the usage of
> the green as grass farmboys from the US.
No Yanks were at El Alemein.
> Afterall, the Brits had
> been fighting for several years, while
> the US didnt enter the war
> until late in 1941
When the Germans had been stopped on two fronts and still fighting another.
>..enter the war by
> supplying troops. Materials on
> the other hand..had been pouring into
> Britian by the convoy load.
And paid for with interest.
> >When the US came into the war in earnest
> >in fighting mode, the Germans had
> >been defeated in the desert and pegged
> >back on two fronts going nowhere,
> >fighting more or less a defensive war.
>
> Only in the Desert, and inside Russia. So
> about the rest of Europe?
What are you on about? The US came into the war with troops in late 1941
with a small contingent in north Africa. At that time the Germans were being
defeated at El Alemein, stopped in the west at the Channel and on the
defensive in the east. Where did the Yanks come in and stop the German
advances?
Gunner
wrote:
>On Sun, 3 Oct 2004 19:31:53 -0700, "CW" <no adddress@spam free.com>
You are talking about the British, are you not?
Spiv
> On Sun, 03 Oct 2004 23:37:43 -0700, Mike Kirkland <n...@email.here>
> wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 3 Oct 2004 19:31:53 -0700, "CW" <no adddress@spam free.com>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>You have a choice.
> >
> >What do you have to be proud about? You are less free than Canada, you
> >rape the land of its resources, and your civil rights record is
> >atrocious.
>
> You are talking about the British, are you not?
On the last point no. And the second point is that we do not use the land to
its full potential for the benefit of the people.
Churchill
> On Mon, 4 Oct 2004 00:15:54 +0100, "Spiv" <nyl...@spam.com> wrote:
> Chuckle..the Germans were not willing to take Britian, they just
> wanted them contained, and they largely were.
Incorrect, the Germans wanted to conquer Britain, that is obvious. They
could not get their land troops across the channel so the Sealion invasion
could not occur. So they tried to conquer the British with the Luftwaffe,
which did not work.
> Operation Sealion (invasion of Britian) was only put on the back
> burner because Hitler still had hopes of an alliance between the Brits
> and Germany, or at the least, Britian being neutral. The only clear
> superiority that the Brits enjoyed, was Naval.
Depends on how you look at it, numbers are one thing, quality is another.
In additon, everytime a German plane was shot down over British airspace
they lost a pilot, the British pilots got to fly again.
> And the Brits were
> clearly superior in this regard. As usual. After the Dunkirk
> disaster, where 90% of British heavy weapons were lost..the Brits were
> in no condition to even defend their land from an invasion.
You have forgotten about Winnie and Pooh.
http://www.doverpages.co.uk/big_guns.htm
>It was
> only the superlative actions of the RAF that gave the Brits even a
> hope of avoiding total German air superiority.
Agreed, if Germany could have landed their troops in Britain, they would
have captured England easily.
raymond o'hara
"Jim Voege" <jfvo...@SPAMsympatico.ca> wrote in message
fort meigs was an american victory , it was won by w.h. harrison. so go back
and recheck your list.
>
Spiv
"Churchill" <y...@yes.com> wrote in message
news:uA98d.9407$jj2.3...@news20.bellglobal.com...
>
> "Gunner" <gun...@lightspeed.net> wrote in message
> news:b6l1m0h2qa2h34dvs...@4ax.com...
> > On Mon, 4 Oct 2004 00:15:54 +0100, "Spiv" <nyl...@spam.com> wrote:
>
> > Chuckle..the Germans were not willing to take Britian, they just
> > wanted them contained, and they largely were.
>
> Incorrect, the Germans wanted
> to conquer Britain, that is obvious. They
> could not get their land troops across the
> channel so the Sealion invasion
> could not occur. So they tried to conquer
> the British with the Luftwaffe,
> which did not work.
The Germans knew full well they could not conquer the UK. Sealion and the
Battle of Britain was a ruse to force a peace treaty. The Germans would
have to conquer the UK on Normandy proportions, which they were clearly
incapable of doing..
> > Operation Sealion (invasion of Britian) was only put on the back
> > burner because Hitler still had hopes of an alliance between the Brits
> > and Germany, or at the least, Britian being neutral. The only clear
> > superiority that the Brits enjoyed, was Naval.
