War of 1812

[evangilder]

Well, so far there have been no malicious exploits from guest postings. Their IP addresses are logged. If someone wants to post with multiple aliases, it is not hard to do either. If it becomes a problem, then we can take care of it.

[mosquitoman]

Besides, it's always good to hear someone else's view apart from the regulars on here

Originally Posted by plan_D

It's not a case of just attacking Canada. The U.S was looking to gain Canadian land, even if this wasn't a primary motivation it was one.

This is not entirely clear, though I would suspect that had key strategic points been gained the USA would have been reluctant to give them back. Certianly if it did so it would have required significant concessions.

Originally Posted by plan_D

The U.S didn't own both shores of the river, the English Army could have set up counter-artillery batteries on the other side of the river. Also, all the supplies for the Army didn't come from England. Over-land routes could have been used to supply the armies holding the gaps.

Ahh... you forget your original argument to which this reply is directed. You said that the British could just sit in their forts, that "defense was easier than offense", and that the British would have no problems supplying them.

The British would have been badly outnumbered. The British population had been seriously depleted during the war with Napolean, and its forces were also required in the Carribean, Africa, India, China, Austrailia, and New Zealand at that time.

US forces would have easily captured both sides of the river, at least at key points. The British therefore would either have had to survive an extended siege, which was impossible, or they'd have had to come out and fight, in which case they'd have been badly outnumbered.

And yes, supplies pretty much did need to come from England. Lower canada had only about 600,000 people, not enough to provide significant support, and it had no industrial capacity at all. Furthermore, in a serious war at this time, Upper Canada would most likely have thrown in with the Americans - after all most of them were Americans.

Originally Posted by plan_D

Minds can change a lot in a few decades. Those that wanted Canada in 1812 could have very well been dead by 1830, their ideas dying with them.

If you research it a little more you will see that very few Americans had eyes on Canada, even in 1812. The biggest argument for taking action against Canada was the British supplying of the warlike tribes in that region with firearms so they could raid westward settler's outside the bounds of Canada, and then trade the spoils to the British.

And before you go off trying to defend the actions of the Indians involved, I suggest you also study the history of the tribes of that region a bit. It was there way to make war, both against the white man and other indians. The believed the "strong" should dominate. There were many other regions where the indians were generally peaceful, but this region was not one of them. When able they traded with the white man to obtain weapons and then used these weapons annihilated their historic foes.

Originally Posted by plan_D

The U.S won at New Orleans through the English Generals arrogance. U.S troops were heavily dug-in, which made a lot of difference in those days. In a war for Canada, the English troops would be dug-in.

English troops were not trained to "dig in" except at fortifications. It was not the way of European battle. This was one advantage the Americans had, they were much more adept at guerilla type fighting and the use of available cover. And again, such "digging in" would only have lost the War for the British. The US would simply have laid siege to the British positions. Supply via the St. Lawrence river could easily be denied. Supply over land could easily be intercepted. The British would have had to leave their fortifications to protect their supply lines - and in that case the American's would have had every advantage.

Originally Posted by plan_D

The treaty of Ghent had already been signed before the New Orleans battle, the war was already decided as a draw.

Yes, but neither commander knew of this. The point is that had the war continued, the Americans were getting stronger and the British weaker in their relative ability to do battle.

Originally Posted by plan_D

Britain had to fight many great European powers to become the strength it was. In fact, Britain has fought every single country in Europe (basing on land area) except Portugal. Don't get it in your head that Britain only had her empire because she was fighting Africans with sharp mango fruits ( ).

I didn't say that. However, Britian did not win and hold lands of technically advanced peoples. It won on the Seas with its navy. It was simply unwilling to engage in a long and profitless war in the Americas, and had the USA been relentless in a pursuit of Canadian soil, the British would simply have looked at the books and decided it was not worth it to continue to fight for the relatively small returns it might recieve from Canada at that time.

Originally Posted by plan_D

Queen Victoria still secured the trading with Canada. That is the whole idea of the British Empire. To give Britain what the British Isles doesn't provide.

Of course Britain couldn't beat everyone, all the time, but the way you talk it seems to me that you think that Britain was incapable of waging war.

Not at all. My point is that had the USA been determined to conquer Candada, the British were in a poor position to hold it, and its value to the British empire was insufficient to justify the kind of commitment Britain would have had to make in a war it might well have lost regaurdless.

================================

Originally Posted by plan_D

No, RG, all U.S troops were untrained in the Great War. They needed French and British training to even be considered for the front. Nor did the U.S troops perform any better than their British or French counter-parts. The U.S troops were fresh faces, that is all. Fresh faces which the German Army couldn't match.

It was also the US philosphy and training that allowed then to press on in the face of heavy losses, learned in the Civil War. Read what German commanders said of the Americans, which was something like "when they should retreat they advance, when they should surrender they hold".

Originally Posted by plan_D

It took the U.S almost 2 years to set up their army. If they had a standing army beforehand, why was it such a struggle for them to form divisions in World War 1? Pershing's reluctance to allow U.S troops to serve under the British or French flag delayed the entrance of U.S troops on the field because the U.S had no organisation to have them fighting under the stars and stripes.

The USA didn't want to get involved in Europe's war at all. Still 18 American divisons were deployed, in whole or in major part, for battle by mid 1918.

Look at the roll of the 1st. U.S. division in the battle at Catigny (Apr. 27-July 8, 191, where dispite a concerted German defense the Americans (under French command) won.

Originally Posted by plan_D

Even then, the last offensives of the war, which Ludendorff said broke the back of the German army was the Battle of Amiens in July 1918, led by New Zealanders.

I suggest you read THE AMERICAN TROOPS IN THE ATTACK TO THE SOUTH OF SOISSONS 18th. - 22nd. July 1918.

Originally Posted by plan_D

The only advantage U.S troops had over the rest of the Allies was their freshness. I'm sorry to say it's patriotism that has brought you to the conclusion that U.S troops performed better.

Look at the results for the causalties. The Brtish and French would back off in the face of such losses, where the Americans would press on to victory. In the "New Zealander" July offensive you revered to above, the 1st Division achieved all its objectives, despite the French failures which they also made up. The cost was high, during 5 days of fighting the 1st divsion lost 6870 men including 75% of its infantry officers. Likewise the 2nd division also achieved all of its objectives, despite the failures of the French supporting their flanks. And again the losses were exceptionally high, the division having lost 4300 men. One huge difference between the British and French units in combat vs. the Americans was the willingness of the officers to expose themselves to the enemy. American officers lead the charges from the front - British and French officers lead from the back. By the end of the fighting on July 22nd, one of the US regiments was being lead by a Captain who'd been in the military less than 2 years.

But more than all of this, it was American financial support which resulted in the Allied victory in WWI. The direct costs of WWI were:

Great Britain: $35.33 billion
France: $24.25 billion
USA: $22.6 billion

However, $14.6 billion (1918 dollars) of Britian and France's WWI costs were in the form of loans from the USA - which were never paid back!. In the 20's, the British and French said "why should we have to pay when Germany was at fault and it is not paying its war reperations". So the USA loaned (at very favorable terms) Germany the money to pay its reperations for several years, expecting the British and French would then pay their debts, and this would transfer the debt to Germany from which it could be managed over time. However, the British and French still refused to pay even when the German's did pay the reperations! Somehow in their minds the USA was ultimately responsible for the costs their war.

Also, this does not include the 3% of US national product that was loaned to Europe (mostly France and Germany) in the post-war years, which was also never paid back.

A ways back you blamed the USA for the crash of 1929 and the depression. In fact it was Britain and France's bad debt comming to the surface that was, more than anything else, the cause of the American Bank failures and ultimately the Great Depression.

Taking all this into consideration, perhaps you can understand why I feel it was exceptionally generous for the USA to then loan Britian/France more billions at the start of WWII when they'd proven beyond any doubt in the past that they were not likely to ever pay it back. And sure enough, virtually all of Britian's WWII debt was forgiven after the war. After subracting out "reverse-lend lease" it turns out that Britain paid back about $650 million on over $23 billion of outstanding debt.

Not only that, more loans were given to Britian, to the tune of some $4.2 billion, at just 2% interest in the 5 years following WWII. These are due to be paid off, finally, in 2006 - and the House of Lord's has decided to not to mark the occasion in any way. It is clear they do not feel they should ever have had to pay back this debt. This attidude might be understandable, except for the fact of the huge WWII debt forgiven and the additional $3.5 billion in Economic and Military Assistance Grants (gifts) given to Britain between 1946 and 1964.

