Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Armed Forces of the World Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: America's Worst Enemy in History
mongyu    1/2/2008 8:16:10 AM
The title says it all: Who do you think has been the greatest enemy ever to threaten America? My vote goes to the British hands down. No other country ever came as close as the British to physically ending the United States in our history. The Germans and the Japanese were formidable in their own right, but neither [or even both] could reasonably invade the United States. The Soviet Union had the theoretical potential to destroy the United States, but I think everyone agrees that this was not a practical capability in the way the British Empire's ability to take Washington DC was. The Soviets were a dangerous enemy ideologically in the way it could convert adherents in America, but they never out-did the British who successfully supported a rebellion in the United States by funding, arming, and giving moral support to the Confederacy. So what country would you choose?
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25   NEXT
SA!"£$    FAO FARSCAPE   1/6/2008 7:14:10 AM
"From the book that Herald was citing, Maddison's"The World Economy: Historical Statistics", in 1820, the U.S. had slightly less than a 10% share of world GDP" What??? I think yo are on the same as stuff as Herald and are just as incompetent again from the data provided BY HERALD FROM Maddison's"The World Economy: Historical Statistics" the US Share of the world Economy was 1.8% in 1820.
 
Quote    Reply

dirtykraut       1/6/2008 6:02:02 PM
America's greatest enemy, the one closest to overthrowing the government, was the Confederate States of America during the civil war.
 
Quote    Reply

dirtykraut       1/6/2008 6:07:14 PM




As for Britain being your greatest enemy, I think that's true to a point. Yes, we could have (in theory) ended your existence as a nation... but we didn't have the national will or desire to do it.



Now, now, there...I don't think the British Empire didn't end America's existence for lack of trying.  Come on  B.L.  :)  Give the poor Americans a little credit. T_T




Now now, we both know it was the French that really won that war ;)

B.L.

That is akin to saying that it was the Americans who really won the war in North Africa during world War II. French support, for the most part was material. The British owned the 13 colonies and their resources, so without French help, we wouldn't have had anything to fight you with. The battle of El Alamein was would not have been won if it were not for the hundreds of Sherman tanks that came to the front free of charge (well, atleast until later) from the good old US of A.
 
Quote    Reply

dirtykraut       1/6/2008 6:11:58 PM











"by funding, arming, and giving moral support to the Confederacy"

I'm not aware of the Brits funding or arming the Confederacy. We traded with them, sure, but unless I'm mistaken, I don't think we just gave them supplies because we wanted the U.S. to fail. At least not as government policy. We traded with the U.S. just as much.
It is true that many in Britain had sympathy for the Confederate cause, but our government couldn't outright support the Confederacy because of slavery. In fact, that was one of the key reasons Lincoln made the emancipation proclamation.. to keep Britain and France out of it.


As for Britain being your greatest enemy, I think that's true to a point. Yes, we could have (in theory) ended your existence as a nation... but we didn't have the national will or desire to do it. So, does that really make us your greatest enemy? Wouldn't the nations who actually did and do want to destroy you outright be more suitable for that crown? Ie, Soviet Russia, North Korea, Islamic terrorist states, etc...

B.L.






 





Heh.  Don't worry, British Lion, I'm not out to pick a fight - I'm here to have fun.  Call it an academic exercise, heck I thought some brits might take it as a compliment (Oh and Happy New Year).





 





What I wrote about the British Empire (different era, different people, NOT trying to implicate "you") during our Civil War was based on what I remember from American History class in High School a few years back; a little vague, but I'll check the internet in a little while to make sure of the facts.





 





Off the top of my head, I was taught the British helped build a Confederate Navy which devastated the Union's shipping as well as smuggled weaponry.  They also loaned the Confederacy the money to buy the weapons and tried to negotiate a truce between the warring parties that would give the South independence.





 





I'll read up on it in the mean time to make sure though.





Sorry mate, I didn't intend for my reply to sound defensive at all. I know you weren't attacking me or my country at all, so it's cool :) Happy New Year to you too btw!

But you're right, we did trade with the Confeds in arms and the dreaded CSS Alabama I believe was British built... but, that being said, I'm not aware of us showing great favor to the Confeds in our traded... I think we traded more with them because they needed to trade with us more... the Union could manufacture most of what it needed to fight with. Granted, I'm sure our sympathies played a role, but ultimatly I think we just were in it for the cash lol "a nation of shopkeepers" remember?

B.L.



it should be noted that Britain traded with the Union at the same time as the CSA.... it did not pick a side in the civil war.

 

also note that an awful lot of Britain's (both mainland and colonials) joined up and fought for the Union against the CSA.... far more than signed up for the CSA (which tends to be more talked about for some reason)

 

Paul


Yes, Britain traded with both during the civil war. The United States supplied Iraq and Iran in the Iran Iraq war, but favored Iraq f
 
Quote    Reply

dirtykraut       1/6/2008 6:25:25 PM
I also wouldn't make too much of British anti slavery. They only outlawed the slave trade in 1807, but the slave trade act said nothing about slavery itself, which wasn't abolished until 1833, long after most slaves in the North had been freed.
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    SA-O buffoon reply.   1/6/2008 11:01:43 PM

"From the book that Herald was citing, Maddison's"The World Economy: Historical Statistics", in 1820, the U.S. had slightly less than a 10% share of world GDP" What??? I think yo are on the same as stuff as Herald and are just as incompetent again from the data provided BY HERALD FROM Maddison's"The World Economy: Historical Statistics" the US Share of the world Economy was 1.8% in 1820.


