Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Shadowbrand wrote:What about 1812? I'm not a historian or anything but Britain did win that one.

Yes, and you Canadains did burn the White House down. Don't think we've forgotten that one.

Of course, the men defending Baltimore did a bit better.

Oh, and Jean Lafitte would have words with you, if he were still alive, regarding the Battle of New Orleans.

thegrav wrote:Um.. Well then... Watch: Saving Private Ryan, Band Of Brothers, Battle of the Bulge, Patton, this list can get longer... and I am sure Dakkaites will help me here..

Then check out U571 and other such films which entirely make up how the Americans Won Everything.

Hollywood is not the way to go when arguing about historical fact.

Why are you lot defending and arguing the achievements of your betters? None of us were alive when any of this took place and 'we' didnt do anything. I find the whole thing a terrible bore, and the fact that much more recently our troops fought together in WW2, and marched into Iraq and Afghanistan together and will no doubt be the closest two allies in the next inevitable war just makes it all the more irrelevant. Also, considering that the war for independance was essentially a civil war and Washington et al were of English decent i dont see what there is to get worked up about. For example i like to think George might be a distant relative of mine, as we were both able to feth grizzly bears, carry a pocket full of horses and have wooden teeth.

Because what is there else to do on this board than argue about useless things?

Vladsimpaler wrote:

thegrav wrote:Hitler was not defeated by the Russians and British...They had a "little" help... You need to review your history there.

Nah, it was pretty much the Russians. I know you're referring to the US as the help but realistically the Russkies would've steamrolled the Krauts just fine without our 'little' help.

You sure about that? The Siege of Stalingrad showed the Russians surviving due to their numbers, half of which had no guns. Then again, they did halt the German's advance.

Anyway, I'm Australian, so I'll just leave now....

Everyone hates everyone else until there is someone slightly further away to hate



Check out from the 8 minute marker.

Shadowbrand wrote:What about 1812? I'm not a historian or anything but Britain did win that one.

horsehit. We slaughtered 'em like Canadian football players would get slaughtered by the Raiders. Then eaten.

Frazzled wrote:

Shadowbrand wrote:What about 1812? I'm not a historian or anything but Britain did win that one.

horsehit. We slaughtered 'em like Canadian football players would get slaughtered by the Raiders. Then eaten.

Depends on whether they were playing NFL rules or real football rules. Honestly the two games are superficially the same but play so differently that players who are good at one generally do poorly at the other. The great players of course do well at either, but still take adjustments to adapt to the different style of game.

Frazzled wrote:

Shadowbrand wrote:What about 1812? I'm not a historian or anything but Britain did win that one.

horsehit. We slaughtered 'em like Canadian football players would get slaughtered by the Raiders. Then eaten.

Sigh.. No "you" didnt, and neither did the people who actually fought against the red coats at the time. If you think they did "slaighter" some of the the worlds best troops at the time, read some more.

But that aside, here is a fantastic rap about my ancestor George to lighten things up.

efarrer wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Shadowbrand wrote:What about 1812? I'm not a historian or anything but Britain did win that one.

horsehit. We slaughtered 'em like Canadian football players would get slaughtered by the Raiders. Then eaten.

Depends on whether they were playing NFL rules or real football rules. Honestly the two games are superficially the same but play so differently that players who are good at one generally do poorly at the other. The great players of course do well at either, but still take adjustments to adapt to the different style of game.

Irrelevant as the Canadian players would be dead. You ever see the raiders? They literally weigh twice is much. if that doesn't work, their players will just shoot you. I so respect that.

I'm pretty sure that Canada has more guns per person than the USA

Edit: Wait, I've just checked and it seems I was mistaken - carry on!

mattyrm wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Shadowbrand wrote:What about 1812? I'm not a historian or anything but Britain did win that one.

horsehit. We slaughtered 'em like Canadian football players would get slaughtered by the Raiders. Then eaten.

Sigh.. No "you" didnt, and neither did the people who actually fought against the red coats at the time. If you think they did "slaighter" some of the the worlds best troops at the time, read some more.

But that aside, here is a fantastic rap about my ancestor George to lighten things up.

The war of 1812 (opr as we like to say, "the 1814 Battle of New Orleans and some minor skirmishes that occurred before that"). Quit drinking your superior selection of beers and ales and keep up matty!

I shall never stop drinking my ales.... watch that cartoon though, its funny.

12 Stories Tall, Made of RAD-EE-A-TION! Damn right bitches..

that gak was funny

And for the record: Guinness, Boddingtons, Strongbow, Kilkenny are vastly superior to American brewed piss water.

Comparing the AWI to Vietnam on any but the most superficial levels is beyond amateurish.