>
> Depends on how you look at it, numbers are one thing, quality is another.
> In additon, everytime a German plane was shot down over British airspace
> they lost a pilot, the British pilots got to fly again.
>
> > And the Brits were
> > clearly superior in this regard. As usual. After the Dunkirk
> > disaster, where 90% of British heavy weapons were lost..the Brits were
> > in no condition to even defend their land from an invasion.
>
> You have forgotten about Winnie and Pooh.
>
> http://www.doverpages.co.uk/big_guns.htm
None of thsoe guns, either British or German were of any real use. Winnie
and Pooh were only of moral value. People seeing newsreels of super large
guns would feel more safe.
> >It was
> > only the superlative actions of the RAF that gave the Brits even a
> > hope of avoiding total German air superiority.
>
> Agreed, if Germany could have landed their troops in Britain, they would
> have captured England easily.
It would have had to have been a large number and in heavy armour, with a
clear supply line.
Jamie Hart
> On Sat, 2 Oct 2004 13:36:11 +0100, "The Rifleman"
> <st...@nospamdaily3747.btnet.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Just think what we could have done if we were not already fighting in
>>France, Spain, India, the far East Egypt and other campaigns, we could have
>>given the north american colony our full attention, and in those thankfully
>>long gone days his Majesties troops knew how to deal with traitors . Still
>>what the rifle regiments did to Washington DC is being repeated today by the
>>bloods and the crips :o)
>>
>
>
> Just goes to show that the British simply couldnt get along with
> anyone.
>
Damned right, and I'm pleased to see you colonials are carrying on the
tradition.
Jim Voege
>> What do you have to be proud about? You are less free than Canada,
>
> That is, as they say, debatable.
>
all things considered.
Jim
Jim Voege
Ray, I am aware that the fort wasn't taken. However, given the catastrophic
events for the Americans outside the fort (of the entire 800 man left column
of the relief force only 150 escaped death or capture), that would seem to
me to be a trifle.
Jim
Bill Jameson
> Sometimes Americans forget what we Canadians and British did to them!
>
> http://www.amazon.ca/exec/obidos/ASIN/1557506922/qid=1096713303/sr=1-3/ref=sr_1_0_3/701-2197787-6887567
>
> Perhaps, if these memories were more clear they would comprehend the
> potential threats and danger from Terrorists and WMD !
In 1813, the Americans invaded and burned York (present-day Toronto) on
April 27.
Mike Kirkland
>By the way, remind me which side the British supported when we were
>settling our slavery issue?
The movement to abolish slavery for economic and humanitarian reasons
began in the 18th cent. Britain outlawed (1807) the slave trade and
abolished (1833) slavery in the British Empire.
The Concise Columbia Encyclopedia is licensed from Columbia University
Press. Copyright © 1995 by Columbia University Press. All rights
reserved.
raymond o'hara
"Jim Voege" <jfvo...@SPAMsympatico.ca> wrote in message
it from a care taker force who was unaware that war was declared. itwas
recaptured when the fought a real battle.
Giftzwerg
says...
> >By the way, remind me which side the British supported when we were
> >settling our slavery issue?
>
> The movement to abolish slavery for economic and humanitarian reasons
> began in the 18th cent. Britain outlawed (1807) the slave trade and
> abolished (1833) slavery in the British Empire.
>
> The Concise Columbia Encyclopedia is licensed from Columbia University
> Press. Copyright © 1995 by Columbia University Press. All rights
> reserved.
Where do you get your economic lore? The World Book?
--
Giftzwerg
***
"If it weren't for the small matter of the war for civilization,
I'd find it hard to resist a Kerry Presidency. Groucho Marx once
observed that an audience will laugh at an actress playing an old
lady pretending to fall downstairs, but, for a professional comic
to laugh, it has to be a real old lady. That's how I feel about
the Kerry campaign."
- Mark Steyn
Jim Voege
was over they owned none of it. Simple really.
Jim
Peter H. Granzeau
<giftzw...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>In article <0jv2m0thkc739rqpe...@4ax.com>, n...@email.here
>says...