So the arguments you made about Britain's stand against Communism in the early post-war years without American assistance are largely false. We footed a big part of that bill and to a large degree financed the continuation of the British Aerospace industry. And you've argued that the USA was paid off through having bases in Europe - well the bases were there for two reasons - to protect Europe from the Soviets and to pump cash into the European economies. To a very large extent, these bases were a form of financial support which the US politicians were able to avoid having to justify as such to the US taxpayer.

To put things in perspective, consider that the $14.6 billion in forgiven WWI debt and the $23 billion in forgiven WWII debt amount to something between $1.3 and $3.6 trillion in todays money, depending on the method used to calculate the present value. Whichever figure you use, it's not a trivial sum.

Now I'm not saying that the USA should not have provided whatever support to Britain that was necessary in its times of need. I just think that it should be acknowleged and some measure of gratitude is not unreasonable. To a degree the British, thanks to their leadership, have done so. But the British people in general don't seem to feel they owe America any kind of support in our current struggles - I just don't think they really understand the overall historic picture.

And France and Germany... well if I go into that I'm sure I will piss off Adler and Udet big time!

=S=

Lunatic

Originally Posted by evangilder

Well, so far there have been no malicious exploits from guest postings. Their IP addresses are logged. If someone wants to post with multiple aliases, it is not hard to do either. If it becomes a problem, then we can take care of it.

I don't understand what positive there is to allowing anonymous posts? Since registration is free, why not require registration?

[evangilder]

I don't understand why this is such a big deal to you. Guest posters have been posting here as long as I have been here and there have been no problems. Guest posting has been in place since before I became an admin and as long as horse has no issue with it, fine. I am only an admin here, not the site owner. If you have an issue with guest posting, I suggest you send an e-mail to 'admin at ww2aircraft dot net'. This is more of a decision of the owner of this site.

I figured it was something you admins would discuss with the site owner.

Not a huge deal to me evan, just a known mistake as learned by many other boards.

[plan_D]

You're going to admit there were some U.S officials looking at the 1812 War as a chance to gain Canadian land, then?

Crossing a river is hard in the time of war. The British could set-up their fortifications on the three gaps and anything remaining holding the north side of the river. Over-land routes could be used because they'd be coming down from the north. U.S troops would have to be over the river and attacking the land routes on the British side. If this was all possible, why not do it in 1812?

I'm sure Canada could support the British forces with the vital food and water they need to survive. They'd be no stopping the other war supplies over the Atlantic and it could be shipped in further north and brought down.

There were peaceful and warlike Native American tribes but it hardly makes a difference, the U.S destroyed them and their way of life no matter their stance of violent action.

English troops could and would have altered to the situation. They knew the advantages of fortifications, take for example Rourkes Drift or Battle of Waterloo.

The Battle of New Orleans only shows how important a well dug-in army is, in the 19th Century. It doesn't show England's increasing inability to fight on the field of battle at all. America had suffered the same kind of defeats in battle in 1812-1813.

I agree on that one. I imagine Britain would just leave it.


On to WW1:

Very few U.S troops had training in World War 1. They were all trainined in Europe by the French or British. The U.S troops were fresh faced and inexperienced in the horrors of modern combat. They were eager for battle just like the French and British were in 1914.

The difference was in 1918 the U.S troops would have tanks and aircraft supporting them, it was no longer just man against machine gun. The British and French were weary and tired. They had been in the war for 4 long years, this doesn't mean they're poor soldiers nor does it mean that the fresh faced U.S troops are any better. All fresh troops fight better than exhausted ones.

You points about U.S success doesn't give any implication to the U.S troops fighting any better. The U.S troops were fresh, RG, this makes a big difference in warfare. It was the Battle of Amiens that broke the back of the Germans led by New Zealanders.

The French and British provided the U.S troops with training, equipment and even uniforms. The U.S troops were fresh with the same training as the European nations, who were now tired and weary. This is the reason why it seems the U.S were better than their European counter-parts. That is the only reason why.

Now, this massive rant about loans and payments really appeared from no where. I, honestly, don't care. Your interpretation of the British people couldn't be more wrong though. You misunderstand the relationship between the U.S and the U.K.

The U.K has supported the U.S in every war post-World War II. The majority of people did too. Even in this Iraq War the majority of people in March 2003 were in support of the war. The obvious length of the war has brought about war weariness which is always going to happen in a democracy. Even with that, the May elections were won by the government that decided to help the U.S! The Iraq War wasn't even that high on the agenda. This should surely show you, the British population on a whole either supported the Iraq War (and the U.S) or just didn't care, which is basically the same.

Have you ever been to Britain, RG?

[redcoat]

Originally Posted by RG_Lunatic

If you research it a little more you will see that very few Americans had eyes on Canada, even in 1812.

Not true.
While the taking of Canada was not a stated aim of the US in declaring war in 1812, it was the aim of a powerful political faction within the US Congress, the 'War Hawks', and a major reason the vote for war was passed.
http://college.hmco.com/history/read...0_warhawks.htm

Yes, but neither commander knew of this. The point is that had the war continued, the Americans were getting stronger and the British weaker in their relative ability to do battle.

It was the other way round.
By late 1814 the war against France was ending, and Britain was beginning to transfer more of its forces to North America. while the US was bankrupt, and the war was by then highly unpopular.
The New England states were even starting to make noises about breaking away from the Union. ( Hartford convention)

ps, I was the guest poster
I didn't realize I wasn't logged on

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by redcoat

Not true.
While the taking of Canada was not a stated aim of the US in declaring war in 1812, it was the aim of a powerful political faction within the US Congress, the 'War Hawks', and a major reason the vote for war was passed.
http://college.hmco.com/history/read...0_warhawks.htm

It was the other way round.
By late 1814 the war against France was ending, and Britain was beginning to transfer more of its forces to North America. while the US was bankrupt, and the war was by then highly unpopular.
The New England states were even starting to make noises about breaking away from the Union. ( Hartford convention)

ps, I was the guest poster
I didn't realize I wasn't logged on

Last night the History Channel showed the "War of 1812" special. I wished when this special was developed the producers would of gave more info on the "Great Lakes" battles.

Originally Posted by plan_D

You're going to admit there were some U.S officials looking at the 1812 War as a chance to gain Canadian land, then?

Of course, I never said otherwise. There were some British officials who wanted to side with Hitler too, so what? The point is that it was not a major reason for the USA going to war. Even without the possibility of capturing British land in Canada the USA would have gone to war. Without impressments, there would not have been a war.

Originally Posted by plan_D

Crossing a river is hard in the time of war. The British could set-up their fortifications on the three gaps and anything remaining holding the north side of the river. Over-land routes could be used because they'd be coming down from the north. U.S troops would have to be over the river and attacking the land routes on the British side. If this was all possible, why not do it in 1812?

I'm sure Canada could support the British forces with the vital food and water they need to survive. They'd be no stopping the other war supplies over the Atlantic and it could be shipped in further north and brought down.

Because the actual "invasion" of 1812 was intended more as a punative raid than to occupy Canada. It was not well thought out and US forces were insufficient to enforce a long term blockade. However, by the mid 1820's, under President Stonewall Jackson, had the USA been interested in actually conquering Candada, things would have been different.

After the War of 1812 the USA sustained a much larger military than prior to the war, and had it had eyes on Canada it would have been much larger still. The USA could easily have owned the river for at least a month or two, both via land and via ships. Remember, the USA already held the South side of the St. Lawrence river to start with, taking the North side would have been rather trivial.

Again, you are forgetting your original argument, which was that the British, though outnumbered, had the advantage of being on the defense and could sit in their fortifications to make up the numeric disadvantage. But now you are arguing they'd have come out to defend their supply lines, and if they did so, that defensive advantage would be totally lost.

Also, Upper Canada (which is actually to the south-west of Lower Canada) would most likely have sided with the USA. How willing Lower Canada would have been to support the British is questionable - my guess is they would have tried to stay out of the war as much as possible rather than risk being a conquered region should the USA win. As for Canada supplying the British, they simply could not do so from Lower Canada, the terrain is too rough in the winter months and besides that they were not large enough to provide sufficient supplies. And they still would have had to get those supplies to the British forts, which would have required British troops.

When you look at everything involved, each decade that passed after the War of 1812 the USA became more capable of taking Canada and the British became less capable of defending it. Obviously today we could take it in a couple of days if we wanted it.

Originally Posted by plan_D

There were peaceful and warlike Native American tribes but it hardly makes a difference, the U.S destroyed them and their way of life no matter their stance of violent action.

My point is that if a culture believes in and lives by the creedo "the strong have the right to dominate", then is it not right to dominate them if you are the strong?

Originally Posted by plan_D

English troops could and would have altered to the situation. They knew the advantages of fortifications, take for example Rourkes Drift or Battle of Waterloo.

But in this case they'd have surely lost. In ~1830 the USA was capable of sustaining a siege for however long it took to win a protracted war.

