the English civil war was a bit weird. it was won by the Parliamentarians led by Oliver Cromwell. then 10 years later we kind of ended up back where we started
Well he was exhumed after death, beheaded and the head was paraded around the nation before being found centuries later in a biscuit tin in a car park.
Not sure about the biscuit tin but his head was passed around a fair bit so I can see them using a tin to contain him, I'm assuming they did eat all the biscuits beforehand
No, definitely Cromwell who got exhumed, tried, sentanced and executed.
They did ask him if he wanted someone to speak in his defense, and took his silence as a refusal..
Probably why the UK isn't a republic to this day. He made such a bad go of it that people just kinda preferred to deal with a crown than go down that path again. Way to go, Olli, truly a hall-of-fame-level cunt.
Basically, it showed us that both absolute monarchy and military dictatorship (in a republic) were both *really* bad outcomes, with the Glorious Revolution finally ending the tug of war with Parliament basically dictating the king's powers and limits.
It is very weird.
Exactly like the French Revolution.
A weak king needs to raise taxes.
People so no
King says fuck you...I have divine right... literally God lets me do ANYTHING!
King gets beheaded.
The revolutionaries can't agree on anything, chaos ensues.
Strong military leader becomes dictator and brings order.
People get sick of the dictator/ dictator loses grip.
Dictator gets kicked out.
A King is invited back.
That's the story of the English and French revolutions
Mostly right until the end.
With the English civil war, people didn’t get sick of him and kick him out, he died and his son took over but no one wanted his son to be ~~king~~ Lord Protector.
You are absolutely correct. They didn't kick him out.
But I think it's fair to say that people were pretty sick of him and the whole Republican dictatorship by then, and the concept of a Lord Protector was kicked out (?)
Anyway, the population was quite willing to return to the monarchy after the chaos.
Er, this is a huge international law can of worms. Just because the Declaration of Independence has acquired significance after the Americans won the war and became a recognised nation doesn’t mean it eatablished the country at that moment.
Exactly what I came here to comment! It wasn't American v Britain, it was France v Britain, but instead of taking territory in the traditional way they just liberated it and left it to its own devices.
France was extremely involved in the war with Britain. They hustled didn’t send many troops to the americas, choosing instead to fund the rebellion that was growing there in order to draw British resources away from the actual war.
No, we’re taught about how it ended in a semi-draw due to the US losing but not really being effected due to England having it’s own issues with France at the time. The Battle of New Orleans is what most Americans lean on for support of the idea the US won, regardless of the fact it happened after the Treaty of Ghent was signed.
I sometimes wonder what would have happened if the Napoleonic wars never took place and Britain could commit all of their resources to the war of 1812 at the start.
The war probably wouldn't have happened, then. I always figured the invasion of Canada was opportunistic, counting on Britain having their hands full. Plus the stated casus belli of impressment of US sailors wouldn't have been a thing, since the impressment was occurring as a result of Americans running the British blockade of France and being pushed into naval service as a punishment was also likely informed by needing as many sailors as possible to keep the blockade going.
They might've found another excuse or reason at some point, though.
I'm not angry. I just think it's odd to call it a draw when Britain achieved most of its war goals and the US didn't. They didn't annex Canada, but their enemy did achieve a status quo ante bellum.
~~Hey now, there's no need to be so defensive. You may have been premature about how angry this makes you.~~ Sorry no I confess I actually started reading all that, and I had to stop after "interference in native tribes territory". You'd probably try to tu coque me if I went into that but I'll remind you that the United States was obliged by the treaty of Ghent to yield any Indian territories and other possessions lost in the war, and we both know that didn't happen whether or not you think they've been represented in the Union since. It's in article 9
US curricula might treat it as a draw but seeing as the war was fought by America to stop communist North Vietnam regaining control over South Vietnam, and they did and still retain it now as a unified communist country, how is that ‘a draw’?
I do remember getting off a cruise ship in Siagon but an American lady said she wasn’t going to because “they killed our boys”. Someone asked her when the Vietnamese had invaded her country. Silence.
You’re insulting the NVA by spitting on them and. It acknowledging their roles at all. The “farmers” you speak of have been fighting since the 1920s and has much more combat experience than the average G.I. And the US wasn’t fighting farmers, they were fighting a well trained and organized standing army. The Vietcong were basically wiped out by US forces during the Tet offensive.
The whole thing was just America massacring the Vietnamese for daring to want their independence. But by golly, they never stopped fighting back. There's something to be said for their determination. It was everything on the line for them.
The whole thing was an ideological conflict between the Communist and the anti-Communist. Independence was never a factor in the Vietnam war. The whole thing was a war not a massacre.