>
>> >By the way, remind me which side the British supported when we were
>> >settling our slavery issue?
>>
>> The movement to abolish slavery for economic and humanitarian reasons
>> began in the 18th cent. Britain outlawed (1807) the slave trade and
>> abolished (1833) slavery in the British Empire.
>>
>> The Concise Columbia Encyclopedia is licensed from Columbia University
>> Press. Copyright © 1995 by Columbia University Press. All rights
>> reserved.
>
>Where do you get your economic lore? The World Book?
A gratuitous insult that adds nothing to the discussion.
The fact remains that although the British Empire had outlawed slavery
within its own borders, it supported the slave-owning Confederate
States of America. It finally took a threat of war by Minister to
Great Britain Charles Francis Adams (entirely on his own authority, by
the way, in no way authorized by either Lincoln or Seward) to stop the
delivery of warships by British shipbuilders to the Confederacy.
Dallas Patterson
Peter H. Granzeau wrote:
Also, some of the captains of the Confederate warships were British
Royal Navy cpatains and other naval officers who were "theoretically" on
leave of absence or retirement from the Royal Navy.
Dallas Patterson
Jim Voege wrote:
The principal purpose of the American invasion of Canada was to
eliminate the use of Canadian territory as a safe haven and base of
operations for terror raids against the American settlements on the
Western frontiers, just as Canada was used by the French during the
previous French and Indian Wars. After the War of 1812, the hostile
Indian nations had been defeated decisively enough to force an end to
the terror raids on American communities sponsored from Canada by
Britain. Consequently, the abatement of the threat from Canada made
further invasions of Canada unnecessary and undesirable. It was not
until the American Civil War that Canada was once more used as a serious
threat to invade the United States, and the United States responded to
the threat by letting Britain know Canada would be counterattacked if
British troops invaded or permitted any more Confederate forces to
continue any further raids from Canadian territory. This remained the
situation until Britain and Canada allied themselves to the United
States instead of continuing to sponsor efforts to raid American
communities and attempt to destabilize the U.S. government.
raymond o'hara
"Jim Voege"
> >> >> >> Jim
the u.s did not go to war to capture canada, the u.s. went to war to get
freedom of the seas and british forces out of america , the invasion of
canada was an off the cuff adventure that ended with the u.s. moving at will
through western ontario after the battle of the thames but we went home
after the treaty. the u.s. got the brits off american tertitory and the
brits never bothered our shipping again.
raymond o'hara
"Dallas Patterson" >
>
> Also, some of the captains of the Confederate warships were British
> Royal Navy cpatains and other naval officers who were "theoretically" on
> leave of absence or retirement from the Royal Navy.
the brits built ships for the confeds and they lent some men to semmes for
the alabama's fight with kearsarge but no british rn captains commanded
southern ships.
Spiv
>
> "Dallas Patterson" >
> >
> > Also, some of the captains of the Confederate warships were British
> > Royal Navy cpatains and other naval officers who were "theoretically" on
> > leave of absence or retirement from the Royal Navy.
>
> the brits built ships for the confeds
They also built them for the north as well.
Jim Voege
>
> the u.s did not go to war to capture canada, the u.s. went to war to get
> freedom of the seas and british forces out of america ,
This is a difference without a distinction.
> the invasion of
> canada was an off the cuff adventure that ended with the u.s. moving at
> will
> through western ontario after the battle of the thames but we went home
> after the treaty. the u.s. got the brits off american tertitory and the
> brits never bothered our shipping again.
>
This sounds good except it doesn't explain why the U.S. declared war *after*
it was informed that Britain had agreed to order its Navy to stop impressing
American seamen.
Face it. The U.S. wanted Canada plain and simple. Let's move on.
Jim
Dan
"Spiv" <nyl...@spam.com> wrote in
> None of thsoe guns, either British or German were of any real use. Winnie
> and Pooh were only of moral value.
Make that "morale" value...
Dan
K Horner
"Spiv" <nyl...@spam.com> wrote in message
news:2sb3h3F...@uni-berlin.de...
>
> "K Horner" <k...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:DzG7d.57549$He1.34492@attbi_s01...
>> Tis true the british burned Washington D.C. But, if I recall correctly,
> the
>> british lost the war. And just over a hundred years later "needed" the
>> upstart Americans to pull their ass out of the fire.
>
> What would this be?
>
Small incident called WWI
>> Then, we did it again
>> twenty odd years later.
>
> Again, what would this be?
Another inconsquential set to called WWII
>
>> It's a good thing we don't hold a grudge. What
>> with the royal families friendship with the Nazi party.
>>
>> Cordially
>>
>> "Churchill" <y...@yes.com> wrote in message
>> news:YAv7d.26701$MD5.1...@news20.bellglobal.com...
K Horner
"Mike Kirkland" <n...@email.here> wrote in message
news:uvc1m0t55e9a6gkp2...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 3 Oct 2004 18:56:30 -0700, "CW" <no adddress@spam free.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>And proud of it.
>>
> And who's now your closest ally? You don't deserve us if you are proud
> of being a turncoat.
Well, strangely enough, Germany is in some ways a closer ally than Britian.
K Horner
"Mike Kirkland" <n...@email.here> wrote in message
> On Sun, 3 Oct 2004 19:31:53 -0700, "CW" <no adddress@spam free.com>
> wrote:
>
>>You have a choice.
>
> What do you have to be proud about? You are less free than Canada, you
> rape the land of its resources, and your civil rights record is
> atrocious.
Whenever someone starts to bad mouth the way of life inthe U.S., I have only
one question. Why is so damn many people want to come here? Perhaps we
should just send them onto Canada, or over to England.
Mike Kirkland
<giftzw...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Where do you get your economic lore? The World Book?
CIA Factbook.
Mike Kirkland
>Well, strangely enough, Germany is in some ways a closer ally than Britian.
>
How do you figure that? How many troops did you send to Iraq?
Mike Kirkland
<pgr...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>The fact remains that although the British Empire had outlawed slavery
>within its own borders, it supported the slave-owning Confederate
>States of America. It finally took a threat of war by Minister to
>Great Britain Charles Francis Adams (entirely on his own authority, by
>the way, in no way authorized by either Lincoln or Seward) to stop the
>delivery of warships by British shipbuilders to the Confederacy.
http://www.civilwarhome.com/europeandcivilwar.htm
To be sure, the Southern nation was based on the institution of
chattel slavery-a completely repugnant anachronism by the middle of
the nineteenth century. Neither the British nor the French people
would go along with any policy that involved fighting to preserve
slavery. But up to the fall of 1862 slavery was not an issue in the
war. The Federal government had explicitly declared that it was
fighting solely to save the Union. If a Southern emissary wanted to
convince Europeans that they could aid the South without thereby
aiding slavery, he could prove his case by citing the words of the
Federal President and Congress. As far as Europe was concerned, no
moral issue was involved; the game of power politics could be played
with a clear conscience.
So it was played, and the threat of European intervention was
real and immediate. Outright war with England nearly took place in the
fall of 1861, when a hot-headed US. naval officer, Captain Charles
Wilkes, undertook to twist the lion's tail and got more of a reaction
than anyone was prepared for.
David Thornley
brian w edginton <ed...@REMOVETHISbigpond.com> wrote:
>it was banned by the US govt after(from memory}, Pearl Harbour.
>Which, btw, was why the US entered the war....wasn't to save anyone's
>arse but their own.
>
Not the case - the US was pushing into the war against Germany,
having supplied a good deal of illegal support for Britain and
started a shooting war in the North Atlantic.
--
David H. Thornley | If you want my opinion, ask.
da...@thornley.net | If you don't, flee.
http://www.thornley.net/~thornley/david/ | O-
David Thornley
Mike Kirkland <n...@email.here> wrote:
>
>http://www.civilwarhome.com/europeandcivilwar.htm
>To be sure, the Southern nation was based on the institution of
>chattel slavery-a completely repugnant anachronism by the middle of
>the nineteenth century. Neither the British nor the French people
>would go along with any policy that involved fighting to preserve
>slavery. But up to the fall of 1862 slavery was not an issue in the
>war.
Right - it was not until the Emancipation Proclamation that the war
became anti-slavery. After that, it became politically impossible
for the British or French to openly support the Confederacy.