Originally Posted by plan_D

The Battle of New Orleans only shows how important a well dug-in army is, in the 19th Century. It doesn't show England's increasing inability to fight on the field of battle at all. America had suffered the same kind of defeats in battle in 1812-1813.

Yes, but by 1814 the US had learned its lesson. By 1830 no longer would the British have been facing untrained militia.

Being "dug-in" is only advantageous if you have sufficient supplies to outlast a seige. The British in Canada would have had to come out of the forts or perish. And if they did come out of the forts, they would have been beaten unless Britain were willing to make holding Canada its sole objective. And even had Britain done so, victory was by no means assured as the value of the RN in such a war would have been somewhat limited. In the meantime, the rest of the Empire would have collapsed.

[quote="plan_D"]I agree on that one. I imagine Britain would just leave it. [quote]

Exactly - approximately 1-1.5 million Canadian's of dubious loyalty were simply not worth the huge costs and risks of a major war to hold it.

============================

Originally Posted by plan_D

On to WW1:

Very few U.S troops had training in World War 1. They were all trainined in Europe by the French or British. The U.S troops were fresh faced and inexperienced in the horrors of modern combat. They were eager for battle just like the French and British were in 1914.

The difference was in 1918 the U.S troops would have tanks and aircraft supporting them, it was no longer just man against machine gun. The British and French were weary and tired. They had been in the war for 4 long years, this doesn't mean they're poor soldiers nor does it mean that the fresh faced U.S troops are any better. All fresh troops fight better than exhausted ones.

The American 1st were vetran soldiers. The 2nd, and 3rd divisions, and perhaps the 4th and 5th were for the most part wholely trained US regular army. That the British/French felt they needed addtional training does not mean they were untrained.

Of course fresh troops fight better. But it is also a matter of "heart". American troops simply did not give up no matter the losses. This was part of their US training, based upon the lessons of the Civil war which said it was better to take the losses up front than to get bogged down into a protracted action which would, over time, result in at least the same level of losses.

As for the tanks, they were of some value but really not that much. The German's seemed to have no problem knocking them out. All the tanks supporting the 1st. U.S. division in the battle at Catigny (Apr. 27-July 8, 191 were destroyed relatively early in the battle - but the 1st went on to win anyway. In virtually all the battle accounts I've read the tanks played a relatively small role and were destroyed or taken out of action in the early stages of a battle. When the tanks first appeared the Germans had a hard time with them, but by summer 1918 their thin armor provided little protection.

Originally Posted by plan_D

You points about U.S success doesn't give any implication to the U.S troops fighting any better. The U.S troops were fresh, RG, this makes a big difference in warfare. It was the Battle of Amiens that broke the back of the Germans led by New Zealanders.

You are saying that rested vetran troops are no match for fresh green troops? When the US troops went into battle in Spring 1918, the British and French troops were allowed to rest.

And how do you determine that it was the Battle of Amien's that broke the back of the Germans? It seems to me the battle at Chateau-Thierry stopped the German advance, the battle of Belleau Wood established the Allied offensive, the Second Battle of the Marne put the Germans into retreat, and the Meuse-Argonne Campaign (where Pershing lost 120,000 men) is what finally "broke the back of the Germans". Specifically it was the breaking of German supply lines at Sedan by the US 2nd Division, 50 miles behind German lines, that put the final nail in their coffin.

Originally Posted by plan_D

The French and British provided the U.S troops with training, equipment and even uniforms. The U.S troops were fresh with the same training as the European nations, who were now tired and weary. This is the reason why it seems the U.S were better than their European counter-parts. That is the only reason why.

No, they recieved both the training of the USA and minimal additional training from the French/British. In several cases the training turned into combat.

Originally Posted by plan_D

Now, this massive rant about loans and payments really appeared from no where. I, honestly, don't care. Your interpretation of the British people couldn't be more wrong though. You misunderstand the relationship between the U.S and the U.K.

I do understand the relationship. My point is your past comments indicate that you do not. My "rant" on loans go back to statements you made in earlier posts (not necessarily in this thread), in particular one I think you made about how the USA should have gotten involved in WWII earlier, and then your comments about how Britain fronted the cold war against the Soviets in response to my comment that the USA broke the Soviets.

My point was simply that dispite Britain's failure to pay back past loans the USA has never denied them when they were in need.

