Britain let the Americans win their indepdence war

MOD EDIT - Rule 3

1776-1784 or so Britain puts up a meager fight for 13 colonies using barely 10,000 men and a weak blockade.

1792-1815 Britain fields 200,000 manned armies for nearly 23 years and enages in naval war from India-Pacific to Carribean-Atlantic to Egypt against the most formidable warrior in history.

In the Peninsular campaign Britain fields more than 1 million soldiers against Napoleon over a few year time period.

You Americans really think the British cared whether or not you were "free" from their rule? Nothing changed after the war, Britain still exported what they exported to America.

10,000 colonial expeditionary force....10 years later...mass mobilization and millions of soldiers over 2 decades to fight the French Revolutionaries.

MOD EDIT - Rule 3

 

I assume by your URL img you are complementing me on my aptitude for identifying American myths and tearing them down.

 

Why attempt logic with a position that lacks comprehensive basis?

You attempted the same thing in another thread when failing to account for the reasons power is held where it is in America.

http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=393027&p=1064673373#post1064673373

The same thing applies to English, American relationships and a history of revolution that shaped England itself. Murkey, inconsistent history plagues understanding. But there are logical paths of understanding.

Since before the Magna Carta revolution against roman crusade and dominance through establishment of government was constant in the British isles.

The hellfire caves were Druidic in ancient times during the time before the Magna Carta, and are a mere 20 miles from Runnymede. The entire history of the charter is a farce predating the banning of the Templars and divisions in Masonry before Benjamin Franklin visited the caves which bear a conspicuous pro Magna Carta theme at the entrance.

Some of those rebellious elements found their way to America. In fact, the south east and gulf were inhabited by French refugees from the first crusades well before the Mayflower landed.

http://m.ibtimes.com/fort-caroline-...-north-america-may-be-located-georgia-1557254

Fort Caroline was in place 56 years before the Mayflower, and the French origins go far further back than any might think.

Britan knew this. They preferred to fight France directly rather than engage the early French settlements that spang forth from the Brotherhood of the Coast and populated considerably to the Carolina's.

But related to the deficiencies of your post; the material basis of distance to America is left out of your position. France is close and India had dozens of major outposts established within and on its coasts. There was a British presence there from 1,300 on.

Early in the revolution, the Iroquois confederacy aligned with Britain as the crown put limits on westward expansion. That alliance bolstered the crowns dominance for a time and does not at all indicate giving the colonies their independence. Let us not forget the Tories brought from Germany to fight the colonists.

Accordingly your omission here and in the thread linked at top of the relationships of the Masonic Order, divisions thereof, resulting competitions etc., their oral histories and capacity of knowledge providing dominance as well as secret collusions, renders a simplistic and highly erroneous account of the past and present.

And of course the covert infiltration enabled by English financiers of the union army continues the struggle for the colonies and Americas need to overthrow the yoke of secrecy controlling power.

 

I dunno man. That's an awful lot of words. Sounds like umad.

 

I think the fact that the British were already fighting in Europe and didn't take the colonies as being much of a problem, bringing in Germans to do a lot of their fighting for them But the colonials didn't fight like the British and Germans thought. They didn't line up in long lines and let the other side mow them down. They fought them around trees, head rows, walls, buildings and etc. The didn't do like they fought in Europe, they went after the officers, knowing if they killed them it would put the rest in disarray and they would scatter. The British and Germans learned a very valuable lesson on how a smaller force can beat a larger force.

 

British were not already fighting in Europe? Do you even check basic historical facts before coming up with your American myths?

The idea that Americans fought differently than Europeans is also pure poppy-(*)(*)(*)(*). Learn a thing or two about George Washington's campaigns. People might study George Washington in war college except he really didn't amount to much of anything. He simply didn't get destroyed by avoiding pitched battle. Not particularly important.

Since the British barely committed any effort at all one has to wonder how the Americans could ever have lost, and perhaps the whole thing was staged to drag France into a war to bankrupt France (now there's a conspiracy for you!)

 

To set there and run your mouth that the British didn't think that much of America to send much of a fighting force is so much bull (*)(*)(*)(*). Listening to you, the British won the war. But guess what? They lost. They lost against a bunch of farmers, butchers, bankers and store keepers. They lost against a bunch of ill trained people that at times didn't have shoes to wear. They got their ass beat and left and took their German friends with them. Say what you want, the fact remains, they lost and they lost big. America is a free country that wound up saving their ass in WWII.