This didn't mean that there was no covert support; relations between
the US and Britain were not necessarily friendly at this period.
David Thornley
The Rifleman <st...@nospamdaily3747.btnet.com> wrote:
>
>"K Horner" <k...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:DzG7d.57549$He1.34492@attbi_s01...
>> Tis true the british burned Washington D.C. But, if I recall correctly,
>the
>> british lost the war.
>
>it and a colony not even fully established,
In 1812, the US had been something of a going concern as an independent
country for decades.
> And just over a hundred years later "needed" the
>> upstart Americans to pull their ass out of the fire.
>
>Needed??? I dont think so, welcome none the less but US forces only
>arrived in the dying months of the war
>
In 1918, the US did not make a big military contribution until the
last few months, but the fact that "the Yanks are coming" was exceedingly
important in shaping the strategy and morale of the combatants.
Had the war gone into 1919 the US would have been almost
unstoppable, and everybody knew that.
> Then, we did it again
>> twenty odd years later
>
>Sorry old chap but once aggain you are wrong, the War started in 1939 you
The war started in 1937; you British chaps just went along with the
aggressor (Japan) until you were attacked in 1941.
>good chaps did not join in til Dec 1941
If you're talking about actual war operations against Germany, it
started somewhat earlier, in the North Atlantic.
long after the tide of war had
>turned against the germans,
Not too good on your WWII history, are you? The British were just
getting their first real victory over the Germans (Crusader) in
a peripheral theater, and were going to suffer more defeats until
one could say the tide had turned. The Soviets were in the middle
of ensuring that they'd hang on until 1942, but weren't really
there yet.
>. It's a good thing we don't hold a grudge.
>Nor do we for rescuing the US in Korea or teaching the US how to fight in
>Vietnam
>
Huh? Why do you think you taught us how to fight in Vietnam?
If you'd actually done that, we'd have done a much better job!
David Thornley
>
>No. Stopped for good. The Germans had advanced as fast as their armies
>could move. Now they were stopped. The front, as in the desert, was toing
>and froing but the Germans were on the defensive.
>
You have a very odd definition of "toing and froing", not to mention
"defensive".
The Germans were on the offensive come Spring 1942, and covered hundreds
of kilometers.
>They could not take it. They were facing the world's largest navy, with a
>navy not worth talking about.
>
Basically, yes. There was no way Sealion was going to work.
If the RAF and RN were to magically disappear, the Germans did have
a chance to win, but not a good one. The British defenders were not
well-equipped at that time, but they were numerous and determined.
The Germans would have had to mount a major military operation, which
would have required a lot of supplies to come through ports the
Brits had rigged for demolition, for example.
>Briain had a large industry and could replace equpiment quite quickly.
Not all that quickly. The only thing that saved the Brits was the
English Channel.
>> The Russians were bleeding men and equipment in horrifying numbers as
>> they fought a holding action so Western factories and workers could be
>> transported farther east, deeper into Russia. And they were not doing
>> so well. The Germans were only stopped at the gates of Moscow by the
>> weather.
>
>So, that counter-attack using the new T34s tanks taking 30,000 prisoners
>stopping the Germans didn't matter then?
>
The truth is somewhere between those. The Soviets stopped the Germans,
but temporarily and at horrible cost. They were in great danger in
1942. The Soviets were afraid of the Germans until the summer of 1943.
>"offensive". The Soviets allowed them to go into the Caucasus knowing they
>would consume men a equipment which they could not afford to take from the
>main battle areas.
>
You're delusional. The Soviets wanted to stop the Germans, but couldn't
manage it. They did manage to run enough like bunnies to avoid too many
large encirclements of prisoners, which was a considerable improvement
over 1941.
>> As to Al Alamein, Monty had more than
>> a bit of input on the usage of
>> the green as grass farmboys from the US.
>
>No Yanks were at El Alemein.
>
Wrong.
Not many Yanks, I'll admit, and I don't think there were any with the
ground troops.
>> Afterall, the Brits had
>> been fighting for several years, while
>> the US didnt enter the war
>> until late in 1941
>
>When the Germans had been stopped on two fronts and still fighting another.
>
Nope; the US entered the war, by which I mean attacking the enemy, in
the late Summer or early Fall of 1941.
The US didn't do very well, inflicting no damage on U-boats and suffering
destroyer losses, but the US was fighting.
At that time, the Germans were looking unstoppable.
>> Only in the Desert, and inside Russia. So
>> about the rest of Europe?
>
>What are you on about? The US came into the war with troops in late 1941
>with a small contingent in north Africa.
Are you thinking of Operation Torch? That was November 1942. There
were Americans in Africa earlier, but not many of them.
At that time the Germans were being
>defeated at El Alemein,
With a good deal of US materiel assistance.
y
brian w edginton
>In article <11ful0hnubusgg6vm...@4ax.com>,
>brian w edginton <ed...@REMOVETHISbigpond.com> wrote:
>
>>it was banned by the US govt after(from memory}, Pearl Harbour.
>>Which, btw, was why the US entered the war....wasn't to save anyone's
>>arse but their own.
>>
>Not the case - the US was pushing into the war against Germany,
>having supplied a good deal of illegal support for Britain and
>started a shooting war in the North Atlantic.
Absolutely!
Roosevelt wasn't stupid enough to miss the point that a Europe
completely controlled by the Nazis would be a disaster for America's
ability to trade freely around the world.
And, face it.....America was a huge trading nation. Europe was a major
market.
Pearl Harbour gave him the only excuse the American people would
accept for a total commitment to combat.
Europe and North Africa in German hands,and the Pacific in Japanese
hands would have made the US a nonentity in terms of being a "World
Power".
And, let's not forget the indecision on the part of Central and South
American countries. Some of them could have gone either way.
America HAD to throw its hand in with the other Allies who had been
fighting the common enemy for a couple of years.
While I do appreciate what the US did for the "Free World", I don't
believe it was, entirely, altruistic.
brianWE
Please ignore any advice I offer...
if I was smart, I wouldn't be talking to you.
Churchill
Please not to Canada, we have become the toilet bowl to the world, letting
any Tom, Dick and Mohammed in that cares to show up -:)
Giftzwerg
thor...@visi.com says...
> >To be sure, the Southern nation was based on the institution of
> >chattel slavery-a completely repugnant anachronism by the middle of
> >the nineteenth century. Neither the British nor the French people
> >would go along with any policy that involved fighting to preserve
> >slavery. But up to the fall of 1862 slavery was not an issue in the
> >war.
>
> Right - it was not until the Emancipation Proclamation that the war
> became anti-slavery.
Well, no.
This is an issue that needs to be handled with great care, because while
it's trivially true that "freeing the slaves" was not an explicit *war
aim* of the Union until some time after the war started, slavery was
*the* primary irritant that caused the Confederacy to split off in the
first place.
I mean, what's the theory here? That prior to Antietam, the Confederacy
could simply have said, "OK, we'll rejoin the Union," and have *kept*
the institution of slavery? Of course not. Whether or not anyone
troubled themselves to scratch it down on paper, the dynamic of the
situation was that restoration of the Constitution on the Union's terms
meant bye-bye slavery from the moment the first cannonball hit Fort
Sumter.
Thus the statement, "up to the fall of 1862 slavery was not an issue in
the war" is borderline insane; without slavery, there would have been no
split and no war in the first place.
--
Giftzwerg
***
"But I can do a better job of protecting America's security because
the test that I was talking about was a test of legitimacy, not
just in the globe, but elsewhere."
- John Kerry
"Elsewhere?!?!?!"
- Giftzwerg
Michael P. Reed
> The primary war objective of the U.S. was to capture Canada -- something it
> had been attempting since 1775. It failed. Again.
Source? :o) Sorry, Jim, but the U.S. objective in the War of 1812
was not to conquer Canada. Neither was it in 1775. The 1775 op was
to "liberate" it from British rule IF the Canadians desired it,
otherwise no invasion. U.S. intel on the matter was mixed; some for
and some against. Basically, the public in large was sympathetic to
the American cause and supported the "United Colonies" when it invaded
in 1775. The Americans even raised a couple regiments of Canadians
(the 2nd Canadian Regiment was a crack outfit and one of the more
famous Continental units). The problem for the American cause (and
those Canadians who wished to give the boot to the redcoats), was that
the powers that be, namely the Church and the merchant elite sided
with Britain. That said, there was no plan to force Canada into the
union precisely because in 1775 there was no union.