By the same data-Britain had 5.2% . US had 1.8%  roughly the same ratios as 1812. You need 3 to 1 economic power to project successful military force per 2000 kilometers in the age of sail upon an enemy and conquer him.

5.2%/1.8% =2.8 to 1 across the Atlantic. You'll conquer Cuba, but you won't hold Canada.

Numbers don't lie, though incompetents try to make them dance to their owhn twisted version of reality.

War of 1812 was the laboratory test. That was last parity point . After that the ratios tilt in America's favor.

Suggest you find a public library and look up such things as RN estimates, and what  it costs the British to keep a British soldier in Canada, cretin.

While you are at it, learn a little geography and a little thing called logistics radius.

Supplying Wellington in Spain was easy-huge base just across the Bay of Biscay.

An attack on New Orleans which was the best British move ion 1812 with the best force ratios and most favorable logistics setoffs?? Forget it. To get a good idea of what it would take.Pakenham arrived with 11,000 troops from about 60 transports fought a much better campaign than many of us here are aware, got himself killed 25% of his command mowed down, and Lambert who was in charge of the whole bloody disaster, and who certainly knew the OTG truth better than  you, cretin, adjudged the odds beyond his  reach even with Reinforcements from  England and Bermuda, his nearest major forward base.

Lambert nibbled at Biloxi and Mobile, instead , which were within his means, but which he knew he could not hold once the Americansn descended in force, which they prepared to do when the Treaty of Ghent ended the British fiasco called the War of 1812.

LOGISTICS  is  based on three things.

Economic base.
Distance.
Sustainment.

None of which Britain had an advantage in NA.

If you want to continue a moron, then by all means do so.

But know this, the British professionals of the day restricted themselves to coastal raiding and defense of the Saint Lawrence River Valley. It was all Britain could afford and do in NA. Even at that, they considered themselves lucky to have won a draw.

Once again, I wish morons would look at concrete test cases and not dream airy fairy tales of what they IMAGINE. Historical RESULTS have sound historical reasons.

Herald


 
 
Quote    Reply

Ehran       1/7/2008 11:33:18 AM

Per capita means product per human per year measured in labor dollars.

Didn't you learn anything, Ehran?

If there is no data for Britain, that means it either didn't crack the top twenty five, or there is no data.

TAKE YOUR PICK.

Herald


it's irrelevant why britain isn't on the list.  what's relevant is that your chosen data proves nothing.  you are trying to compare something to a blank and how is that helpful or revealing? 
 
Quote    Reply

Ehran       1/7/2008 11:40:16 AM



according to the link tercio posted the french king committed a million livres 6 weeks after the declaration of independance.  that's rather heavy duty for bluster don't you think? 



A line of credit, cretin. A LINE  OF CREDIT.  The  Spanish put their bodies and their wealth on the line.

And the Dutch fronted cash as well.

Herald

and oh cretinous one what does a struggling revolutionary do with his line of credit?  buys stuff to fund his war etc that he couldn't have bought otherwise because no one would have given him credit perhaps?  a million livres is a LOT of credit for the day.  i'd also suggest that it's not very likely the french expected the revolutionaries to pay the money back.

 
Quote    Reply

Ehran       1/7/2008 11:50:34 AM




Back on topic. If you can't project power into your enemy's vital terrain, [the Ohio River Valley in 1820] and your enemy can do the converse [The Saint Lawrence River Valley in 1820] then you are finished.



 



the usa tried to project power into the st lawrence valley from 1812-15 with results ranging from poor to dismal against a britain that was largely ignoring the fighting.  what on earth would make you think the results would be any much better 5 short years later against the focussed attention of the british empire?



Andrew Jackson; nimrod. Leadership matters. He hated the British enough to get it done.

Herald


hatred isn't enough to make for a successful campaign against a professional army.  jackson only ever faced the british once and then under near perfect set piece conditions at new orleans.  the rest of his career was essentially skirmish level scraps with various indian tribes and that's a far far cry from a standup campaign against the british army.  factor in the british actually committing resources to the fight and the american situation starts to look dire indeed.
 
Quote    Reply

Ehran       1/7/2008 11:57:03 AM

I also wouldn't make too much of British anti slavery. They only outlawed the slave trade in 1807, but the slave trade act said nothing about slavery itself, which wasn't abolished until 1833, long after most slaves in the North had been freed.


you might want to read up on the antislavery patrols the RN maintained for about 70 years in the waters off central and western africa.  lot of gold and lives spent to suppress the slave trade and done for moral reasons.
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics