YAYYAAY CANADA BURNED DOWN THE WHITEHOUSE EVEN THO IT WAS PINK AMERICANS ARE RETARDED THINKING THEY WIN EVERY WAR THEY GO TO SINGLEHANDEDLY YAYAYA EXCEPT YOU LOST VIETNAM, YOU WERE LOOSING WW2 UNTIL CANADA STEPPED IN BUT YET AMERICA STILL THINK CANADA IS UNDERTHEM BUT THEY NEED TO WAKE UP TO COMUNIST AMERICA THANKS TO THIER BLACK PRESIDENT BRINGING HIS POCKET CHANGE INTO COMUNISM
haha 84 dislikes because they were americans who are crying like a bunch of little babies wah wah wah!!!! aha no offense but some americans are just ughhh , the racist and mean ones!!
The War of 1812 was nothing but a side-show to GB. Napoleon was always the main threat. Whilst 95% of all GB's forces were tied down in Europe facing the gravest threat the world had yet seen, Madison tried and (humiliatingly) failed to annex Canada behind Britain's back. Analogous to Mussolini backing the wrong horse, that's exactly what Madison did. Thought he could just waltz in and take what wasn't his ("Mere matter of marching" LOL), instead, got his arse kicked good and proper..!
The entire US forces (with HUGE numerical superiority & logistical advantage) couldn't even take Canada, even whilst GB was fully engaged with Napoleon! The Americans should've annexed it with ease, instead, they were ignominiously kicked out on every occasion by a handful of Redcoats and Canadian militia.
If I were American, I'd never mention the War of 1812 again, just far too humiliating. I could never imagine Churchill running away like Madison did (oh, the shame...)
@TheLegokid64 True but it was done at Canada's request. The order didn't come from Parliament in London which was outraged as it violated the conventions of war.
Specifically Governor General of Canada George Prévost made the request after US forces had burned the Parliament building in York (Modern Toronto) Upper Canada.
Since Canada still has a British Queen the point that the burning of Washington was done by British not Canada is largely petty hair splitting.
Was it due to time-lag (long crossings) that Prévost received the (belated) news of the abrogation of the OIC? How late did this news arrive?
I guess the Americans (also unaware of this annulment) had already commenced hostilities.
Once news did arrive, did Prevost immediately inform the Americans? If so, why did the US continue to attack? Weren't their reasons for war now settled?
Did GB then decide that since the US remained belligerent, they'd recommence impressment?
1st lets set the stage. The war was never about impressment or support of Natives. That is what was told to the public. Most US international trade was from the north east New England States & the biggest trading partner was Britain. These states were represented by the Federalist Party. As the home of most US merchant shipping they suffered impressment more then all other states combined but they voted against the war.
@trouzerpants Madison & the War Hawks were the ones who wanted the war.
Thanks to trade with Britain The Feds had great wealth & power in congress. Madison was terrified that Britain was gaining control of the US via the economy. (See the "1812 Henry Letters") not only that but Madison & the war Hawk states were Slave owners whose wealth depended upon the practice & abolitionism were gaining ground in Britain. (See Anti Slave Trade act 1807)
@trouzerpants Madison had dealings with Napoleon before. The 1804 Louisiana Purchase is what essentially made him president.
But attempts to settle those lands was met by fierce opposition from Native peoples.
The War Hawk States were both slave states & those seeking to expand in to Native lands.
Those voting for war had little to do with merchant shipping but the issue of impressment helped undercut the anti war Federalists weakening them enough to pass a war vote.
@trouzerpants Now the only reason Britain had issued the OIC was to punish the USA for their dealings with Napoleon.
Britain had no interest in taking control of the US as it had proven vastly more profitable as an independent trading partner. (Which is why Canada was later cut loose in 1867)
In fact the Federalists had friends in British Parliament such as Lord Liverpool who had opposed the OIC but didn't have the power at the time to stop it.
At the time Madison called the vote for war HE KNEW a pro Federalist Prime Minister was in power in British Parliament & HE KNEW the OIC would likely be revoked.
If that happened he would never get a war vote through congress & the Federalist having used diplomacy to solve a problem MADISON CREATED BY DEALING WITH NAPOLEON would likely gain total control of the US political system.
@trouzerpants So Madison got his war, just barely but that was OK the timing was perfect. At the same time Napoleon was marching the largest army the world had ever seen over 1/2 a mil strong in to Russia. With Napoleon's Continental system in place & the US easily taking Canada Britain's very survival was in question. Certainly never be a threat to Madison's way of life (Slave owner) or any of the other War Hawks (Slave owners or mass murderers of Native peoples (take your pick))
So, Madison wanted his war, using any excuse he could find to justify it? Cognisant Liverpool was matey with the Feds, that he'd repeal the OIC when able (what exactly were those, impressment, maritime rights etc?) thus losing his potential legitimacy for declaring war. If that's so, doesn't that blow this "bargaining chip" theory right outta the water?! Kinda seems like the US reasoned Boney would keep GB busy, enabling Madison to grab Canada without much of a fight..
Eddy, I'd like to take the time to thank you (as I've thanked Ninja) for your patience in explaining this somewhat odd war to me. A war that should never have been fought?
Were the natives (with Tecumseh's death) the only real side to lose everything? How can we be absolutely positive GB was never arming the natives? Sure, Jay's Treaty should've sorted all of that out yet it's a rumour that never seems to leave these threads..
Interesting war, complex and weird simultaneously..
@trouzerpants After the war started sure they were allies but if anyone encouraged Natives to attack the US before 1812 then those orders did not come from Britain.
British & Canadians love to say they helped Tecumseh as his struggle was just. They never deign the charge. Makes them feel morally superior.
Americans say it because it justified the war in their minds at least.
I wish we had. I'm part Native, I'd love for it to be true but its contrary to the established facts.
@trouzerpants It's my family history. 1812 was a war that saw many family lines come together so its easier to study then the ones where various branches are trying to kill each other but the threads weave back to the first European settlers in North America.
@trouzerpants The bargaining chip theory is nuts. Even before the repeal of the OIC there are many references to the intention to keep Canada. Even if Madison believed he would just hand it back others would have demand so high a price Britain while fighting Napoleon would never be able to have paid it.
No one enters a bank guns blazing to demand a loan.
William Hull's proclamation said he was to liberate Canada. If Canadians accepted them as that what would have happened if the US gave it back?
Madison thought the Canadians/British (I know, same thing) would view US forces as "liberators?!" I thought the Colonial Loyalists got the fuck outta the nascent US to escape persecution after the Rev
Perhaps Madison's "mere matter of marching" was based upon the support of the United Empire Loyalists..? Their fealty was ambiguous, right?
@trouzerpants Even the British believed Canadians wouldn't stay loyal. Too many were French & the war with Napoleonic France made them suspect.
Madison & most Americans did not realize that what ever misgivings Canadians had about Britain we trusted Americans even less. They WERE British traitors after all.
The Loyalist never swayed in their loyalty but they were a minority.
Before hostilities commenced, did Britain overturn impressment or not? I've heard some say yes, others say that this practice continued until Napoleon's defeat.
@trouzerpants May 11, 1812 an assassin killed British Prime Minister Spencer Perceval, which resulted in Lord Liverpool coming to power. Liverpool wanted a more practical relationship with the United States & issued a repeal of the Orders in Council.
So yes Impressment from US ships had ended before the USA declared war.
How ever Impressment continued in the British Empire until Napoleons defeat.
Once the US declared war if British boarded your ship Impressment was the least of your worries.
"The United States is an illegitimate country, just like Israel. It has no right to exist. That country belongs to the Red man, the American Indian... It's actually a shame to be a so-called American, because everybody living there is a usurper, an invader taking part in this crime, which is to rob the land, rob the country and kill all the American Indians." - Bobby Fischer
@nigee1970 - Bobby Fischer was a racist. He denied the holocaust and said that America was "a farce controlled by dirty, hook-nosed, circumcized, jew bastards." He was fine with 9/11, and wrote a letter to Bin Laden approving of his actions. I completely agree that we screwed over American Natives, but goddam, you picked a horrible reference.
I asked if you're Jewish to further understand your condemnation of Fischer's quote. He's quite right, the US is run by Jewish oligarchs, the media controlled by Zionist propaganda, the ADL possessing enormous power; the term "Jewnited States" wasn't propagated outta thin air. During the Cold War, the US gov used Fischer like a pawn (forgive the pun), afterwards, he was tossed aside. It's no surprise he felt bitter, possibly acerbating his gradual mental decline.
@nigee1970 - Uh oh. You're one of those "zionist US government" conspiracy theorists. Trust me, i am NO fan of our federal government at this point. They're liars and loudmouths, but they aren't zionist. Almost everyone i know agrees that Natives got cheated, most wish it didn't happen, but it did. Me and my friend were discussing it the other day. I don't want you to think all Americans are arrogant and stupid. Most people here hate GB with a passion (along with most of congress).
"Today, Jews control vast areas of wealth in America. Estimates range all the way up to 70%. Whatever the figure, it is huge and immensely out of proportion to their 2% of the population in American society.
Today, in 1999, the U.S.A. is totally dominated by Jews. Virtually every newspaper or magazine is owned by Jews. Their self-serving propaganda constantly fills the TV screen.
"The Federal government is totally under Jewish control. US military forces are the pawn of Israel. The banks, the markets are theirs. They systematically denigrate our Founding Fathers and our heritage and our Constitution." - Jeff Rense
No wonder the ADL slander him.
Heh, just do a quick search on any articles relating to this subject. To be in denial is to be ignorant of fact. Don't let the Zionists lie to you...