>
> > The United States succeeded at keeping Britian from breaking up the United
> > States, bringing a virtual end to the British impressment of American
> > sailors,
>
> It is my understanding that this, *to the knowledge of the American
> administration* had already been accomplished before the U.S. declaration of
> war. Another strawman.
Actually, the prime cause of the war was fear in the U.S. that
Britain, through its trade policies, was relegating the U.S. to a
pre-Revolutionary colonial status.
>
> > and bringing Brtiish-Amerindian terrorism raids on the American frontier
> > communities to an end, without capturing Canada to do so.
>
> If they really wanted to stop Indian raiding all they had to do was to
> respect Indian territory. However, the impulse to expand was too strong --
> and the root cause for the War of 1812.
Wrong and wrong. U.S. expansion was to the south, and it was in
Florida that the Madison administration was bending its efforts at
seperating the Floridas from Spain. There was no interest in Canada
as there was still a very large bit of territory not yet settled, and
population pressures were still quite small. As for the Indians,
after the Treaty of Greenville Indian-American relations were fairly
good. However, after the CHESAPEAKE-LEOPARD Affair, both American and
British territorial governments in the North West began wooing the
indians as both saw that they were the key to any successful defense
of their respective frontiers. The British were better at it, because
they were able to cut through the diplomatic "red-tape" and because
they armed the Indians no questions asked, while encouraging the
Indians to great dislike of the U.S. It is easy to say U.S.
encroachment on Indian lands led to the War with the Indians, until it
is remembered that the encroachment by the British was faster and much
more efficient.
> > Canada was no more secure after the war than it was before the war.
>
> I don't follow this. Before the war Canada would eventually face an
> attempted American annexation.
Not so.
> After the war, no such attempt was ever
> again made.
Strawman.
> I'd say that Canada was infinitely more secure after the war.
Agreed. Anglo-American relations improved, so it goes without saying
that a British colony contiguous to America would be more secure.
> In point of fact, the U.S. recognized that it had a small window of
> opportunity whilst Britain was still entangled in Europe. It missed the
> window and, knowing that, sued for peace.
Nope. You give the Madison administration too much credit for forward
thinking.
> Only if you assume that somehow the United States was threatened in 1812
> which, quite frankly, is the ultimate strawman.
Nope. It was threatened, and the generation then saw it as such. It
was the very real threat to the "republican experiment" that led to
the war.
Mike Kirkland
>Source? :o) Sorry, Jim, but the U.S. objective in the War of 1812
>was not to conquer Canada. Neither was it in 1775. The 1775 op was
>to "liberate" it from British rule IF the Canadians desired it,
Sure it was.
http://www.42explore2.com/1812war.htm
"This conflict was caused mainly by the US resentment of British naval
harassment. The British were already at war with France. They seized
American ships and took seamen from them, some who were US citizens.
The British also attempted to keep US ships from reaching French
ports.
It was also strange that this war over freedom of the seas began with
an unsuccessful land invasion of Canada."
You failed to achieve your objectives - get used to it.
Mike Kirkland
<giftzw...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Well, no.
>
>This is an issue that needs to be handled with great care, because while
>it's trivially true that "freeing the slaves" was not an explicit *war
>aim* of the Union until some time after the war started, slavery was
>*the* primary irritant that caused the Confederacy to split off in the
>first place.
>
>I mean, what's the theory here? That prior to Antietam, the Confederacy
>could simply have said, "OK, we'll rejoin the Union," and have *kept*
>the institution of slavery? Of course not. Whether or not anyone
>troubled themselves to scratch it down on paper, the dynamic of the
>situation was that restoration of the Constitution on the Union's terms
>meant bye-bye slavery from the moment the first cannonball hit Fort
>Sumter.