BTW: The USA did break the Soviets. It was our military development, especially in the 80's, that they could not keep pace with. This in combination with our support of the Afgahn's (which later bit us in the ass) which depleted their resources and drove them into economic ruin.

Originally Posted by plan_D

The U.K has supported the U.S in every war post-World War II. The majority of people did too. Even in this Iraq War the majority of people in March 2003 were in support of the war. The obvious length of the war has brought about war weariness which is always going to happen in a democracy. Even with that, the May elections were won by the government that decided to help the U.S! The Iraq War wasn't even that high on the agenda. This should surely show you, the British population on a whole either supported the Iraq War (and the U.S) or just didn't care, which is basically the same.

The May elections were won because the British didn't like Blair's opponent more than they didn't like Blair. I can tell you the impression here in the USA is generally that while the Blair government supports the USA the British people in general do not.

And yes, the British have done more than any other nation in the coalition. But you have to admit by % of force vs. population, it's still a small commitment.

UK population (England+Scotland+Whales) = ~60 million
UK troops in Iraq/Afghan: ~8700/~1100 (+3900 expected in Afghan)
UK troops per capita in Iraq+Afghan: 163/million (228/mil)

US population = ~296 million
US troops in Iraq/Afghan: 140,000/18,000
US troops per capita in Iraq+Afghan: 533/million

So while I can appreciate that Britain is supporting us, you have to admit that the level of support is not the kind of commitment the USA has shown to Britain when it was in need in the past.

Originally Posted by plan_D

Have you ever been to Britain, RG?

Oh yes. I lived there for 18 months as a child, mostly in Portsmouth. In the first year I had the crap beaten out of me by gangs of British kids just for being an American many times. One time I had a concussion and had to have 25 stitches in my scalp when the bunch of them knocked me down and kicked me with their boots. Another time I had two broken ribs from being kicked while on the ground. The police would do nothing. But when I beat the snot out of two of the kids who cornered me and thought they could beat me up without a gang near the end of our stay, my mom was dragged into the police station and I was expelled from the school.

My Dad is teaching your pilots air-to-air combat tactics while the parents of the kids are blaming the USA for all of Britians woe's and they in turn are taking it out on me. It was a real hospitable country! I sure want to go back to Britain!

Now I understand that this is not representative of all Brits. But I hope you can understand that I don't have a particularly warm place in my heart for the average Brit.

BTW: my best friend and fishing buddy in my early teens was a Brit.

=S=

Lunatic

Originally Posted by redcoat

Not true.
While the taking of Canada was not a stated aim of the US in declaring war in 1812, it was the aim of a powerful political faction within the US Congress, the 'War Hawks', and a major reason the vote for war was passed.
http://college.hmco.com/history/read...0_warhawks.htm

The Warhawks made up a very small part of the US congress in 1812. To put things in context here's a quote from another page of the same webstie you've referenced:

Beginning in 1810 young Democratic-Republican "War Hawks" from the West and the South argued that the right to export American products without losing ships and men had to be defended. They also objected to the British inciting the Indians along the Great Lakes frontier and argued that the British would be forced to change their policies if the United States attacked Canada. Some believed that the future of republican government was in danger if the United States could not successfully defend its rights. Others hoped that if Canada was conquered it could be retained after the war.
http://college.hmco.com/history/read...0500_warof.htm

As you can see, only a small portion of the Warhawks were interested in possible territorial gains in Canada. Others were interested in territorial gains against Spain. But mostly it was about impressment and British policy toward the American merchant. Territorial acquisitions were not enough to cause the war, and even without that possiblity the impressment and theft of ships/cargos was enough on its own.

Originally Posted by redcoat

It was the other way round.
By late 1814 the war against France was ending, and Britain was beginning to transfer more of its forces to North America. while the US was bankrupt, and the war was by then highly unpopular.
The New England states were even starting to make noises about breaking away from the Union. ( Hartford convention)

Conneticut was the only State that was seriously considering cessession. And after the Battle of Baltimore and then the Battle of New Orleans victories their cause was finished and most of their leadership was quickly driven out of the USA and all were driven out of political power.

Britain was spent from the war with Napolean. Something like 40% of the British population was under 18 years of age, and another 30% were over the age of 45. And figures for males would be even worse (i've not been able to find any). A huge proportion of abled bodied fighting men were in the RN, and not very suited to ground combat which is what would have been required. And a large number of the 25-30% of service age males were in fact not able-bodied due to wounds recieved during the Napoleanic war.