@nigee1970 - I'm not saying jews don't have control of anything in the media. I just don't think it's as bad as some believe. Thankfully, you're the first zionist conspiracy theorist i've talked to who hasn't deliberately shoved their opinions down my throat.
All you guys talking about the historical accuracy and stuff are so stiff. This song is poking fun at Canadians, too. Notice the references at the beginning. And the part that starts, "We fired our guns, but the Yankees kept a comin" is referencing an American song.
@TwistedComplex The British troops burnt down Washington, INCLUDING the white house, in response to the burning of York, and took the Yanks 60 years to rebuild it ;)
@TwistedComplex The British troops burnt down Washington, INCLUDING the white house, in response to the burning of York, and took the Yanks 60 years to rebuild it ;) And oh, the Union Jack flew over the city for a day as well, problem Yanks ?
@TwistedComplex Well England has always been a "oversized united state air craft carrier." It's the empire that covered just under 1/4 of the world's land mass. Do you have any idea how much it costs to run an Empire? obviously not, just another typical ignorant American fatarse. *stereotype intended*
The War of 1812 ended in a stalemate. Under the Treaty of Ghent, both sides agreed to go back to the way things were before the war. No concessions were made on either side and the war ended in 1814. The Battle of New Orleans technically occurred before the word of the treaty reached America, but after the treaty was signed so that can't count as a part of the actual war
@suprhavkdogi If you declare war have your invasion forces defeated & forced to return home to defend from counter attacks, have your capitol destroyed, have six states ready for secession from the Union, your economy bankrupt & have none of the issues you went to war of addressed then that's not a stalemate that would be a loss.
The US never took any territory from Germany at the end of WW2 was that a stalemate?
Britain didn't have to gain anything to win just defend their interests.
Hilarious song and a great vid! (full disclosure - I'm an American Soldier).
Princess Pat's rocks - Loved having you guys with us in the 'Stan.
Of course now, the entire Canadian Armed Forces is smaller than the Michigan National Guard...and more lightly armed...but that's why you have the Polar Bears wandering everywhere. :P (Always remember, Michigan: America's first line of defense against the Canadians!!)
Canada and Britain kicked Americas collective ass. And is all the better cos they clearly still haven't got over it, they have to constantly re-write and bastardise their history to try and cover it up. The entire British army/navy was fighting Napoleon, Canada was guarded by almost nothing yet the Americans in true Yank style still managed to fuck it up.
@greensucksbluerules No, but they manged to rout the US army in a matter of minutes and were able to walk into Washington DC unopposed and burn it to the ground. Also it was still only a small fraction of the British army they were dealing with, and their aim was to raid the US coast and pressurise the US into ending the war, not particularly to capture towns. And once the Royal navy arrived and began blockading your ports and destroying your economy the Americans begged for peace.
@uafchris No, Baltimore was attacked AFTER Washington DC was burned down. Capturing Baltimore was the main objective of the British forces and they failed. Assuming Baltimore and New Orleans are just towns shows how much you really know. The USS Constitution destroyed any Royal Navy ship stupid enough to go against it. The British had the larger army, which was not a small fraction, and they blew it.
@greensucksbluerules No, what a div. The Constitution was a frigate that only had any success because all it took on were small low quality British ships as almost the entire royal navy was tied down in Europe. Just 1 first rate would have blown the Constitution to pieces. Once the war against France ended the Royal navy cleared the seas of the Americans with ease. Also Britain sent hardly any troops to America as it saw it an insignificant sideshow it had already won, most were still in Europe.
@uafchris The Constitution forced the British to make bigger ships. Hey, who won the Battle of Plattsburgh again? Not the Royal Navy and that was after the war with France ended. And that prevented the British from launcing a large invasion of New York.
@greensucksbluerules Plattsburgh was on a lake and the British again only had a bunch of small frigates with them. And Plattsburgh was won mostly due to the wind direction meaning the RN ships couldn't maneuver, though the actual land battle was a British victory. And the constitution didn't force the UK to make bigger ships, they already had them they were tied up in Europe. Britain had total naval supremacy since Trafalgar, to think the Constitution had any influence on the RN is ridiculous.
@uafchris Plattsburg was also what the British needed to capture. It doesn't matter what types of ships they used, they still lost. You claim the land battle was a British victory, which is weird because the British retreated. Having naval supremacy when you're invading a country is only helpful if you're attacking Atlantis. The British did start making ships with bigger guns after losing at sea. Look it up.
@greensucksbluerules Plattsburg was more a tactical fuck up on the part of George Prevost rather than an American victory. The land battle wasnt technically a victory but certainly would have been had it continued. The British had inflicted heavy casualties and pushed the militia back only to recieve the inexplicable order to withdraw. Nevertheless Baltimore and Plattsburg were minor setbacks, not crushing victories.
@Ninja1275 It was an American victory, regardless of what happened. Incidentally, more British soldiers died than Americans. Along with Baltimore, Britain needed to win those battles to win the war and they never did.
@greensucksbluerules Had Britain wanted to they could have held out for far tougher peace terms from the US, but with merchants clamouring for peace and no desire to continue the war they simply settled for the Status Quo, quite content with their impressive attack on Washington.
@greensucksbluerules Even New Orleans wasnt as decisive as Americans make out, during the battle the British turned Jackson's right flank on the opposite bank of the river, the defending Kentuckians quite simply ran away. Jackson was afraid they would turn the captured artillery there on the American flank, but with the main attack suffering heavy casualties Lambert chose to withdraw. Then the British went on to capture Fort Bowyer(supposedly impregnable) and began preparations to attack Mobile
@Ninja1275 When one army only loses men in the double digits range, while the other army loses over 300, it's clearly a large decisive victory. In Louisiana, right after the Battle of New Orleans, the British failed again, this time in an attempt to capture Fort St. Philip.
@greensucksbluerules It's not a sports game. Victory goes to whomever achieves their objectives no matter cost in lives & the US gave up all your ambitions & signed a peace treaty at Ghent ending the war before New Orleans. If Deaths did matter the US total count for the war is still a loss as Britain lost fewer men.
With Pax Britannica The US was Britain's bitch for the next 100 years.
@Eddythebeast666 The British never did achieve their objects. You just admitted they lost. The US, on the other hand, achieved their objective of getting Britain to recognize them as a real nation.
Britain has always been the United States' bitch since then.
@greensucksbluerules America had already failed in its war aims, the fighting in Louisiana was just a series pointless raids fought after the war was already over. Also 300 dead for this period was nothing spectacular. At Badajoz in 1812, 4,000 British soldiers died in one night, and that was considered a major British victory.
@uafchris The British forces who attacked New Orleans didn't know the war was over. They still had war aims. War aims that the British failed in. 300 dead is spectatular when only 55 die on the opposing side. At Badajoz, the French lost over one thousand.
@greensucksbluerules Yes, but the main aims of the war had already been achieved. Britain had defended Canada and got the Americans to agree to peace via damaging their economy, also impressment had already ended as a result of the defeat of Napoleon and was no longer an issue. New Orleans was just part of a minor raid in a war that was already over. There is no way the US the war, at best the war ended in a draw with the advantage to Britain.
@uafchris The British didn't capture Lake Champlain, Baltimore, or New Orleans. The invasion of Canada was just one stage of the war. Britain was damaging its own economy because of the blockcade. Impressment would have continued if Britain got involved in another war. You don't send 11,000 soldiers on a minor raid and none of them knew the war was over. Wars aren't won by failing to capture key areas. In the end, the US accomplished their main objective and Britian didn't.
British aims: 1.Defend Canada 2. Force the Americans to agree to peace
both 100% successful = British victory!
"Wars aren't won by failing to capture key areas", no they aren't, thats why the US lost! Look up the battles of Queenston heights, Beaver Dams, Detroit, Chateauguay and Crysler's Farm. Battles that decided the outcome of the war.
@uafchris If the invasion of Canda was the main stage of the war, the war would have not gone on for three more years, after the invasion ended.
Annexing Canada wasn't even listed as an official reason for going to war. Impressment did end.
The British's real aims were to capture New Orleans, Baltimore, and Lake Champlain. All of 100% failures. Those were the key areas they needed. That's why they lost. Did you even know the US recaptured Detroit after the Battle of Lake Erie?
@greensucksbluerules The Americans carried on attacking Canada in 1813 and 1814. They were not Britain's war aims, they were targets to be attacked in order to encourage the US to sue for peace. The War was started by the US how the hell did Britain have any "real aims" when it didn't want the war in the first place. As soon as Britain defeated the American invasions of Canada it had won the war. Impressment ended because of Napoleon, but Britain still kept the right to it, even after the war.
@uafchris The Americans were attacking Canada because that's where the Indian tribes that attacked Americans were located. If those were not Britain's war aims, they wouldn't have launched invasions in those areas. If Britain won the war after the American invasion of Canada ended, the war would have ended in 1812, not 1815. So in reality, Britain did not win the war. Impressment never happened again after the war, so the US truly did suceed in ending impressment.
@greensucksbluerules They didn't, impressment ended in 1814 because the war with France ended. They only used it as a quick way of recruiting English speaking sailors into the royal navy in times of war when manpower was urgently needed. As Britain didn't fight an other major war until 1914, by which time conscription had been introduced for all services, there was never any need to use impressment again. BTW the US kept attacking Canada until 1814.
@uafchris Impressment never truly ended for the US until after the War of 1812 ended. Britain could have always needed new sailors for their navy. But by the end of the war, the US truly did suceed in ending impressment. The US attacked Canada because hostile Indians and British soldiers resided there. And still, the war should have not ended in 1815 if you claim about the invasion of Canada being the main part of the war was true.