>
>Thus the statement, "up to the fall of 1862 slavery was not an issue in
>the war" is borderline insane; without slavery, there would have been no
>split and no war in the first place.
http://www.civilwarhome.com/gordoncauses.htm
Slavery was undoubtedly the immediate fomenting cause of the woeful
American conflict. It was the great political factor around which the
passions of the sections had long been gathered--the tallest pine in
the political forest around whose top the fiercest lightnings were to
blaze and whose trunk was destined to be shivered in the earthquake
shocks of war. But slavery was far from being the sole cause of the
prolonged conflict. Neither its destruction on the one hand, nor its
defence on the other, was the energizing force that held the
contending armies to four years of bloody work. I apprehend that if
all living Union soldiers were summoned to the witness stand, every
one of them would testify that it was the preservation of the American
Union and not the destruction of Southern slavery that induced him to
volunteer at the call of his country. As for the South, it is enough
to say that perhaps eighty per cent. of her armies were neither
slave-holders, nor had the remotest interest in the institution. No
other proof, however, is needed than the undeniable fact that at any
period of the war from its beginning to near its close the South could
have saved slavery by simply laying down its arms and returning to the
Union.
Mike Kirkland
>Whenever someone starts to bad mouth the way of life inthe U.S., I have only
>one question. Why is so damn many people want to come here? Perhaps we
>should just send them onto Canada, or over to England.
>
Because people by nature are greedy and they want to get rich in
America. No other reason. And lots of immigrants do want to go to
Canada and England.
Mike Kirkland
wrote:
>>Thus the statement, "up to the fall of 1862 slavery was not an issue in
>>the war" is borderline insane; without slavery, there would have been no
>>split and no war in the first place.
And I know you like second replies so added the below.
http://www.civilwarhome.com/gordoncauses.htm
"The South maintained with the depth of religious conviction that the
Union formed under the Constitution was a Union of consent and not of
force; that the original States were not the creatures but the
creators of the Union; that these States had gained their
independence, their freedom, and their sovereignty from the mother
country, and had not surrendered these on entering the Union; that by
the express terms of the Constitution all rights and powers not
delegated were reserved to the States; and the South challenged the
North to find one trace of authority in that Constitution for invading
and coercing a sovereign State."
Johan
Mike Kirkland <n...@email.here> wrote:
Disregarding who won or lost, there's that burning Washington thing.
Remember?
For four or five administrations now I've been pleading with Canada to
come back and do it again, please! (Well, maybe since Nixon)
Won't you do a neighbor the _slightest_ little favor, dammit?
Right after "Oh, Canada," just sing "We did it before and we can do it
again. Yes, we can do it again. Oh, we did it before and we can do it
again"....until you get in the mood, OK?
If you choose the right variety of administration, you might not even
have to trot by a few National Guard units putting up a token
resistance. You know, just to make it look good?
Barring that, all we can hope for down here is gridlock in Congress.
S'long as you leave that gun control stuff in Ottawa...
Thanks,
John
Spiv
Spiv
>
> "Spiv" <nyl...@spam.com> wrote in message
> news:2sb3h3F...@uni-berlin.de...
> >
> > "K Horner" <k...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> > news:DzG7d.57549$He1.34492@attbi_s01...
> >> Tis true the british burned Washington D.C. But, if I recall
correctly,
> > the
> >> british lost the war. And just over a hundred years later "needed" the
> >> upstart Americans to pull their ass out of the fire.
> >
> > What would this be?
> >
> Small incident called WWI
Do some reading on WW1 then.
> >> Then, we did it again
> >> twenty odd years later.
> >
> > Again, what would this be?
>
> Another inconsquential set to called WWII
Pulled your asses out of the fire you mean. Japan and Germany declared war
on you. You never came running to pull anyone's ass out of any fire except
your own.
> >> It's a good thing we don't hold a grudge. What
> >> with the royal families friendship with the Nazi party.
> >>
> >> Cordially
> >>
> >> "Churchill" <y...@yes.com> wrote in message
> >> news:YAv7d.26701$MD5.1...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> >>
> >> > Sometimes Americans forget what we Canadians and British did to them!
That they certainly do, like doing their fight for two years with their
weapons, and then the bastards charged us with interest for using the
weapons. They do have a history of carpet bagging.
Spiv
I'm sure you do. We are inundated with them. They stormed the Channel
Tunnel to get through, facing French policemen.