There's a certain base myth in the US that we "kicked England's ass." On the other extreme, there's the idea that while we lost nearly every battle, we simply outlasted the British. Neither really is accurate. From what I've read, Washington's Continental army won about half of it's battles. Other forces had pretty big upsides (Ticonderoga, Saratoga), as well as giant downsides (New York, Charlestown). The military reality by a few years into the war was that Royalist forces simply couldn't hold enough ground. They were restricted to big cities near the coast. The countryside, which was the vast bulk of the land, was held pretty firmly by colonial governments.

In Vietnam, the military situation was actually very favorable to South Vietnam and the US near the end. Even so, the NVA regulars rarely won battles against the US, while guerrilla forces were a massive problem. Myth and legend aside, the Patriots actually did better as a professional force than as guerrillas, a few notable exceptions aside.

Now, politically, the two conflicts have some similarities, in terms of dwindling support on the home front, but even that falls apart under close analysis. The British Economy actually was hurt by the war: it lost imports, access to trade routes, and had to tangle with American privateers, not to mention sending an army pretty far away. Compared to Vietnam, the american economy could care less about losing trade to Saigon.

1812 is a bit trickier, particularly since every nation ended up getting what it wanted. Canada remained independent, the US got an end to impressment and a reaffirmation of independence, and Britain didn't lose much compared to the nightmare that was the Napoleonic wars. The military situation was almost entirely a stalemate.

On the other hand, the United States did come out stronger. National identity was bolstered, there were minor territorial gains (Mobile Alabama), and groundwork was laid for a professional army and navy. So, will the US might not have scored the most victory points, it did hold a lot of objectives. In particular, the modern Great Lakes states were completely open for settlement. It's hard to imagine now, but there was a genuine threat that enough Indian nations would form and alliance and actually hold that territory. Maybe it was unrealistic, but the British hoped to keep the Northwest territory as a neutral Indian buffer state. By the end of the war the Confederacy had collapsed and settlers began pouring into that land.

My point in a nutshell: the US is sufficiently awesome that even understatement can convey both our history and current ability as an asskicker, and there is no need to stretch the truth.

YEAH, GO AMERICA.

Anyways, my great uncle had some stories about brits. See, he was in the army and they would sometimes host british troops at their camp in the US. One day he, another US guy and a brit go to a bar and get sufficiently drunk.

My great uncle thought that two things would be absolutely hilarious.

1) Send a copy of "The Battle of New Orleans" to the queen herself.

2) Get the British guy to get a tattoo of the american flag.

Here's how it ended.

The FBI knocked on his door and barged in on him when he was in the bathroom, took him away and interrogated him due to "possible terrorism against the UK".

Secondly, the british soldier did get a tattoo of the american flag on his back that was only small if the guy was a midget, see it went from one shoulder to the other and about halfway down his back.

Albatross wrote:My point in a nutshell: the US is sufficiently awesome that even understatement can convey both our history and current ability as an asskicker, and there is no need to stretch the truth.

I'd go along with this.


As for everyone else - we're all pals now. Can't we just agree that our two countries are pretty much the most badass there's ever been and leave it at that? We've had our time as top dog, it's America's turn at the moment - we're all on the same side, so we should celebrate each other.

Albatross wrote:

Albatross wrote:My point in a nutshell: the US is sufficiently awesome that even understatement can convey both our history and current ability as an asskicker, and there is no need to stretch the truth.

I'd go along with this.


As for everyone else - we're all pals now. Can't we just agree that our two countries are pretty much the most badass there's ever been and leave it at that? We've had our time as top dog, it's America's turn at the moment - we're all on the same side, so we should celebrate each other.

Don't leave aout Australia. Only an Aussie can go toe to toe with a Cajun or a Texan.

Frazzled wrote:

Albatross wrote:

Albatross wrote:My point in a nutshell: the US is sufficiently awesome that even understatement can convey both our history and current ability as an asskicker, and there is no need to stretch the truth.

I'd go along with this.


As for everyone else - we're all pals now. Can't we just agree that our two countries are pretty much the most badass there's ever been and leave it at that? We've had our time as top dog, it's America's turn at the moment - we're all on the same side, so we should celebrate each other.

Don't leave aout Australia. Only an Aussie can go toe to toe with a Cajun or a Texan.

Pfft. Aussies aren't hard. I eat them like crisps.

Vlad.... Yeah, the Russians may have eventually due to throwing sheer numbers at the Germans.... if the US wouldn't have lend leased anything to them, they would have done FAR wose then what they did.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease

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

Albatross wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Albatross wrote:

Albatross wrote:My point in a nutshell: the US is sufficiently awesome that even understatement can convey both our history and current ability as an asskicker, and there is no need to stretch the truth.

I'd go along with this.


As for everyone else - we're all pals now. Can't we just agree that our two countries are pretty much the most badass there's ever been and leave it at that? We've had our time as top dog, it's America's turn at the moment - we're all on the same side, so we should celebrate each other.

Don't leave aout Australia. Only an Aussie can go toe to toe with a Cajun or a Texan.

Pfft. Aussies aren't hard. I eat them like crisps.

Cannibals! Run!

Albatross wrote:
Pfft. Aussies aren't hard. I eat them like crisps.

You eat your convicts?

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Albatross wrote:
Pfft. Aussies aren't hard. I eat them like crisps.

You eat your convicts?

who doesn't?

North Koreans?

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Albatross wrote:
Pfft. Aussies aren't hard. I eat them like crisps.

You eat your convicts?

I thought that the really bad guys were sent to Rhode Island.

thegrav wrote:Um.. Well then... Watch: Saving Private Ryan, Band Of Brothers, Battle of the Bulge, Patton, this list can get longer... and I am sure Dakkaites will help me here..

Umm, watching American war movies will not improve anyone's understanding of WWII.

The US, the UK and the rest of the allied forces all have a lot to be proud of, but ultimately Germany was defeated by the Russians. You just need to look at the overwhelming proportion of German soldiers lost on the Eastern Front and it becomes fairly clear.

Tim the Biovore wrote:You sure about that? The Siege of Stalingrad showed the Russians surviving due to their numbers, half of which had no guns. Then again, they did halt the German's advance.

The thing about the Russians being deployed without guns is a myth - I guess you've watched Enemy at the Gates? Anyhow, the myth comes from real events in WWI, but nothing of the sort occurred in WWII.

And the Germans weren't just stopped at Stalingrad. The Russian counter attack encircled the German troops in the city, and the entire 6th army was lost. This was then followed by the German defeat at Kursk in the largest tank battle in history. In each case the Russians demonstrated a use of combined arms that is a long, long way from the myth of troops coming into battle with one rifle between two men.

jp400 wrote:Vlad.... Yeah, the Russians may have eventually due to throwing sheer numbers at the Germans.... if the US wouldn't have lend leased anything to them, they would have done FAR wose then what they did.

Lend lease was effective program, but didn't fundamentally change the situation. Trucks and bazookas are nice, but they weren't the defining elements of the war. In fact, Lend Lease would almost certainly have ended if the US had ever realised the actual fighting strength of the Soviets, Stalin put a lot of effort into convincing the US the Red Army was constantly on a state of collapse. When Operation Uranus was launched the Americans were stunned, they had no idea the Russians had those kinds of reserves.

The idea of a massive but ineffectual Russian army is also not supported by a closer look at the facts. At the start of Barbarossa the Germans and their allies actually had more numbers than the Russians. You're right that the Russians lost a lot of troops over the war, but that was basically their method, churn through conscripts and keep replacing them, build robust tanks with crude finishing and keep replacing them. The Germans invested a lot more time in their troops and equipment. As a result, despite taking considerably more casualties the Russians were able to replace their losses, the Germans were not.

Thank you!! Someone who knows history and says those things to other peoples that people saying better than me can say!

Frazzled wrote:
You ever see the raiders? They literally weigh twice is much.

Ever seen a Canadian Football game? CFL players are all comparable in size to NFL players.

The amazing thing about Canadian Football is that all the teams are unrepentant cheats and keep trying to sneak a 12th man on the pitch.

@sebster: I am not suggesting movies are then end all or be all, I am suggesting that if you get the vast majority of your knowledge from TV/Movies, you may want to watch the big ones that talk about the United States involvement in the European Theater. The statement I was replying to suggested that the US had NO involvement in the European Theater, and was ONLY involved in the Pacific Theater.

As for Russia being able to win WWII given enough time.. I am not sure if I am ready to jump on that bandwagon, that is simply not how history is taught in the states. We learn about Russia's Overwhelming amount of causalities, and how many troops Hitler lost when he marched into Russia in the dead of winter. However, we are also taught that D-Day and some of the other Joint US/British actions were "Turning Points" that brought about a resolution to the European Theater, and put an early end to a war that the Nazis were losing but would cost European dearly in the end.

The impression I was left with, was that Russia may have "won", but their 2 million plus causalities as of 1944, may well have doubled. Thats like saying You won a game of Warhammer cause Your HQ Squad is the last thing on the board, sure it's a "win" by the games rules, but it looks a bit more like survival to the bitter end.

Also when talking about WWII, we must not forget the Pacific Theater, Germany and Japan were Allies after all, if Russia had won in Europe, or Stalemated (What we are taught was happening here in the states) how long would it have taken for Japan to roll over Russia from the other side? The US was the Major Player in the Defeat of Japan, and of actions taking place in the Pacific Theater.

However at the end of the day, I don't see what any of this has to do with the 4th of July. I think in the future when someone says something like :"Congrats on <Insert Country> <Insert event>" we shouldn't turn it into the failings or misgivings of that country as it applies to war.