@greensucksbluerules You did not stop impressment! Britain rescinded the Orders in Council (impressment) a few days before war was declared. Your "main aim" was over before war began. At the Treaty of Ghent the U.S could not demand anything from Britain because it had achieved nothing, it could not challenge Maritime rights (impressment and neutrality) because its navy had been wiped off the map!
@Ninja1275 But we did. Britain never impressed a US sailor again. If the US navy was wiped off the map as you claim, it wouldn't have been beating the British navy when it tried to invade the country.
@greensucksbluerules You didnt beat the Royal Navy, your ships targeted smaller British vessels that wouldn't pose a threat to it. The first time two ships of equal size met each other was the Chesapeake vs Shannon, the Chesapeake was captured within 11 minutes. By 1815 only a small number of US ships were still active, out of the six original super - frigates you possessed; 2 were captured, 3 were trapped in port and only 1 was active. 1815 saw British naval mastery.
@greensucksbluerules No they were not. You truly are an absolute idiot. British ships employed a massive blockade of America, crippled the US economy, wiped the USN off the seas or bottled them up in port, and landed large armies all along the coast, who raided with impunity. By the end of the war, the US was in deep shit.
@Ninja1275 The facts contradict you. If the US was so badly off by the end of the war, the British wouldn't have been willing to give back everything they took. The blockcade hurt Britain's own economy and all of the armies who invaded the US got repulsed.
@greensucksbluerules Do you know anything about this war? The Natives were located in what is now Michigan, not in Canada. Canada was the US no.1 priority. There are newspaper articles and numerous statements from high ranking politcians all declaring that conquest was their goal. American soldiers wore caps with the words "conquer or die" stitched on them for christs sake! Britain was fighting a world war against Napoleon, as well as a multitude of smaller wars all over -
@Ninja1275 I know more than you. If there were no Natives in Canada, why were they present in Canadian battles? Canada was never the No. 1 priority for the US. It doesn't matter what newspapers and politicians said, the government did not list an invasion of Canada as a reason for going to war with Britain.
@greensucksbluerules You do not know more than me, you are a fucking idiot. The Natives who fought in Canada were primarily Iroquois, who had moved there after the American Revolution, under John Norton and John Brant. Tecumseh and the Shawnee, fought in and around Michigan, their home. Thomas Jefferson? John Adams? Henry Clay? Their words of "how easy the conquest of Canada would be" mean nothing?
@Ninja1275 The idiot here is you. Your sense of national pride is damaging your brain cells. First you claim the Natives weren't located in Canada, now you're contradicting yourself. None of those people were in President Madison's cabinet when he went to war with Britain.
@greensucksbluerules - the world. The US declared war at a time when Britain looked on the verge of defeat in Europe. You consistenly launched invasions of Canada from 1812 to late 1814, despite massive numerical superiority each attempt failed. When Napoleon abdicated in late 1814 British reinforcements arrived, attacked key targets, forcing the US into a defensive posture, crippled the economy through a massive blockade and burnt down Washington in retaliation.
@Ninja1275 Fighting continued in Canada because US and British forces were right next to each other. The British blockade destroyed its own economy and the burning of Washington only helped morale. When the British attacked Baltimore, the main objective of the invasion, they lost.
That doesnt make sense, Britain's economy was exhausted because of 22 years of war with France, but the US economy was crippled because its entire trading fleet had been wiped off the map and its ships were scooped up the second they left port. Support for the war vanished after the burning of Washington, it did not "improve morale", Madison was desperate for peace, and public support faded away...
@Ninja1275 What doesn't make sense is why the British would agree to a treaty that gave the US back what the British took if their blockade was doing as well as you claim. Burning Washington improved British morale, but it had no tactical significance.
@greensucksbluerules Im not gonna repeat myself over impressment if you refuse to read it, you didnt stop it, it ended before the war began. National pride? Says the ignorant, brain dead American who cant accept any view other than his own? You fucked up on the natives - "im cleverer than u, why were there natives in Canadian battles if they werent in Canada?" - exactly the kind of question I would expect from an American.
@Ninja1275 Yeah, the British claimed it ended, but their inability to beat the US made it clear that they would never impress sailors or harass merchant ships again. This is coming from the arrogant British user who's convinced the invasion of Canada was the main reason the US declared war on Britian and is too stuck up to admit he's wrong- exactly the kind of comment I would expect from someone living in Britain.
@greensucksbluerules That doesn't have the same ring to it, British people aren't inherently stupid, Americans are, take yourself for example. Listen im going to bed, we'll continue this later. Reflect on your newfound knowledge. The U.S lost, you gained nothing, Britain simultaneously handed you a spanking whilst winning a world war in Europe, and for the 100 years was the world's foremost power. Truth is a bitch, no?
@Ninja1275 Other nations like to assume Americans are inherently stupid out of jealously. The US gained exactly what they wanted. No more British harassment. The British gained nothing out of the war. They learned to never invade the US again. Then the times changed and the US became the world's foremost power. You and the truth don't get along.
@greensucksbluerules If American's had burnt down London we would never hear the end of it. Burning Washington meant that public opinion for the war, vanished overnight. People were no longer concerned, they simply wanted peace. As did Madison and the government, they became determined to settle for peace, their economy was in ruins, they had no money to lauch any more attacks. 6 states were plotting secession. They tried to implement conscription and the public were furious
@Ninja1275 Support vanished until the British failed to take Baltimore. The states that were against the war were viewed as traitors. The fact that the British were willing to give back what they took from the US confirms the economy wasn't as ruined you claim it was.
@greensucksbluerules Just because Napoleon abdicated didnt mean Britain focused entirely on the US, they sent a total of 48,000 men, which is a small number considering the amount they kept in Europe. In fact it was the situation in Europe which resulted in Britain letting America off lightly, Napoleon was soon to escape and begin the Hundred Days campaign, culminating at Waterloo. Europe took priority. The War of 1812 was something Britain never wanted.
@Ninja1275 A "well developed" nation that hadn't fought many wars.
Canada still had British support.
First you talk about how small the British invading force was, now you're claiming the US attacked Canada with a large invading force, even though the US had less men? Make up your mind. Besides, you can't invade a country with your entire Army, or you'll be left defenseless when the enemy attacks.
@greensucksbluerules Had less men? From 1812 to late 1814 you outnumbered them in practically every battle, yet still lost. Canada didn't have British support at the time, because every resource Britain had was directed against Napoleon, that was why you declared war in 1812, seeing how weak our position was. Even Madison said this - "We would not have declared war if the defeat of Napoleon Bonaparte been forseen".
@Ninja1275 The US invasion force had less men than the British invasion force, which you claimed was small. Canada already had enough British support to repell the invasion- it's always the invading army that has the disadvantage.
@greensucksbluerules Baltimore was targeted because it was the main base of American privateers, though the assault was called off the US were forced to sink their ships to bloackade their own harbour. Indirectly taking the city out of the war and negating the need for a second attack.
Btw, you outnumbered us at Baltimore; 11,000 to 4,500. Yet we still defeated the American sortie at North Point.
@Ninja1275 The assault was called off because the British forces were in danger of being overwhelmed by the US infantry, while the attack on Fort McHenry failed.
Incidentally, you outnumbered us at North Point, yet we still won a strategic victory.
@greensucksbluerules At North Point the Americans were positioned behind trees and with entrenched artillery. The British took heavy casualties but nevertheless routed their foe. They were not in danger of being overwhelmed, they pushed the Americans back, but reached a heavily defended American defensive line, and judged that the cost of assaulting it would be to be high. So they simply withdrew.
@Ninja1275 The British routed the Americans, but they still had the larger force and they couldn't take Baltimore. You say they weren't in danger of being overwhelmed, when that's exactly what would have happened if they attacked the American defensive line. North Point was just to but Baltimore more time, which is exactly what happened.
@greensucksbluerules The US gained nothing, your independence was never in question, your aims of conquest in Canada failed miserably, the trade issues such as impressment and neutrality which you "apparently" went to war over were not addressed by the Treaty and Britain retained the right to use them. You went into the war with everything in your favour and victory seemingly inevitable, you left it with 20,000 casualties and national anthem, and that is it.
@Ninja1275 The US ended impressment of their sailors and stopped the British from harassing their trading ships. The British's own invasions also failed miserably. Britain never attacked the US again, so in actuality, they did recognize the US' neutrality. To claim the US had everything in its favor just shows how little you know. The US was not an experienced nation and President Jefferson damaged the size of the army. And you still couldn't win.
@greensucksbluerules They didn't lose at sea. They cleared the seas of the US navy, bottled it up in port and initiated a blockade of the US that crippled the American economy. This is what caused to US government to agree to peace and stop attacking Canada.
@uafchris They lost at sea when it mattered. The main objective was to conquer land, which just so happens to be where a country is located. The United States stopped attacking Canada because they needed to repel the British forces. They did and Great Britian never messed with the United States again.
@greensucksbluerules We controlled most of Maine dude. You were getting your ass kicked everywhere.
You had to blockade the port by sinking your own ships taking one of your best weapons in the war out of action with out Britain firing a shot. Mission accomplished.
Our objectives was to neutralize the US threat. By wars end you could barely defend yourselves let alone launch any further attacks.
You were not negotiating treaty terms from a position of strength.
@Eddythebeast666 You controlled Maine and nothing more because it was really your army that was getting destroyed when it mattered. You could not complete your true objectives.
You still couldn't take Fort McHenry. Mission failed.
You did not neutralize the US threat and your failure at Louisiana and Baltimore proves this.
You can claim you dominated the war all you want, but the fact that you never got into a conflict with the US again proves you lost and we won.
@greensucksbluerules You're spinning the war around on its head. The US declared war on us, not the other way around, on the contrary, Britain was desperately trying to avoid a war with America. After the war of 1812 you never declared war on us again, therefore, isnt it you who learned a lesson? The only two times war came close afterwards was during the dispute over Oregon Country and the Trent affair during the Civil War, both times your nation backed down.
