|
Post by jodak on Apr 19, 2016 7:09:45 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by edavids on Apr 19, 2016 13:20:19 GMT -6
I believe the Brits officially call July 4h "Good Riddance Day". Good stuff Jodak and thank you. Best, David
|
|
|
Post by benteen on Apr 19, 2016 14:09:42 GMT -6
David/Jodak The way this country is being run today, I almost wish the Brits had tried a little harder. Be Well Dan
|
|
|
Post by jodak on Apr 19, 2016 16:56:20 GMT -6
On the one hand, I have always felt that had I lived then I would likely have been a loyalist. On the other hand, I think that Britain today is, if it is possible, more of a dysfunctional mess than the U.S., with an even larger perpetual "victim class".
|
|
|
Post by benteen on Apr 19, 2016 20:47:06 GMT -6
On the one hand, I have always felt that had I lived then I would likely have been a loyalist. On the other hand, I think that Britain today is, if it is possible, more of a dysfunctional mess than the U.S., with an even larger perpetual "victim class". Jodak, You know I think you may have a good point. Be Well Dan
|
|
|
Post by jodak on Apr 20, 2016 6:14:00 GMT -6
Dan, you might find this interesting - a lot of information about the revolution from primarily the British point of view.
www.redcoat.me.uk/page6.htm
|
|
|
Post by dave on Apr 20, 2016 19:06:52 GMT -6
"Listen my children and you shall hear
Of the midnight ride of Paul Revere," Longfellow Regards Dave
|
|
|
Post by edavids on Apr 21, 2016 17:54:19 GMT -6
"Listen my children and you shall hear Of the midnight ride of Paul Revere," Longfellow Regards Dave Wasn't Wm Dawes the man who got through while Paul Revere got caught? Curious who PR's PR people were. ;-) Best, David
|
|
|
Post by jodak on Apr 21, 2016 21:12:50 GMT -6
There were actually a number of riders that carried the news, traveling by different routes and notifying different people along the way, which led to the mustering of the various militias that primarily harassed the regulars (notice that I did not say British, as they were all British, including the Americans) on their way back to Boston the following day. Revere and Dawes are the two that are credited with reaching Lexington first and warning Hancock and Adams, who were staying there. They then pushed on toward Concord and were joined by a third rider, Samuel Prescott, who they met along the way. They then met a patrol of regulars that captured Revere, while Dawes escaped back toward Boston and Prescott was able to evade and go on to Concord, where he warned the people there. So, in one sense, Revere succeeded in his mission of reaching Lexington and raising the alarm there, but, in another sense, it was actually Prescott that continued successfully on to Concord. However, Revere has always been the one that is most noted, primarily because of Longfellow's poem which fit him into the rhyme used him as a composite for all of the riders.
|
|
|
Post by chardvc on Apr 22, 2016 5:29:07 GMT -6
You (mostly) still speak (a form of) English - You occupied our most incompetent officers whilst we dealt with the real threat from across the Channel - You took most of our dysfunctional religious zealots - You won a war for us, despite starting 2 years after the rest of us - You continue to be ambivalent about of the world's most popular sport despite with your population having the ability to dominate it - the actions of your politicians keep our currency strong - We have the ability to avoid Trump - I think we had the most successful outcome.
Tongue firmly in cheek!!
Regards,
Mark
|
|
|
Post by jodak on Apr 22, 2016 6:53:15 GMT -6
Hey Mark, I think that you are likely correct that Britain really got the best of the bargain. They got rid of the encumbrances and expense of maintaining the American colonies while still keeping them as a prime trading partner, which was really what they wanted anyway. However, Britain made one miscalculation in deeming its various Caribbean possessions more valuable and more important to hold on to than the mainland colonies and tailoring its approach to ending the war accordingly. That was due to those islands' at the time tremendous economic value as a source of sugar, but that was soon to be rendered to almost insignificance with the development and widespread cultivation of the sugar beet in Europe.
I am going to go out on a limb and say that I don't think that the U.S. "won" WW2 for Britain as much as it hastened the victory. What I mean by that is that I do not believe that Germany had the capability of defeating Britain, even before bringing the Soviet Union into the war, and Britain would have probably ultimately prevailed but after a much longer time. On the other hand, I think the U.S. did effectively "win" WW1 for the Allies, although it was in it for only a very short time. That was not so much due to anything that the U.S. actually accomplished in the war as it was to just the threat of what it would be able to do by funneling millions of fresh troops toward breaking the stalemate that had bled the European combatants dry. The Germans knew that with the American troops arriving in ever increasing numbers the jig was up and consequently sued for peace, although their armies were still occupying the low countries and a large part of France at the time.
|
|
|
Post by chardvc on Apr 22, 2016 12:29:02 GMT -6
Hi jodak,
Interesting response. I take a different view of the relative contributions of the US in the two World Wars. Certainly Imperial Germany in 1917 would have been concerned by the physical size of the army that the allies could have put in the field however in my opinion the war was largely "won" by 1917. In time, an effective Italian army plus the size of the British and French Empires at the time meant that any war of attrition was only going to end one way. Couple that with the physical resources available in Africa and Australia and I'm convinced that the US entrance was more about speeding things along. There is an argument that Woodrow Wilson's impact at the negotiation table actually had a huge influence in creating the conditions to start WW2 but that's probably another debate.
In my mind, in WW2 the US had a much bigger impact. Forgetting Nazi Germany's suicidal attack on the Soviet Union, in 1941 the British position was perilous. An invasion of the UK was still possible. By 1942 the Japanese attack on the US and the British Empire in the far east could have drained resources away from the European theatre more than it did and the loss of India (and in turn access to the middle eastern oil fields) would have spelled the end of Britain. You could probably successfully argue that the Japanese attack of Pearl Harbour did as much to defeat Germany as any other single action. Certainly, without US resources of men and material we would never have been able to mount and sustain an attack on the Nazis in Western Europe and without that, most of Western Europe would now be speaking German or, more probably, Russian. The US and Russia won WW2, Britain if anything, won a moral position in defending democracy and (eventually) standing up to Hitler. It's a position that having taken, we British feel forced to defend with all our dwindling might.
In terms of the Caribbean I think if you look at the financial power behind the British governments of the 18th century you will understand why decisions were made to make sure the Caribbean was held rather than the comparatively un-remunerative American Colonies. Similar parallels can be seen now in defending oil interests in the middle-east over dealing with other issues in the Ukraine or North Korea - a war over resources which one should "win" is eminently preferable to one you might lose over not a lot.
Mark
|
|
|
Post by jodak on Aug 3, 2016 6:39:40 GMT -6
See how you do - Revolutionary War Quiz
I would contend that, while it is obvious what answers they are looking for in some instances, those answers are not necessarily entirely correct (ex. Who was the British Commander during the revolution? There were actually 4 British Commanders-in- Chief during the course of the war.)
|
|
|
Post by tubman13 on Aug 3, 2016 7:37:51 GMT -6
I drew a blank page, on the quiz, will check it later. Would have done fine with commanders. The Brits, to some degree, lost, due to the same flaws that cost Custer at the LBH
|
|
|
Post by dave on Aug 3, 2016 8:34:34 GMT -6
The growth of the relationship between America and Great Britain has certainly been revealing. Going from a red headed step child to big brother status over 200 plus years is unprecedented in human history if I am not mistaken.
"England and America are two countries separated by a common language." by George Bernard Shaw sure sums up our relationship. Regards Dave
|
|