Britain was in no position to be deploying large numbers of forces across the Atlantic after having spent itself in a dozen years of war against Napolean. Furthermore, just because the war was over did not mean that Britain could afford to send its entire army, or even a large portion of it, across the ocean to fight an extended war in the Americas. That would have put Europe at risk.

While the War of 1812 was unpopular with the Americans during most of its course, after the Battle of Baltimore that largely changed, and after the victory at New Orleans it completely changed.

As for the US being bankrupt, only for international trade. Had the USA had to continue the war, it would have issued script which would have been honored within the internal economy which was healthy. In fact this happened immeadiately after the war with no problems.

Originally Posted by RG_Lunatic

ps, I was the guest poster
I didn't realize I wasn't logged on

NP. I hope you can understand that it is much better to post under an identity than to share the "Guest" identity which could horribly confuse a thread.

=S=

Lunatic

[plan_D]

It's completely different, the supporters of Hitler in Britain were not part of the government. The 'War Hawks' were in the U.S Congress and voted to go to war with Britain for the reason of taking Canadian land.

No, Britain wouldn't have to come out to protect it's supply lines. All it would have to do is hold the north side of the river so it could counter American artillery on the south bank. It could even land men on the south side and set up defensive positions there.
The Americans might have been greater in number but the English were still better trained.

The Royal Navy was not always what secured British victory in foreign lands. The Royal Navy was a defensive measure, in the Napoleonic Wars the Royal Navy defended England from the combined Spanish and French fleet at the Battle of Trafaglar. After that it was up to the English land forces to secure victory on the European continent.


Some of the U.S forces were part trained in the U.S. They were sending troops out to Europe with no training at all. The U.S troops were in no state to be commited to battle when they arrived in Europe. They had to be trained and supplied by European nations.

I cannot believe you have just stated that tanks played a minor role! They were the winning factor of Cambrai and Amiens. The Germans had no effective defence against the tank. All they had was anti-tank rifles and diverted long-range artillery to counter-tanks [which isn't ideal]. The Germans had more tanks captured than they had built. The tank was one of the sole reasons why that war was won. Next you'll be saying aircraft payed little role, or that the hydraulic system on the artillery that set it back to it's original position was unimportant.

Read Amiens and Cambrai, where the tank was used effectively.

The British and French troops weren't rested, they were never taken off the line. They were just moved to quieter sections of the front. Even then, you cannot fully rest an army that has been sat in a trench for four years. They will always be weary and tired.

I'm going to take Ludendorf's word for it that the Amiens broke the spine of his armed forces.

The European nations wouldn't allow the U.S troops to the line if they weren't trained enough. It's obvious they wouldn't do that just out of spite because they NEEDED the fresh faces. It was just obvious that U.S troops weren't prepared to support the French and British on the front line.

No, you don't understand the relationship at all. The key words there are I think because you can't find that statement. I never said that Britain fronted the Cold War, I said that Britain was a front-line in the Cold War. I also said that Europe was supporting America just as much as America was supporting Europe. You seem to think that Europe can't survive on its own.

You think it was all U.S development, huh? The Europeans had no weapons development in progress in the Cold War?

You think you know more about the state of this nation than me? You just read media reports [which are largely false or bias] then you try and tell me, a resident of this nation, a person who voted why we voted the way we did?

Do you even know how small and over-stretched the British forces are? The U.S doesn't need massive military support, your government knows that. Britain provides something much more important to the U.S, political support!

Well, 18 months hardly gives you enough time to get over it. That doesn't happen with everyone, when I was in school we had a Canadian and American come in the last two years. They got on fine with everyone and had a lot of friends [with the Canadian given the inventive nickname, Canada]. Everyone gets in fights in Britain it's the way this country is. Don't try and tell me you know this country better than I do...or I'll just laugh then I just won't bother with you anymore.

[redcoat]

Originally Posted by RG_Lunatic

Of course, I never said otherwise. There were some British officials who wanted to side with Hitler too, so what?

Can you please supply us with the names of these officials then?

The point is that it was not a major reason for the USA going to war. Even without the possibility of capturing British land in Canada the USA would have gone to war. Without impressments, there would not have been a war.

If it had nothing to do with territorial gains, why do the US carry on with the war after they found out Britain had agreed to stop impressment, and resind the Orders of Council ?

Because the actual "invasion" of 1812 was intended more as a punative raid than to occupy Canada.

Do you have any evidence it was a mere raid? It does