@Ninja1275 The US declared war on Britain because Britain wouldn't stop harassing the US. If Britain was trying to avoid a war with American, they should have recognized the American's neutrality, which they did after the war. The dispute over Oregon Country ended with the original US proposal being implimented and the Trent affair dealt with the the British allying themselves with CSA. There was no backing down in either scenario.
@Eddythebeast666 The real world. Had the Emancipation Proclamation not been issued, they might have sent armed support because the CSA was an important trading partner.
@greensucksbluerules The Trent affair was CSA trying to get Britain to recognize them. "Confederates realized their independence potentially depended on a war between Britain and the U.S."
Cassius Clay, the U.S. minister in Russia, stated, “I saw at a glance where the feeling of England was. They hoped for our ruin! They care neither for the South nor the North. They hate both.”
@greensucksbluerules What are you on about? America lost when it mattered, that's why the US was forced to agree to peace because the British Navy blockaded the American coast and destroyed the US economy. The whole war was about the US trying (and failing) to invade Canada, they wanted to add it as the 51st state. And Britain never impressed US sailors again (although it still had the right to) because it wouldnt fight another major war until WW1 . America lost the war. You cant rewrite history
@uafchris America lost when it mattered? Then shouldn't Britain be in control of the US? Oh right, it was Britian that lost when it mattered. Britain's own blockade was ruining their economy. 51st state? Shows how little you know. This was not about an invasion of Canda, this was about Britain failing to recognize the US as a nation. Britian stopped impressing soldiers because they knew not to mess with the US. Britain lost the war. You're the one trying to rewrite history, not me.
@greensucksbluerules Britain never had any intention of invading the US, and had recognised America as a nation (and major trade partner) since 1783. The whole war was about the US annexing Canada, your government had been planning it for years, Thomas Jefferson even said annexing Canada would be "a mere matter of marching". The war started when America attacked Canada when Britain was tied down fighting Napoleon, it ended when Britain crippled the US economy forcing the US to agree to peace.
@uafchris Britain did not recognize the US as a nation. They continued to harass American ships and impress their sailors into working for them. They were also encouraging Native Americans to attack Western settlers. The war was not about annexing Canada, the only people who truly believe that just so happen to be Canadian. Napoleon was defeated before the War of 1812 ended. Britian damaged its own economy and still couldn't win the war, even without their forces tied down.
@greensucksbluerules Britain accomplished what it intended in North America, the US did not. You achieved no war aims, we conceded nothing to you in terms of land or maritime issues (we retained the right of impressment). By 1815 your economy was ruined, your capital in flames, and large tracts of land under British occupation.
As far as Britain was concerned they had given you a tanned arse, burnt down you house and sent you packing. That was enough. Europe took priority.
@Ninja1275 Britain did not accomplish what it intended in North America. Whatever land they wanted was either returned to the US or remained in US hands. Impressment never happened again, you ruined your own economy the capital was rebuilt, and all land was returned.
Britain only likes to pretend they won the war because they can't get over their ego bruising defeat in 1783. But their invasions were repulsed and they were the ones sent packing. Brush up on your history.
@greensucksbluerules Dude seriously? Britain had no North American objectives beyond putting the US in its place. Napoleon & the chaos in Europe was its first & fore most concern.
As for 1783 that was a French victory.
Maybe you were unaware but France & Britain had been Dukeing it out for a couple centuries. Lots of other countries got involved during that time but they were side shows. Britain got Quebec the US got Independence. Not as if you earned it.
@Eddythebeast666 If they had no objectives, they wouldn't have lauched three failed invasions. In the end, the US became even bolder and threatened to declare war on any European nation that wanted to colonize the Americas.
The British surrendered to the Americans. It was an American victory.
And now your sense of British pride is seething over the fact that the greatest nation in the world got beaten by the US.
YAYYAAY CANADA BURNED DOWN THE WHITEHOUSE EVEN THO IT WAS PINK AMERICANS ARE RETARDED THINKING THEY WIN EVERY WAR THEY GO TO SINGLEHANDEDLY YAYAYA EXCEPT YOU LOST VIETNAM, YOU WERE LOOSING WW2 UNTIL CANADA STEPPED IN BUT YET AMERICA STILL THINK CANADA IS UNDERTHEM BUT THEY NEED TO WAKE UP TO COMUNIST AMERICA THANKS TO THIER BLACK PRESIDENT BRINGING HIS POCKET CHANGE INTO COMUNISM
MegaTrollzilla 4 days ago
I kept giggling at the Hetalia references. :D
bluely123 4 days ago
@bluely123 Yay! Somebody else who gets it!
256NatLiz 3 days ago
haha 84 dislikes because they were americans who are crying like a bunch of little babies wah wah wah!!!! aha no offense but some americans are just ughhh , the racist and mean ones!!
~MEXICANPRIDE~
PROUDOFBEINARUIZ13 1 week ago 3
@PROUDOFBEINARUIZ13 None taken, hombre.
*full American who loves this song*
256NatLiz 6 days ago in playlist Liked videos
The War of 1812 was nothing but a side-show to GB. Napoleon was always the main threat. Whilst 95% of all GB's forces were tied down in Europe facing the gravest threat the world had yet seen, Madison tried and (humiliatingly) failed to annex Canada behind Britain's back. Analogous to Mussolini backing the wrong horse, that's exactly what Madison did. Thought he could just waltz in and take what wasn't his ("Mere matter of marching" LOL), instead, got his arse kicked good and proper..!
trouzerpants 2 weeks ago 2
The entire US forces (with HUGE numerical superiority & logistical advantage) couldn't even take Canada, even whilst GB was fully engaged with Napoleon! The Americans should've annexed it with ease, instead, they were ignominiously kicked out on every occasion by a handful of Redcoats and Canadian militia.
If I were American, I'd never mention the War of 1812 again, just far too humiliating. I could never imagine Churchill running away like Madison did (oh, the shame...)
trouzerpants 2 weeks ago 9
@trouzerpants A bit a proud of your country, huh?
256NatLiz 6 days ago in playlist Liked videos
@256NatLiz
We have much to be proud of..
trouzerpants 6 days ago
@trouzerpants *thinks for a minute*
Yeah. Yeah, ya do. To be honest.
256NatLiz 6 days ago
@256NatLiz
Cheers!
XD
trouzerpants 6 days ago
@trouzerpants I'm American, dude. But you cool. *fistpump*
256NatLiz 5 days ago
@256NatLiz
You cool, too!
XD
trouzerpants 4 days ago
@trouzerpants Thanks, mate! (^_^)
256NatLiz 3 days ago
And then Canada became America's bitch how did that happen?
Laughingblades 2 weeks ago
for some reason everyone seems to think that the canadians burnt the whitehouse it was accually the british
TheLegokid64 2 weeks ago
@TheLegokid64 True but it was done at Canada's request. The order didn't come from Parliament in London which was outraged as it violated the conventions of war.
Specifically Governor General of Canada George Prévost made the request after US forces had burned the Parliament building in York (Modern Toronto) Upper Canada.
Since Canada still has a British Queen the point that the burning of Washington was done by British not Canada is largely petty hair splitting.
Eddythebeast666 2 weeks ago
@666
Was it due to time-lag (long crossings) that Prévost received the (belated) news of the abrogation of the OIC? How late did this news arrive?
I guess the Americans (also unaware of this annulment) had already commenced hostilities.
Once news did arrive, did Prevost immediately inform the Americans? If so, why did the US continue to attack? Weren't their reasons for war now settled?
Did GB then decide that since the US remained belligerent, they'd recommence impressment?
trouzerpants 2 weeks ago
@trouzerpants Lots of questions but good ones.
1st lets set the stage. The war was never about impressment or support of Natives. That is what was told to the public. Most US international trade was from the north east New England States & the biggest trading partner was Britain. These states were represented by the Federalist Party. As the home of most US merchant shipping they suffered impressment more then all other states combined but they voted against the war.
Eddythebeast666 2 weeks ago
@trouzerpants Madison & the War Hawks were the ones who wanted the war.
Thanks to trade with Britain The Feds had great wealth & power in congress. Madison was terrified that Britain was gaining control of the US via the economy. (See the "1812 Henry Letters") not only that but Madison & the war Hawk states were Slave owners whose wealth depended upon the practice & abolitionism were gaining ground in Britain. (See Anti Slave Trade act 1807)
Where as Napoleon was Pro-Slavery. (Since 1802)
Eddythebeast666 2 weeks ago
@trouzerpants Madison had dealings with Napoleon before. The 1804 Louisiana Purchase is what essentially made him president.
But attempts to settle those lands was met by fierce opposition from Native peoples.
The War Hawk States were both slave states & those seeking to expand in to Native lands.
Those voting for war had little to do with merchant shipping but the issue of impressment helped undercut the anti war Federalists weakening them enough to pass a war vote.
Eddythebeast666 2 weeks ago
@trouzerpants Now the only reason Britain had issued the OIC was to punish the USA for their dealings with Napoleon.
Britain had no interest in taking control of the US as it had proven vastly more profitable as an independent trading partner. (Which is why Canada was later cut loose in 1867)
In fact the Federalists had friends in British Parliament such as Lord Liverpool who had opposed the OIC but didn't have the power at the time to stop it.
Eddythebeast666 2 weeks ago
@trouzerpants SO HERE IS THE BIG IMPORTANT DETAIL.
At the time Madison called the vote for war HE KNEW a pro Federalist Prime Minister was in power in British Parliament & HE KNEW the OIC would likely be revoked.