 

So the nation which defeated Napoleon lost to a bunch of farmers just 20 years before?

Sounds like Britain just didn't care.

Russia won world war II.

Russia destroyed more German Tanks, Planes, and Divisions in one Battle than the US destroyed in the entire war.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Stalingrad

 

They weren't fighting in Europe?

Anglo-French War, (1779-1783)-Also known as the American Revolution. Also involved Spain, the United States and the Netherlands against Britain. Can also be considered as an Anglo-French War, Anglo-Spanish War and a Anglo-Dutch War

 

You realize that none of those wars committed troops in Europe or involved any major engagements anywhere right? Shall we go down the list?

Anglo-French War.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France_in_the_American_Revolutionary_War

Such a viscious war that it consisted of only 2 noteworthy battles in the same week. Naval battle of Chesapeake Bay and Yorktown.

Wow.

Anglo-Spanish War.

You must be referring to the wars fought against Revolutionary France after the British stopped caring about their colonies who were still their economic colonies anyway.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Spanish_War_(1796–1808)

Anglo-Dutch War.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Anglo-Dutch_War

Also non-existent During the American wars, but Britain did invade the low countries during the French Revolution.

 

Russia was fighting in their own back yard. They had one front to fight on. America was fighting in Europe, Africa and in the Far East. Meanwhile arming her allies, including the Russians. The Russians couldn't have chased them out of Russia if it hadn't been for the trucks, jeeps, locomotives, train cars, ground killing aircraft, the US sent. Along with tool and dies to get their factories up to produce weapons. Hell the Russians didn't even have enough boots to fight the Germans. The Russian winter took care of almost 100,000 Germans, as they didn't even have winter cloths.

 

Wow so the Russian winter defeated 100,000 Germans = to 7 divisions?

You're aware that Russia defeated 650 German divisions right? So winter took care of 7 out of 650 divisions?

You're hopelessly outgunned when it comes to military history against me. But please keep entertaining me.

The US destroyed/defeated less than 140 German divisions. The "lend-lease" program to Russia gave Russia less than 5% of its industrial output, so you think the US factories supplied Soviet Union? Boo, look up some real facts.

As for one front? Land is harder to manouver than ocean. The Russian front was 3,000 miles long and there were 3 German army groups forming 3 separate theaters of battle.

the Americans only ever engaged in 2 theaters of battle at any time. Pacific and either North Africa, Italy, or France.

They never engaged in three theaters of battle at once like the Soviet Union did.

Also, the lines of communication of the order of battle (do you even know the terms I talk about? I know all the English terms of Jomini's Art of War about Defensive-Offensive Grand Tactics) in Soviet Union are east-west but the German fronts were North South making a perpindicular cross section of the battle topology.

In the Western front the US had a 200 mile long front or in Italy it was 50 miles long and it was parallel lines of communication meanign equal force was presented equally head-on.

In the Pacific the forces were supplied by 360 degree available lines of communication, if a Navy does not have direct access from the East it sales northward and approaches from alternative routes.

Back to the Eastern front, Soviet Union needed to meet three lines of East-west communication with a central node (Germany) that could be supplied or resupplied by an unaffected (at the time) industrial base.

Furthermore, without victory in Soviet Union the Allies could never have conducted Shuttle Bombing which made 24/7 bombing campaigns every day all day year round possible.

Shuttle bombing was the result of Russian victory. Look it up.

 

I had sincere hope that our Russian friends will answer first... but somewhat they are quiet… So, a few facts for start...
Below is the list of "goodies" supplied to soviet Russia by USA - excluding personal presents from Winston on behalf of UK.