If that happened he would never get a war vote through congress & the Federalist having used diplomacy to solve a problem MADISON CREATED BY DEALING WITH NAPOLEON would likely gain total control of the US political system.
Eddythebeast666 2 weeks ago
@trouzerpants So Madison got his war, just barely but that was OK the timing was perfect. At the same time Napoleon was marching the largest army the world had ever seen over 1/2 a mil strong in to Russia. With Napoleon's Continental system in place & the US easily taking Canada Britain's very survival was in question. Certainly never be a threat to Madison's way of life (Slave owner) or any of the other War Hawks (Slave owners or mass murderers of Native peoples (take your pick))
Eddythebeast666 2 weeks ago
@Eddy
So, Madison wanted his war, using any excuse he could find to justify it? Cognisant Liverpool was matey with the Feds, that he'd repeal the OIC when able (what exactly were those, impressment, maritime rights etc?) thus losing his potential legitimacy for declaring war. If that's so, doesn't that blow this "bargaining chip" theory right outta the water?! Kinda seems like the US reasoned Boney would keep GB busy, enabling Madison to grab Canada without much of a fight..
trouzerpants 2 weeks ago
Eddy, I'd like to take the time to thank you (as I've thanked Ninja) for your patience in explaining this somewhat odd war to me. A war that should never have been fought?
Were the natives (with Tecumseh's death) the only real side to lose everything? How can we be absolutely positive GB was never arming the natives? Sure, Jay's Treaty should've sorted all of that out yet it's a rumour that never seems to leave these threads..
Interesting war, complex and weird simultaneously..
trouzerpants 2 weeks ago
@trouzerpants After the war started sure they were allies but if anyone encouraged Natives to attack the US before 1812 then those orders did not come from Britain.
British & Canadians love to say they helped Tecumseh as his struggle was just. They never deign the charge. Makes them feel morally superior.
Americans say it because it justified the war in their minds at least.
I wish we had. I'm part Native, I'd love for it to be true but its contrary to the established facts.
Eddythebeast666 2 weeks ago
@Eddythebeast666
It's Ok, it was 200 yrs ago. If we don't learn from history, we're doomed to repeat it.
How long have you been studying this period for now? Is 1812 your main area of expertise or are you just an overall history don?
trouzerpants 2 weeks ago
@trouzerpants It's my family history. 1812 was a war that saw many family lines come together so its easier to study then the ones where various branches are trying to kill each other but the threads weave back to the first European settlers in North America.
Eddythebeast666 2 weeks ago
@trouzerpants Americans always phrase it...
"Madison feared a British take over of the USA."
Which is true. You can see it in many of his letters or his belief that the "Henry Letters" were genuine even though they were proven to be forgeries.
Some how it does not matter to Americans that Madison's fears were unfounded. Britain was only focused upon Napoleon.
We were attacked because he was paranoid. Same as Iraq it does not matter that there were no WMDs only what they believed is important.
Eddythebeast666 2 weeks ago
@trouzerpants The bargaining chip theory is nuts. Even before the repeal of the OIC there are many references to the intention to keep Canada. Even if Madison believed he would just hand it back others would have demand so high a price Britain while fighting Napoleon would never be able to have paid it.
No one enters a bank guns blazing to demand a loan.
William Hull's proclamation said he was to liberate Canada. If Canadians accepted them as that what would have happened if the US gave it back?
Eddythebeast666 2 weeks ago
@Eddythebeast666
Madison thought the Canadians/British (I know, same thing) would view US forces as "liberators?!" I thought the Colonial Loyalists got the fuck outta the nascent US to escape persecution after the Rev
Perhaps Madison's "mere matter of marching" was based upon the support of the United Empire Loyalists..? Their fealty was ambiguous, right?
trouzerpants 2 weeks ago
@trouzerpants Even the British believed Canadians wouldn't stay loyal. Too many were French & the war with Napoleonic France made them suspect.
Madison & most Americans did not realize that what ever misgivings Canadians had about Britain we trusted Americans even less. They WERE British traitors after all.
The Loyalist never swayed in their loyalty but they were a minority.
A large number of Irish fought on both sides.
Eddythebeast666 2 weeks ago
@Eddythebeast666
It's now 5.42am GMT - gotta crash now, mate!
Once again, thanks for sharing your acumen - laters
trouzerpants 2 weeks ago
I had no idea there was a war between canada and USA :D
XxshughesxX 2 weeks ago
Before hostilities commenced, did Britain overturn impressment or not? I've heard some say yes, others say that this practice continued until Napoleon's defeat.
I don't quite get this war..
trouzerpants 3 weeks ago
@trouzerpants May 11, 1812 an assassin killed British Prime Minister Spencer Perceval, which resulted in Lord Liverpool coming to power. Liverpool wanted a more practical relationship with the United States & issued a repeal of the Orders in Council.
So yes Impressment from US ships had ended before the USA declared war.
How ever Impressment continued in the British Empire until Napoleons defeat.
Once the US declared war if British boarded your ship Impressment was the least of your worries.
Eddythebeast666 3 weeks ago
fucku canada
Ezio519 3 weeks ago
@Ezio519 fucku2
Eddythebeast666 3 weeks ago
funniest thing ever, period.
upyernose 1 month ago 2
Comment removed
nigee1970 1 month ago
"The United States is an illegitimate country, just like Israel. It has no right to exist. That country belongs to the Red man, the American Indian... It's actually a shame to be a so-called American, because everybody living there is a usurper, an invader taking part in this crime, which is to rob the land, rob the country and kill all the American Indians." - Bobby Fischer
nigee1970 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Before any Americans start calling Fischer this and that, know this: he was probably the most intelligent man your country has ever produced...
nigee1970 1 month ago
@nigee1970 - Bobby Fischer was a racist. He denied the holocaust and said that America was "a farce controlled by dirty, hook-nosed, circumcized, jew bastards." He was fine with 9/11, and wrote a letter to Bin Laden approving of his actions. I completely agree that we screwed over American Natives, but goddam, you picked a horrible reference.
straightfromvirginia 1 month ago
@straightfromvirginia
Are you Jewish?
nigee1970 1 month ago
@nigee1970 - I used to be, Lutheran now. Even if I wasn't, would it matter?
straightfromvirginia 1 month ago
@straight
I asked if you're Jewish to further understand your condemnation of Fischer's quote. He's quite right, the US is run by Jewish oligarchs, the media controlled by Zionist propaganda, the ADL possessing enormous power; the term "Jewnited States" wasn't propagated outta thin air. During the Cold War, the US gov used Fischer like a pawn (forgive the pun), afterwards, he was tossed aside. It's no surprise he felt bitter, possibly acerbating his gradual mental decline.
nigee1970 1 month ago
@nigee1970 - Uh oh. You're one of those "zionist US government" conspiracy theorists. Trust me, i am NO fan of our federal government at this point. They're liars and loudmouths, but they aren't zionist. Almost everyone i know agrees that Natives got cheated, most wish it didn't happen, but it did. Me and my friend were discussing it the other day. I don't want you to think all Americans are arrogant and stupid. Most people here hate GB with a passion (along with most of congress).
straightfromvirginia 1 month ago
@straightfromvirginia
"Today, Jews control vast areas of wealth in America. Estimates range all the way up to 70%. Whatever the figure, it is huge and immensely out of proportion to their 2% of the population in American society.
Today, in 1999, the U.S.A. is totally dominated by Jews. Virtually every newspaper or magazine is owned by Jews. Their self-serving propaganda constantly fills the TV screen.
TBC
nigee1970 4 weeks ago
"The Federal government is totally under Jewish control. US military forces are the pawn of Israel. The banks, the markets are theirs. They systematically denigrate our Founding Fathers and our heritage and our Constitution." - Jeff Rense
No wonder the ADL slander him.
Heh, just do a quick search on any articles relating to this subject. To be in denial is to be ignorant of fact. Don't let the Zionists lie to you...
nigee1970 4 weeks ago
@nigee1970 - Come on, man. You're gonna try and prove a point by using ONLY quotes?
straightfromvirginia 4 weeks ago
@straightfromvirginia
I have no point to prove. It's simply my belief that the Jews have control, even the former Israeli PM Yitzhak Shamir said as much.
If you choose to believe otherwise, that's fine by me. I'm not gonna try and convince you.
nigee1970 4 weeks ago
@nigee1970 - I'm not saying jews don't have control of anything in the media. I just don't think it's as bad as some believe. Thankfully, you're the first zionist conspiracy theorist i've talked to who hasn't deliberately shoved their opinions down my throat.
straightfromvirginia 4 weeks ago
@straightfromvirginia
"Opinions are like arseholes, we have them them!"
LOL
nigee1970 4 weeks ago
@nigee1970
*all have them
nigee1970 4 weeks ago
All you guys talking about the historical accuracy and stuff are so stiff. This song is poking fun at Canadians, too. Notice the references at the beginning. And the part that starts, "We fired our guns, but the Yankees kept a comin" is referencing an American song.
Lighten up, dudes.
256NatLiz 1 month ago
The visual was as funny as the song itself! I'm American, and I like that song.
All you fellow Americans out there: if you can't take a joke, then go to Canada! ;)
256NatLiz 1 month ago
This video amuses me. =) I love America as much as the next fellow patriot, but this is srsly funny. ^^
theAngelTribe 1 month ago in playlist Favorite videos
Just saying...
dlnthms3 1 month ago
The Alamo was not a war it was a battle.
dlnthms3 1 month ago
Guys seriously this is a fun song stop arguing about it!
tommy84111 1 month ago
did you guys not see the text at the end? this song is purely for comedic value so if you don't like it then just shut up and leave.
danhabsfan9 1 month ago
Comment removed
JGelatin 2 months ago
canada burned down the white house
we burned down their entire city and renamed it toronto
take that, cunts
TwistedComplex 2 months ago 2
@TwistedComplex You Mad?