Aircraft.............................14,795
Tanks.................................7,056
Jeeps................................51,503
Trucks..............................375,883
Motorcycles..........................35,170
Tractors..............................8,071
Guns..................................8,218
Machine guns........................131,633
Explosives..........................345,735 tons
Building equipment valued.......$10,910,000
Railroad freight cars................11,155
Locomotives...........................1,981
Cargo ships..............................90
Submarine hunters.......................105
Torpedo boats...........................197
Ship engines..........................7,784
Food supplies.....................4,478,000 tons
Machines and equipment.......$1,078,965,000
Noniron metals......................802,000 tons
Petroleum products................2,670,000 tons
Chemicals...........................842,000 tons
Cotton..........................106,893,000 tons
Leather..............................49,860 tons
Tires.............................3,786,000
Army boots.......................15,417,000 pairs

http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-3670.html

 

Too bad reality doesn't match your propaganda.

http://history.stackexchange.com/qu...troops-got-into-berlin-riding-american-trucks

A simple Google search for "USSR supplies sent to US during WW2" reveals NO results. Proof of garbage propaganda in America.

Considering the souce that I provided PROVES that USSR supplies and War Materiel to the US was almost equal to that received.

Germans admit that Russia did all the work and entirely on their own.

http://www.feldgrau.com/econo.html

 

You do know when the Germans invaded, the Russians were short of everything. They didn't even have enough food or uniforms for their troops. Those trucks, locomotives and box cars went a long way of transporting troops, tanks and equipment to the front lines. The US supplied Russia with fighters, bombers and ground support aircraft that they used very effectively against Germans troops. Hell just look at the boots alone they sent them. As I say, the Russians were fighting in their own back yard on basically one front.

 

Hell no you didn't find any. It was the US sending to the Russians.

 

Who says that? Your highschool history book?

Russia wasn't short of "everything". Not even short of anything.

What "trucks, locomotives and box cares"? None of those were shipped until late 1943. 2 years after Germany invaded.

Russia built over 160,000 fighters/bombers. How many did the US supply? 15,000 rounding up. WOW!

WOW!

Meanwhile the US/UK supplied 7,056 tanks.

OMG OMG OMG! SO LEET. Where would the USSR be without 7,000 crap tanks from the West?

USSR produced more tanks than the US and UK combined. Over 106,000 tanks.

Thank God for those 7,000 tanks from the US Russia almost didn't make it!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_production_during_World_War_II

 

It was the Russians begging the US to open a second front to the West to take German soldiers away from the Eastern Front.

 

Which the US didn't do. That request was since 1941. US took until 1944 to invade West Germany and spent 403 days fighting Germany in a serious theater of battle (North Africa was 40,000 german combat troops, Italy was a sideshow and Germany committed less than 40 divisions).

Why are you so eager to reveal how pathetic and paltry was the US contribution to the war against Nazism.

 

You want to read of what we sent Russia? Take your pick

https://search.yahoo.com/yhs/search...ng+WWII&ei=UTF-8&hspart=mozilla&hsimp=yhs-001

 

As I head out in victory over the mythical American lies and propaganda I'd like to point out that I have successfully proven that Britain let America "win their war".

Just like America didn't really do much of anything in WW2.

The war against Japan was just getting good before US copped out with Nuclear bombs. Japan finally found a way to inflict more casualties on the US than they received, and the US took the coward's way out.

 

You really need a history book. The Americans didn't fight the British the way they were used to huge pre arranged skirmish lines. The Brits formed their skirmish lines while the colonists took cover and picked off the red coats like shooting stupid fish in a barrel. The Brits again proved their weakness in WWII when if we didn't save them, they all be eating sauerbraten, wearing lederhosen and dancing to accordion music.

 

As I say, the Russians were fighting in their own back yard, basically fighting on one front. America was fighting in three fronts, thousands of miles away while supplying weapons to her allies along with there own troops. Without many of those trucks, trains, rail cars and etc, they would have a hell of a times chasing the Germans.

 

Lies. You read a myth. Maybe 1 or two captains at a "company" or at most a "brigade" level fought using "guerilla" tactics.

http://www.theamericanrevolution.org/battles.aspx

None of the battles of the American Revolution were "guerilla" style battles.

Germany never threatened to invade Britain and Germany offered britain peace. The billigerent US and Churchhill continued the war inspite of Hitler's peace overtures.

- - - Updated - - -

Wrong.

1) What were these three mythical fronts the US fought on? There were only two at any time.

2) I already explained how the lines of communication of Russia were perpendicular to the line of battle making three unique theaters of war that were divided by thousands of miles.

3) I already made your "lend-lease" contributions look pathetic in scale of USSR industrial production.