Eddythebeast666 2 months ago
@Eddythebeast666 Only mentally challenged people say that anymore.
greensucksbluerules 1 month ago
@TwistedComplex The British troops burnt down Washington, INCLUDING the white house, in response to the burning of York, and took the Yanks 60 years to rebuild it ;)
knight7fox2 2 months ago
@knight7fox2 Washington isn't a city, cunt.
greensucksbluerules 1 month ago
@TwistedComplex The British troops burnt down Washington, INCLUDING the white house, in response to the burning of York, and took the Yanks 60 years to rebuild it ;) And oh, the Union Jack flew over the city for a day as well, problem Yanks ?
knight7fox2 2 months ago
@knight7fox2 not really, considering 100 years later england is nothing more than an oversized united state air craft carrier
TwistedComplex 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TwistedComplex Well England has always been a "oversized united state air craft carrier." It's the empire that covered just under 1/4 of the world's land mass. Do you have any idea how much it costs to run an Empire? obviously not, just another typical ignorant American fatarse. *stereotype intended*
andrewwoodrup 2 months ago
@knight7fox2 Two replies?
Talk about butthurt.
greensucksbluerules 1 month ago
Gosh, this songs so awesome.
MrCaliber199 2 months ago in playlist Favorite videos
Go Canada
willythefree27 2 months ago
@mehunlimited Hi
MrCaliber199 2 months ago
Jk
gamer2289 2 months ago
Ha take that america
gamer2289 2 months ago
I have to wonder why Tony Blair (British Prime Minister from about 5 or so years ago) is in this video. o-o
Eh, maybe because he was George W. Bush's little bitch.
DoctorsK9 2 months ago
Wow people need to chill
blazedzander 2 months ago
eat a dick british folks
chubbyforeskin 2 months ago
The War of 1812 ended in a stalemate. Under the Treaty of Ghent, both sides agreed to go back to the way things were before the war. No concessions were made on either side and the war ended in 1814. The Battle of New Orleans technically occurred before the word of the treaty reached America, but after the treaty was signed so that can't count as a part of the actual war
suprhavkdogi 2 months ago
@suprhavkdogi If you declare war have your invasion forces defeated & forced to return home to defend from counter attacks, have your capitol destroyed, have six states ready for secession from the Union, your economy bankrupt & have none of the issues you went to war of addressed then that's not a stalemate that would be a loss.
The US never took any territory from Germany at the end of WW2 was that a stalemate?
Britain didn't have to gain anything to win just defend their interests.
Eddythebeast666 2 months ago
so im guessing with eddy is American and greensucksbluerules is British well. you both need to shut up!
MrScmoogle 2 months ago
@MrScmoogle I'm Irish, actually.
greensucksbluerules 1 month ago
Hilarious song and a great vid! (full disclosure - I'm an American Soldier).
Princess Pat's rocks - Loved having you guys with us in the 'Stan.
Of course now, the entire Canadian Armed Forces is smaller than the Michigan National Guard...and more lightly armed...but that's why you have the Polar Bears wandering everywhere. :P (Always remember, Michigan: America's first line of defense against the Canadians!!)
Orion
OrionXIII 2 months ago
Canada and Britain kicked Americas collective ass. And is all the better cos they clearly still haven't got over it, they have to constantly re-write and bastardise their history to try and cover it up. The entire British army/navy was fighting Napoleon, Canada was guarded by almost nothing yet the Americans in true Yank style still managed to fuck it up.
uafchris 2 months ago
@uafchris And then the British lost over two thousand men when they attacked New Orleans, while only 21 Americans died.
greensucksbluerules 2 months ago
@greensucksbluerules Actually the British only lost 300 dead, and it was after the war was already over.
uafchris 2 months ago
@uafchris So what? That was when the British were done fighting with Napoleon. And they still couldn't take Baltimore or New Orleans.
greensucksbluerules 2 months ago
@greensucksbluerules No, but they manged to rout the US army in a matter of minutes and were able to walk into Washington DC unopposed and burn it to the ground. Also it was still only a small fraction of the British army they were dealing with, and their aim was to raid the US coast and pressurise the US into ending the war, not particularly to capture towns. And once the Royal navy arrived and began blockading your ports and destroying your economy the Americans begged for peace.
uafchris 2 months ago
@uafchris No, Baltimore was attacked AFTER Washington DC was burned down. Capturing Baltimore was the main objective of the British forces and they failed. Assuming Baltimore and New Orleans are just towns shows how much you really know. The USS Constitution destroyed any Royal Navy ship stupid enough to go against it. The British had the larger army, which was not a small fraction, and they blew it.
greensucksbluerules 2 months ago
@greensucksbluerules No, what a div. The Constitution was a frigate that only had any success because all it took on were small low quality British ships as almost the entire royal navy was tied down in Europe. Just 1 first rate would have blown the Constitution to pieces. Once the war against France ended the Royal navy cleared the seas of the Americans with ease. Also Britain sent hardly any troops to America as it saw it an insignificant sideshow it had already won, most were still in Europe.
uafchris 2 months ago
@uafchris The Constitution forced the British to make bigger ships. Hey, who won the Battle of Plattsburgh again? Not the Royal Navy and that was after the war with France ended. And that prevented the British from launcing a large invasion of New York.
greensucksbluerules 2 months ago
@greensucksbluerules Plattsburgh was on a lake and the British again only had a bunch of small frigates with them. And Plattsburgh was won mostly due to the wind direction meaning the RN ships couldn't maneuver, though the actual land battle was a British victory. And the constitution didn't force the UK to make bigger ships, they already had them they were tied up in Europe. Britain had total naval supremacy since Trafalgar, to think the Constitution had any influence on the RN is ridiculous.
uafchris 2 months ago
@uafchris Plattsburg was also what the British needed to capture. It doesn't matter what types of ships they used, they still lost. You claim the land battle was a British victory, which is weird because the British retreated. Having naval supremacy when you're invading a country is only helpful if you're attacking Atlantis. The British did start making ships with bigger guns after losing at sea. Look it up.
greensucksbluerules 2 months ago
@greensucksbluerules Plattsburg was more a tactical fuck up on the part of George Prevost rather than an American victory. The land battle wasnt technically a victory but certainly would have been had it continued. The British had inflicted heavy casualties and pushed the militia back only to recieve the inexplicable order to withdraw. Nevertheless Baltimore and Plattsburg were minor setbacks, not crushing victories.
Ninja1275 2 months ago
@Ninja1275 It was an American victory, regardless of what happened. Incidentally, more British soldiers died than Americans. Along with Baltimore, Britain needed to win those battles to win the war and they never did.
greensucksbluerules 1 month ago
@greensucksbluerules Had Britain wanted to they could have held out for far tougher peace terms from the US, but with merchants clamouring for peace and no desire to continue the war they simply settled for the Status Quo, quite content with their impressive attack on Washington.
Ninja1275 2 months ago
@Ninja1275 The British never won when it mattered. And in the end, the US got what they wanted- Great Britain stopped harassing them.
greensucksbluerules 1 month ago
Comment removed
Ninja1275 2 months ago
@greensucksbluerules Even New Orleans wasnt as decisive as Americans make out, during the battle the British turned Jackson's right flank on the opposite bank of the river, the defending Kentuckians quite simply ran away. Jackson was afraid they would turn the captured artillery there on the American flank, but with the main attack suffering heavy casualties Lambert chose to withdraw. Then the British went on to capture Fort Bowyer(supposedly impregnable) and began preparations to attack Mobile
Ninja1275 2 months ago
@Ninja1275 When one army only loses men in the double digits range, while the other army loses over 300, it's clearly a large decisive victory. In Louisiana, right after the Battle of New Orleans, the British failed again, this time in an attempt to capture Fort St. Philip.
greensucksbluerules 1 month ago
@greensucksbluerules It's not a sports game. Victory goes to whomever achieves their objectives no matter cost in lives & the US gave up all your ambitions & signed a peace treaty at Ghent ending the war before New Orleans. If Deaths did matter the US total count for the war is still a loss as Britain lost fewer men.
With Pax Britannica The US was Britain's bitch for the next 100 years.
Eddythebeast666 1 month ago
@Eddythebeast666 The British never did achieve their objects. You just admitted they lost. The US, on the other hand, achieved their objective of getting Britain to recognize them as a real nation.
Britain has always been the United States' bitch since then.
greensucksbluerules 1 month ago
@greensucksbluerules America had already failed in its war aims, the fighting in Louisiana was just a series pointless raids fought after the war was already over. Also 300 dead for this period was nothing spectacular. At Badajoz in 1812, 4,000 British soldiers died in one night, and that was considered a major British victory.
uafchris 1 month ago
@uafchris The British forces who attacked New Orleans didn't know the war was over. They still had war aims. War aims that the British failed in. 300 dead is spectatular when only 55 die on the opposing side. At Badajoz, the French lost over one thousand.
greensucksbluerules 1 month ago
@greensucksbluerules Yes, but the main aims of the war had already been achieved. Britain had defended Canada and got the Americans to agree to peace via damaging their economy, also impressment had already ended as a result of the defeat of Napoleon and was no longer an issue. New Orleans was just part of a minor raid in a war that was already over. There is no way the US the war, at best the war ended in a draw with the advantage to Britain.
uafchris 1 month ago
@uafchris The British didn't capture Lake Champlain, Baltimore, or New Orleans. The invasion of Canada was just one stage of the war. Britain was damaging its own economy because of the blockcade. Impressment would have continued if Britain got involved in another war. You don't send 11,000 soldiers on a minor raid and none of them knew the war was over. Wars aren't won by failing to capture key areas. In the end, the US accomplished their main objective and Britian didn't.
greensucksbluerules 1 month ago
@greensucksbluerules The invasion of Canada was the main stage of the war!
US aims : 1. Annex Canada 2. End impressment
both 100% failures
British aims: 1.Defend Canada 2. Force the Americans to agree to peace
both 100% successful = British victory!
"Wars aren't won by failing to capture key areas", no they aren't, thats why the US lost! Look up the battles of Queenston heights, Beaver Dams, Detroit, Chateauguay and Crysler's Farm. Battles that decided the outcome of the war.
uafchris 1 month ago
@uafchris If the invasion of Canda was the main stage of the war, the war would have not gone on for three more years, after the invasion ended.
Annexing Canada wasn't even listed as an official reason for going to war. Impressment did end.
The British's real aims were to capture New Orleans, Baltimore, and Lake Champlain. All of 100% failures. Those were the key areas they needed. That's why they lost. Did you even know the US recaptured Detroit after the Battle of Lake Erie?
greensucksbluerules 1 month ago
@greensucksbluerules The Americans carried on attacking Canada in 1813 and 1814. They were not Britain's war aims, they were targets to be attacked in order to encourage the US to sue for peace. The War was started by the US how the hell did Britain have any "real aims" when it didn't want the war in the first place. As soon as Britain defeated the American invasions of Canada it had won the war. Impressment ended because of Napoleon, but Britain still kept the right to it, even after the war.
uafchris 1 month ago
@uafchris The Americans were attacking Canada because that's where the Indian tribes that attacked Americans were located. If those were not Britain's war aims, they wouldn't have launched invasions in those areas. If Britain won the war after the American invasion of Canada ended, the war would have ended in 1812, not 1815. So in reality, Britain did not win the war. Impressment never happened again after the war, so the US truly did suceed in ending impressment.
greensucksbluerules 1 month ago
@greensucksbluerules They didn't, impressment ended in 1814 because the war with France ended. They only used it as a quick way of recruiting English speaking sailors into the royal navy in times of war when manpower was urgently needed. As Britain didn't fight an other major war until 1914, by which time conscription had been introduced for all services, there was never any need to use impressment again. BTW the US kept attacking Canada until 1814.
uafchris 1 month ago
@uafchris Impressment never truly ended for the US until after the War of 1812 ended. Britain could have always needed new sailors for their navy. But by the end of the war, the US truly did suceed in ending impressment. The US attacked Canada because hostile Indians and British soldiers resided there. And still, the war should have not ended in 1815 if you claim about the invasion of Canada being the main part of the war was true.
greensucksbluerules 1 month ago
@greensucksbluerules You did not stop impressment! Britain rescinded the Orders in Council (impressment) a few days before war was declared. Your "main aim" was over before war began. At the Treaty of Ghent the U.S could not demand anything from Britain because it had achieved nothing, it could not challenge Maritime rights (impressment and neutrality) because its navy had been wiped off the map!
Ninja1275 1 month ago
@Ninja1275 But we did. Britain never impressed a US sailor again. If the US navy was wiped off the map as you claim, it wouldn't have been beating the British navy when it tried to invade the country.
greensucksbluerules 1 month ago
@greensucksbluerules You didnt beat the Royal Navy, your ships targeted smaller British vessels that wouldn't pose a threat to it. The first time two ships of equal size met each other was the Chesapeake vs Shannon, the Chesapeake was captured within 11 minutes. By 1815 only a small number of US ships were still active, out of the six original super - frigates you possessed; 2 were captured, 3 were trapped in port and only 1 was active. 1815 saw British naval mastery.
Ninja1275 1 month ago
@Ninja1275 The British always had domination over the seas. But when it came to using their fleet to invade the states, the Royal Navy was beaten.
greensucksbluerules 1 month ago
@greensucksbluerules No they were not. You truly are an absolute idiot. British ships employed a massive blockade of America, crippled the US economy, wiped the USN off the seas or bottled them up in port, and landed large armies all along the coast, who raided with impunity. By the end of the war, the US was in deep shit.
Ninja1275 1 month ago
@Ninja1275 The facts contradict you. If the US was so badly off by the end of the war, the British wouldn't have been willing to give back everything they took. The blockcade hurt Britain's own economy and all of the armies who invaded the US got repulsed.
greensucksbluerules 1 month ago
@greensucksbluerules Do you know anything about this war? The Natives were located in what is now Michigan, not in Canada. Canada was the US no.1 priority. There are newspaper articles and numerous statements from high ranking politcians all declaring that conquest was their goal. American soldiers wore caps with the words "conquer or die" stitched on them for christs sake! Britain was fighting a world war against Napoleon, as well as a multitude of smaller wars all over -
Ninja1275 1 month ago
@Ninja1275 I know more than you. If there were no Natives in Canada, why were they present in Canadian battles? Canada was never the No. 1 priority for the US. It doesn't matter what newspapers and politicians said, the government did not list an invasion of Canada as a reason for going to war with Britain.
greensucksbluerules 1 month ago
@greensucksbluerules You do not know more than me, you are a fucking idiot. The Natives who fought in Canada were primarily Iroquois, who had moved there after the American Revolution, under John Norton and John Brant. Tecumseh and the Shawnee, fought in and around Michigan, their home. Thomas Jefferson? John Adams? Henry Clay? Their words of "how easy the conquest of Canada would be" mean nothing?
Ninja1275 1 month ago
@Ninja1275 The idiot here is you. Your sense of national pride is damaging your brain cells. First you claim the Natives weren't located in Canada, now you're contradicting yourself. None of those people were in President Madison's cabinet when he went to war with Britain.
greensucksbluerules 1 month ago
@greensucksbluerules - the world. The US declared war at a time when Britain looked on the verge of defeat in Europe. You consistenly launched invasions of Canada from 1812 to late 1814, despite massive numerical superiority each attempt failed. When Napoleon abdicated in late 1814 British reinforcements arrived, attacked key targets, forcing the US into a defensive posture, crippled the economy through a massive blockade and burnt down Washington in retaliation.
Ninja1275 1 month ago
@Ninja1275 Fighting continued in Canada because US and British forces were right next to each other. The British blockade destroyed its own economy and the burning of Washington only helped morale. When the British attacked Baltimore, the main objective of the invasion, they lost.
greensucksbluerules 1 month ago
@greensucksbluerules The British blockade destroyed its own economy?
That doesnt make sense, Britain's economy was exhausted because of 22 years of war with France, but the US economy was crippled because its entire trading fleet had been wiped off the map and its ships were scooped up the second they left port. Support for the war vanished after the burning of Washington, it did not "improve morale", Madison was desperate for peace, and public support faded away...
Ninja1275 1 month ago
@Ninja1275 What doesn't make sense is why the British would agree to a treaty that gave the US back what the British took if their blockade was doing as well as you claim. Burning Washington improved British morale, but it had no tactical significance.
greensucksbluerules 1 month ago
@greensucksbluerules Im not gonna repeat myself over impressment if you refuse to read it, you didnt stop it, it ended before the war began. National pride? Says the ignorant, brain dead American who cant accept any view other than his own? You fucked up on the natives - "im cleverer than u, why were there natives in Canadian battles if they werent in Canada?" - exactly the kind of question I would expect from an American.
Ninja1275 1 month ago
@Ninja1275 Yeah, the British claimed it ended, but their inability to beat the US made it clear that they would never impress sailors or harass merchant ships again. This is coming from the arrogant British user who's convinced the invasion of Canada was the main reason the US declared war on Britian and is too stuck up to admit he's wrong- exactly the kind of comment I would expect from someone living in Britain.
greensucksbluerules 1 month ago
@greensucksbluerules That doesn't have the same ring to it, British people aren't inherently stupid, Americans are, take yourself for example. Listen im going to bed, we'll continue this later. Reflect on your newfound knowledge. The U.S lost, you gained nothing, Britain simultaneously handed you a spanking whilst winning a world war in Europe, and for the 100 years was the world's foremost power. Truth is a bitch, no?
:P laters..
Ninja1275 1 month ago
@Ninja1275 Other nations like to assume Americans are inherently stupid out of jealously. The US gained exactly what they wanted. No more British harassment. The British gained nothing out of the war. They learned to never invade the US again. Then the times changed and the US became the world's foremost power. You and the truth don't get along.
greensucksbluerules 1 month ago
@greensucksbluerules If American's had burnt down London we would never hear the end of it. Burning Washington meant that public opinion for the war, vanished overnight. People were no longer concerned, they simply wanted peace. As did Madison and the government, they became determined to settle for peace, their economy was in ruins, they had no money to lauch any more attacks. 6 states were plotting secession. They tried to implement conscription and the public were furious
Ninja1275 1 month ago
@Ninja1275 Support vanished until the British failed to take Baltimore. The states that were against the war were viewed as traitors. The fact that the British were willing to give back what they took from the US confirms the economy wasn't as ruined you claim it was.
greensucksbluerules 1 month ago
@greensucksbluerules Just because Napoleon abdicated didnt mean Britain focused entirely on the US, they sent a total of 48,000 men, which is a small number considering the amount they kept in Europe. In fact it was the situation in Europe which resulted in Britain letting America off lightly, Napoleon was soon to escape and begin the Hundred Days campaign, culminating at Waterloo. Europe took priority. The War of 1812 was something Britain never wanted.
Ninja1275 1 month ago
@Ninja1275 It's not a small number when compared to a young nation who's army was reduced in numbers by the previous president.
greensucksbluerules 1 month ago
@greensucksbluerules U.S - 8 Million people, well developed nation.
Canada - 300,000 people, struggling British colony.
British troops at the beginning of the war - 6,000
American troops at the beginning of the war - 35,000
Dont try and downplay your embarassing predicament.
Ninja1275 1 month ago
@Ninja1275 A "well developed" nation that hadn't fought many wars.
Canada still had British support.
First you talk about how small the British invading force was, now you're claiming the US attacked Canada with a large invading force, even though the US had less men? Make up your mind. Besides, you can't invade a country with your entire Army, or you'll be left defenseless when the enemy attacks.
greensucksbluerules 1 month ago
@greensucksbluerules Had less men? From 1812 to late 1814 you outnumbered them in practically every battle, yet still lost. Canada didn't have British support at the time, because every resource Britain had was directed against Napoleon, that was why you declared war in 1812, seeing how weak our position was. Even Madison said this - "We would not have declared war if the defeat of Napoleon Bonaparte been forseen".
Ninja1275 1 month ago
@Ninja1275 The US invasion force had less men than the British invasion force, which you claimed was small. Canada already had enough British support to repell the invasion- it's always the invading army that has the disadvantage.
greensucksbluerules 1 month ago
@greensucksbluerules Baltimore was targeted because it was the main base of American privateers, though the assault was called off the US were forced to sink their ships to bloackade their own harbour. Indirectly taking the city out of the war and negating the need for a second attack.
Btw, you outnumbered us at Baltimore; 11,000 to 4,500. Yet we still defeated the American sortie at North Point.
Ninja1275 1 month ago
@Ninja1275 The assault was called off because the British forces were in danger of being overwhelmed by the US infantry, while the attack on Fort McHenry failed.
Incidentally, you outnumbered us at North Point, yet we still won a strategic victory.
greensucksbluerules 1 month ago
@greensucksbluerules At North Point the Americans were positioned behind trees and with entrenched artillery. The British took heavy casualties but nevertheless routed their foe. They were not in danger of being overwhelmed, they pushed the Americans back, but reached a heavily defended American defensive line, and judged that the cost of assaulting it would be to be high. So they simply withdrew.
Ninja1275 1 month ago
@Ninja1275 The British routed the Americans, but they still had the larger force and they couldn't take Baltimore. You say they weren't in danger of being overwhelmed, when that's exactly what would have happened if they attacked the American defensive line. North Point was just to but Baltimore more time, which is exactly what happened.
greensucksbluerules 1 month ago
@greensucksbluerules The US gained nothing, your independence was never in question, your aims of conquest in Canada failed miserably, the trade issues such as impressment and neutrality which you "apparently" went to war over were not addressed by the Treaty and Britain retained the right to use them. You went into the war with everything in your favour and victory seemingly inevitable, you left it with 20,000 casualties and national anthem, and that is it.
Ninja1275 1 month ago
@Ninja1275 The US ended impressment of their sailors and stopped the British from harassing their trading ships. The British's own invasions also failed miserably. Britain never attacked the US again, so in actuality, they did recognize the US' neutrality. To claim the US had everything in its favor just shows how little you know. The US was not an experienced nation and President Jefferson damaged the size of the army. And you still couldn't win.
greensucksbluerules 1 month ago
@greensucksbluerules They didn't lose at sea. They cleared the seas of the US navy, bottled it up in port and initiated a blockade of the US that crippled the American economy. This is what caused to US government to agree to peace and stop attacking Canada.
uafchris 2 months ago
@uafchris They lost at sea when it mattered. The main objective was to conquer land, which just so happens to be where a country is located. The United States stopped attacking Canada because they needed to repel the British forces. They did and Great Britian never messed with the United States again.
greensucksbluerules 1 month ago
@greensucksbluerules The moment the US was forced to stop attacking Canada you lost the war.
Britain didn't have gain one foot of land to claim victory.
Eddythebeast666 1 month ago
@Eddythebeast666 The moment Britain failed to take Baltimore, you lost the war.
Britian couldn't even gain any land.
greensucksbluerules 1 month ago
@greensucksbluerules We controlled most of Maine dude. You were getting your ass kicked everywhere.
You had to blockade the port by sinking your own ships taking one of your best weapons in the war out of action with out Britain firing a shot. Mission accomplished.
Our objectives was to neutralize the US threat. By wars end you could barely defend yourselves let alone launch any further attacks.
You were not negotiating treaty terms from a position of strength.
Eddythebeast666 1 month ago
@Eddythebeast666 You controlled Maine and nothing more because it was really your army that was getting destroyed when it mattered. You could not complete your true objectives.
You still couldn't take Fort McHenry. Mission failed.
You did not neutralize the US threat and your failure at Louisiana and Baltimore proves this.
You can claim you dominated the war all you want, but the fact that you never got into a conflict with the US again proves you lost and we won.
greensucksbluerules 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@greensucksbluerules You're spinning the war around on its head. The US declared war on us, not the other way around, on the contrary, Britain was desperately trying to avoid a war with America. After the war of 1812 you never declared war on us again, therefore, isnt it you who learned a lesson? The only two times war came close afterwards was during the dispute over Oregon Country and the Trent affair during the Civil War, both times your nation backed down.
Ninja1275 1 month ago
@Ninja1275 The US declared war on Britain because Britain wouldn't stop harassing the US. If Britain was trying to avoid a war with American, they should have recognized the American's neutrality, which they did after the war. The dispute over Oregon Country ended with the original US proposal being implimented and the Trent affair dealt with the the British allying themselves with CSA. There was no backing down in either scenario.
greensucksbluerules 1 month ago
@greensucksbluerules In what reality did Britain side with the CSA?
Eddythebeast666 1 month ago
@Eddythebeast666 The real world. Had the Emancipation Proclamation not been issued, they might have sent armed support because the CSA was an important trading partner.
greensucksbluerules 1 month ago
@greensucksbluerules Not as important as the northern states
Eddythebeast666 1 month ago
@Eddythebeast666 If that was true, the Trent affair wouldn't have been a big deal for the US government.
greensucksbluerules 1 month ago
@greensucksbluerules The Trent affair was CSA trying to get Britain to recognize them. "Confederates realized their independence potentially depended on a war between Britain and the U.S."
Cassius Clay, the U.S. minister in Russia, stated, “I saw at a glance where the feeling of England was. They hoped for our ruin! They care neither for the South nor the North. They hate both.”
Britain didn't care.
Eddythebeast666 1 month ago
@Eddythebeast666 If that's true, then your friend Ninja1275 is lying about the US almost getting into a conflict with Britain.
greensucksbluerules 1 month ago
@greensucksbluerules What are you on about? America lost when it mattered, that's why the US was forced to agree to peace because the British Navy blockaded the American coast and destroyed the US economy. The whole war was about the US trying (and failing) to invade Canada, they wanted to add it as the 51st state. And Britain never impressed US sailors again (although it still had the right to) because it wouldnt fight another major war until WW1 . America lost the war. You cant rewrite history
uafchris 1 month ago
@uafchris America lost when it mattered? Then shouldn't Britain be in control of the US? Oh right, it was Britian that lost when it mattered. Britain's own blockade was ruining their economy. 51st state? Shows how little you know. This was not about an invasion of Canda, this was about Britain failing to recognize the US as a nation. Britian stopped impressing soldiers because they knew not to mess with the US. Britain lost the war. You're the one trying to rewrite history, not me.
greensucksbluerules 1 month ago
@greensucksbluerules Britain never had any intention of invading the US, and had recognised America as a nation (and major trade partner) since 1783. The whole war was about the US annexing Canada, your government had been planning it for years, Thomas Jefferson even said annexing Canada would be "a mere matter of marching". The war started when America attacked Canada when Britain was tied down fighting Napoleon, it ended when Britain crippled the US economy forcing the US to agree to peace.
uafchris 1 month ago
@uafchris Britain did not recognize the US as a nation. They continued to harass American ships and impress their sailors into working for them. They were also encouraging Native Americans to attack Western settlers. The war was not about annexing Canada, the only people who truly believe that just so happen to be Canadian. Napoleon was defeated before the War of 1812 ended. Britian damaged its own economy and still couldn't win the war, even without their forces tied down.
greensucksbluerules 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@greensucksbluerules Britain accomplished what it intended in North America, the US did not. You achieved no war aims, we conceded nothing to you in terms of land or maritime issues (we retained the right of impressment). By 1815 your economy was ruined, your capital in flames, and large tracts of land under British occupation.
As far as Britain was concerned they had given you a tanned arse, burnt down you house and sent you packing. That was enough. Europe took priority.
Ninja1275 1 month ago
@Ninja1275 Britain did not accomplish what it intended in North America. Whatever land they wanted was either returned to the US or remained in US hands. Impressment never happened again, you ruined your own economy the capital was rebuilt, and all land was returned.
Britain only likes to pretend they won the war because they can't get over their ego bruising defeat in 1783. But their invasions were repulsed and they were the ones sent packing. Brush up on your history.
greensucksbluerules 1 month ago
@greensucksbluerules Dude seriously? Britain had no North American objectives beyond putting the US in its place. Napoleon & the chaos in Europe was its first & fore most concern.
As for 1783 that was a French victory.
Maybe you were unaware but France & Britain had been Dukeing it out for a couple centuries. Lots of other countries got involved during that time but they were side shows. Britain got Quebec the US got Independence. Not as if you earned it.
Eddythebeast666 1 month ago
@Eddythebeast666 If they had no objectives, they wouldn't have lauched three failed invasions. In the end, the US became even bolder and threatened to declare war on any European nation that wanted to colonize the Americas.
The British surrendered to the Americans. It was an American victory.
And now your sense of British pride is seething over the fact that the greatest nation in the world got beaten by the US.
greensucksbluerules 1 month ago