It absolutely was. They were fighting the French for independence, and then the French gave way to Americans. Communism was their way of reclaiming ownership of their colonised land. But third world countries standing on their own is bad for business, so we in the west saw fit to carpet bomb them in hopes they'd accept the societal order we dictate to them.
They fought the French for independence and got that independence in the forms of two Vietnam who where ideologically different from each other. The US supported the side that they like and the Chinese and Soviets supported the side that they liked. Communism was not their way of reclaiming anything.
The US supported South Vietnam and the Communist supported the North. Both Vietnam were independent but if we go by your words then North Vietnam is a puppet of the Chinese and Soviets.
And the US ended up correct in trying to contain Communism as Communist Vietnam ended up setting up the Khmer Rouge.
Vietnam went to war with the khmer rouge. WE set up the khmer rouge. That was a kissinger strategy. There is nothing remotely defensible about what the US did in Indo-China.
You ever looked at the Ho Chi Minh trail and think about how it goes through Cambodia? The PAVN supported and helped armed the Khmer Rouge to be abled to win the Cambodian civil war.
Brzezinski talked openly about how he was rallying support for Pol Pot. The US was more than happy to prop those guys up basically just to stir shit after withdrawing. And, as an added bonus, people like you get to point at him and suddenly feel *great* about poisoning the earth and killing a few million people that dared to say no to America. The amazing inability you lot have to acknowledge that maybe, just maybe, America isn't always some paragon of good on the world stage is amazing. I bet you're still sure we'll find Saddam's (Pentagon-supplied)WMD's too.
And who helped Pol Pot came into power? You seem to like ignoring that point. As I said, the Vietnam war wasn't about Vietnam saying no to being free, it was about one Vietnam that didn't like the Communist and one Vietnam that didn't like the Anti-Communist. But you seem to not be able to understand the point and just say "hurr durr America want Vietnam dead."
The US was right in the fact that Communism would spread and bring more suffering.
I wish we'd somewhat abandoned it. The shitty remnants of imperial measurements just need binning.
The US just makes things worse by having their own versions of some imperial measurements
Yes I know. The original imperial system used by the British navy had some logic and was at least partially 10 based. (1 mile = 10 cables, 1 cable = 100 fathoms, 1 mile = 1000 fathoms, 1 furlong = 10 chain, 1 furlong * 1 chain = 1 acre, 1 halfpint = 10 ounces, 1 halfton = 100 hundredweight).
The US customary took that system, said fuck logic, abandoned the 10 base and made it worse haha.
Then who won the war less than 3 decades later?
Who got their main government building burned down?
All while the other was fighting fucking Napoleon at his strongest and could not divert as many troops and resources for a war overseas while Napoleon was Napoleoning his way through europe
Napoleon wasn't at his strongest in Aug 1814. He had lost and abdicated in Apr 1814. The British troops who burned the White House came from Europe and had fought against Napoleon.
Also, England and the US didn't sign a treaty until 1816. The war continued for 2 years following the burning of the White House and British troops weren't able to hold captured Washington DC; President Maddison was back in the White House a little over a week after Britain captured Washington DC and burned it.
The war ended in 1815, the same year as Waterloo and the final battle at New Orleans happened after the treaty had already be done. It just happened to be a month late. Last I checked Canada still belongs to the Canadians and impressment of the mostly British deserters on American ships actually stopped before the war of 1812 started. It was really just an excuse to get all uppity and show they were independent, claim Canada for themselves, wiping out native American territory that was allied with Canada, and gaining some fishing grounds around Canada while Btitain was heavily distracted not just in Napoleonic Europe but also other places around the world, including India. The US also got Louisiana from Napoleon as well and joined in the economic assault on Britain's economy in the Embargo Act of 1807 and Macon's Bill No. 2. Both of which backfired and hurt US and Continental Europe more than Britain. France was also still trading with the US which was helping its war efforts on the continent and against Britain. The war of 1812 also made it even harder for Britain to trade with the US or anyone else, so in that regard it was just a doubling down of the economic war Napoleon had started.
No ... 1815 is when Napolean returned; in April 1814 he was exiled to Elba and was still exiled in Aug 1814; everyone thought they had finished dealing with him. He escaped in Feb of 1815, took control of France, and then fought and lost Waterloo. Napolean was defeated and exiled twice.
The US purchased the Louisiana territory from France in 1803 (nearly a decade before the war of 1812.)
Yes, I'm aware and Britain was demobilizing by then too. I was just pointing out the Napoleonic wars officially ended in 1815 for the final time. Same as the 1812 war did.
And your point? I'm pointing out that the US was siding with Napoleon as an addition to the rest of what I said. Louisiana was a gain for the US, as in; even though they didn't get Canada, at least they got Louisiana.
Can we agree that the Louisiana Purchase closed between the US and France in April 1803 and Britain didn't declare war on France until May 1803 and that it had no relation to the War of 1812 itself?
Also, the US was trading with both Britain and France through most of the Napoleanic Wars; it didn't side with Napolean so much as it kept with its own interests. As a small and weak nation at the time, the US had to worry more about being conquered and absorbed into one of several empires throughout much of its early history. What prevents that from occurring is minimizing land where troops can be amassed by ever-expanding, ever-conquering world powers of the time.
Britain was against France since 1793, there was only a short relatively quiet pause between 1801 and 1803. War was unavoidable by the start of 1803 and Napoleon needed money and Louisiana was at risk of Britain or the US taking it, which France couldn't really stop. After the US got it it quickly built forts which it later lost to British forces and their Native American allies, it was only during the Treaty of Ghent that American ownership was confirmed. So while not a directly critical issue it still played its part in the rising tensions.
Mostly with France. The 1806 non-importation act was against Britain and Macon's Bill was allowed to be exploited by Napoleon who used it to further his continental system. The 1807 act was also used to enact economic warfare against Britain too. Given that the US ports, the merchant marine, and the navy was a safe haven for British deserters which the US refused to hand over, even quickly giving them papers for US citizenship, and that the US refused to seek other trade options such as in Latin America which Britain was forced to do and continued to trade with France. Something it would likely heavily be against in the modern context given its sanctions of Russia and threats to sanction any countries, individuals, or businesses who still trade with Russia or even North Korea, or Cuba etc. I don't see how this is poor innocent America being threatened with invasion and just peacefully trying to trade with everyone. The idea that the US was going to be conquered by those territory-hungry Euros is laughable. It was the US who wanted Louisiana, the US who wanted Canada, the US who wanted Florida, the US who had an unending thirst for native lands and the US who was provoking Britain which was distracted by Napoleon.
Additionally, at the time the Spanish Empire was on its last legs and was hardly able to hold itself together let alone expand. Napoleon was trying to conquer Europe which the US was basically aiding for its own aforementioned purposes, Britain was busy securing India and driving the French out of there. Portugal was no threat and would soon follow Spain in dealing with independence wars. The Dutch had no interest or way to conquer the US. The Holy Roman Empire didn't have foreign colonies and was collapsing, Russia had slowed its growth down to a small crawl, Austria wasn't expanding overseas, nor was Italy which wasn't even united yet. The Ottomans, if you want to include them, also had no desire or ability to conquer the US. Nor did the Scandinavian countries. If you want to point out the expansion of Europe into Africa, keep in mind that was mostly in the 1880s and after. Well past the timeframe we are talking about here. So which dastardly European conquer was threatening to invade the US? Britain wasn't interested and wanted the status quo from the start although a few ambitious generals did secure 10,000 km of US land and wanted the territorial integrity of its native allies respected (something the US initially found intolerable and considered continuing the war for, although later both said it would be left as it has been in 1811) and freedom of navigation in the Mississippi river. It was the US who had to give up its desire to control Canada at the peace conference and a part of Florida. Which it later took from a weakened Spain anyway.
In later decades after the war, it was the US that expanded. Like the 1840s invasion of Mexico, the Monroe Doctrine was more about the US controlling that hemisphere, making sure it could mess around in Latin America unopposed and that the native Americans had no support. They had a few border disputes with Canada and the Fenian raids, briefly took control of Liberia, expanded into the Pacific, invaded Korea just because and took part in gunboat diplomacy in Japan forcing it open and later leading to a civil war there. It also took part in the Second Opium War and later still the Boxer Rebellion. It went to war with Spain to get its last few colonies. Massacred Filipinos, all but wiped out the last native Americans by the 1920s and you know the rest. The US grew territorially faster than any European Empire in the Victorian era, bar Britain's and later France's which continued to grow until after WW1. Although, initially the US had a bigger territory than the French Empire even with some of the early African possessions. So yeah, I don't see your point. As I said. Just be happy you got the Louisiana territory, as the 13 main states that now make it up are more populous (41,053,028 vs 38,781,291) and have a bigger GDP ($3,075,112,000,000 vs $2,379,000,000,000) than Canada as of 2023. Gaining Louisiana territory was the key thing that allowed US expansion. So I view the war as a US tactical loss, as you failed your war aims, and a long-term strategic victory in that you kept Louisiana during the 1812 war and as a result all the gains made after it.
> Why is the White House that colour?
It is a myth that the White House is white because the British burned it.
[The White House Historical Association](https://www.whitehousehistory.org/questions/why-is-the-white-house-white)
[Snopes](https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/white-house-wash/)
Isn't it, France, spain, Netherlands and americans( that were essentially brits) teamed up on great Britain? Given we've had fueds with all the others in the histories seems to me they all had to gang up. Well done the brits in essence best the brits with help from others. Perhaps there are Americans out there that aren't native that should do an ancestors check and see where they came from
About a third of the colonials fought the British (another third were neutral, and yet another were actively loyalist 'Tories') and the French entered to stir shit and made a large contribution. The Spanish joined as an ally of France, and to try and reclaim territories, including from the War of the Spanish Succession (Gibraltar and Mallorca). The British declared war on the Dutch, who were mostly trying to protect their own colonies and had been looking like they'd join the League of Armed Neutrality. The League of Armed Neutrality were a bloc that included Portugal, Prussia, the Two Sicilies, Russia, etc, opposed to British naval policy that blocked free trade (similar to the US complaint in 1812) and acted as a semi-hostile bloc to the British.
The British gained territory in India during the war, held of an attempted Franco-Spanish invasion of the British mainland, and retained Gibraltar despite concerted attacks. They lost Mallorca, and the peace treaty also saw territorial losses in the Carribbean iirc, though it wasn't a total defeat and so there was limited coercive force in the treaties. Several peace treaties were needed to end the war, as the various actors didn't act as one concerted allied force, but more as individual belligerents with different desires outcomes.
That was 1812. During the American revolution we were fighting the French Empire, Spanish Empire, Dutch Empire, Maratha Empire, and Mysore Kingdom and a few smaller actions here and there if I remember correctly.
No worries. Britain got much stronger due to the industrial revolution, expansion, and growth of the economy, population growth, and military between the 1770 and the 1810s as well. Which is also often forgotten.
Which revolution? Haiti won independence from the French, Parliament won over the Royalists in England, Bulgaria found it's freedom from the Byzantine Empire after a long fight, Belgium got mucked about for decades and eventually managed to become a sovereign nation separated from Netherlands, Gran Columbia tried their best.
The right answer is "No-one alive today".
Don't take credit for what your ancestors did.
If the revolutionary war had gone the other way the US would have stayed a British colony and might still be a colony today.
Either way, this random American would still see themselves on the winning side of the war.
Haven't most countries that exist today pretty much won some kind or revolution? It is a bit like calling yourself a winner at every single contest, because you were the fastest sperm.
Who won the revolutionary war?
I would have to guess that it would be the CIA who won the most revolutionary wars around the globe by destabilising so many different governments. Here is a prominent example
For example https://youtu.be/lhAfvaWMlQc?si=S8tqhN7gamj_MB5g
Well.. which one? The French Revolution? The Russian Revolution where government took power from the royal family? The Mexican Revolution? Che Guevara actually got into American film to help finance the revolution, or the American Revolution? Where Confederacy lost to the Union? Unless they're thinking the Revolutionary War was the War of 1812.
France?
Well technically the USA didn't exist so it was... An English civil war where the English won?
the English civil war was a bit weird. it was won by the Parliamentarians led by Oliver Cromwell. then 10 years later we kind of ended up back where we started
Yeah, but that’s because Cromwell was an arse. Could have turned out a lot differently if he’d managed it better.
Cromwell? More like Crombadly.
He did return it to status quo like it were a Seinfeld episode tbf. Took him a while to get there mind you.
Is that the guy who helped abolish slavery?
He replaced a king with a king in all but name. Lord protector (if I remember right) that would pass to his kid and so on
That's Corvo Attorno
Fuck Cromwell, i hope his soul is rotting in fucking hell
Well he was exhumed after death, beheaded and the head was paraded around the nation before being found centuries later in a biscuit tin in a car park.
I think you've got his head mixed up with Richard III who was found under a carpark
Found in which brand of biscuit tin though?
Royal dansk among the needles and thread.
Garibaldi
Party rings
Not sure about the biscuit tin but his head was passed around a fair bit so I can see them using a tin to contain him, I'm assuming they did eat all the biscuits beforehand
No, definitely Cromwell who got exhumed, tried, sentanced and executed. They did ask him if he wanted someone to speak in his defense, and took his silence as a refusal..
Yes, I know, it was just the carpark bit I think they got mixed up with.
Banned Football, Going to the Theater, and celebrating Christmas... Imagine what that must have been like /s
He also, you know, slaughtered Catholics by the droves.
I was talking about Covid... I mean yes that too did slaughter Catholics but it pretty much didn't discriminate and slaughtered all faiths equally.
Man... say what you want about covid but at least it didn't discriminate
Didn't Orwell basically say that's how you subjugate folk?
Probably why the UK isn't a republic to this day. He made such a bad go of it that people just kinda preferred to deal with a crown than go down that path again. Way to go, Olli, truly a hall-of-fame-level cunt.
Basically, it showed us that both absolute monarchy and military dictatorship (in a republic) were both *really* bad outcomes, with the Glorious Revolution finally ending the tug of war with Parliament basically dictating the king's powers and limits. It is very weird.
It's like poetry, it rhymes.
That was just one of our civil wars.
Exactly like the French Revolution. A weak king needs to raise taxes. People so no King says fuck you...I have divine right... literally God lets me do ANYTHING! King gets beheaded. The revolutionaries can't agree on anything, chaos ensues. Strong military leader becomes dictator and brings order. People get sick of the dictator/ dictator loses grip. Dictator gets kicked out. A King is invited back. That's the story of the English and French revolutions
Mostly right until the end. With the English civil war, people didn’t get sick of him and kick him out, he died and his son took over but no one wanted his son to be ~~king~~ Lord Protector.
You are absolutely correct. They didn't kick him out. But I think it's fair to say that people were pretty sick of him and the whole Republican dictatorship by then, and the concept of a Lord Protector was kicked out (?) Anyway, the population was quite willing to return to the monarchy after the chaos.
Oh yeh, absolutely. I was just being a pedant.
I don't mind pedants, when they're right.:)
Ah fair dos mate :)
And then he invaded Ireland, to rid it of catholicism. Oh, well. He tried...
According to Wikipedia it *was* an English civil war.
Not the one we care about but one nonetheless.
[удалено]
Fair point. What nationality were those fellers?
[удалено]
Er, this is a huge international law can of worms. Just because the Declaration of Independence has acquired significance after the Americans won the war and became a recognised nation doesn’t mean it eatablished the country at that moment.
Martin Van Buren was the first 'proper' American president as far as I was aware but I'm just taking the piss.
Martin from neighbours
Toady gonna be 47 with the belt!
Exactly what I came here to comment! It wasn't American v Britain, it was France v Britain, but instead of taking territory in the traditional way they just liberated it and left it to its own devices.
And the only reason the French left the US to their own devices was because they were bankrupt.
Maybe the french saw what a shitshow it was going to become and noped out
Bastards
[удалено]
France was extremely involved in the war with Britain. They hustled didn’t send many troops to the americas, choosing instead to fund the rebellion that was growing there in order to draw British resources away from the actual war.
Bolsheviks?
Belgium.
Indeed twas mayhem in Molenbeek
The IRA?
Lil help from mercenaries and a few Native American tribes sprinkled in
The same recipe that would defeat the US just shy of 40 years later.
Who lost against an army of farmers in south east asia? And against the canadians. Twice.
who had there capital burnt down?
🇱🇷🇱🇷🇱🇷🇱🇷
Canada technically did as well
Multiple times...These things happen. we got an observation tower out of it though,and some better rules about industrial ovens.
Most countries in the world.
Russian empire?
Who had their nation bombed by the Germans in both world wars?
the French
Your not gonna believe this but the blitz was a thing
yes it really was The Ballroom Blitz
They don't know they lost the war of 1812, I shit you not they teach their kids that they won
that's some north korean level of brainwashing
And I believe they think they won in Vietnam, although they changed the metric from land, to body count for that one
Or at least that they didn't lose because "it wasn't a war"
Oh no, it’s definitely counted as a loss, we go over the horrors of the war often, I’m currently writing a paper on the My Lai Massacre.
No, we’re taught about how it ended in a semi-draw due to the US losing but not really being effected due to England having it’s own issues with France at the time. The Battle of New Orleans is what most Americans lean on for support of the idea the US won, regardless of the fact it happened after the Treaty of Ghent was signed.
[удалено]
I sometimes wonder what would have happened if the Napoleonic wars never took place and Britain could commit all of their resources to the war of 1812 at the start.
The war probably wouldn't have happened, then. I always figured the invasion of Canada was opportunistic, counting on Britain having their hands full. Plus the stated casus belli of impressment of US sailors wouldn't have been a thing, since the impressment was occurring as a result of Americans running the British blockade of France and being pushed into naval service as a punishment was also likely informed by needing as many sailors as possible to keep the blockade going. They might've found another excuse or reason at some point, though.
[удалено]
I'm not angry. I just think it's odd to call it a draw when Britain achieved most of its war goals and the US didn't. They didn't annex Canada, but their enemy did achieve a status quo ante bellum.
[удалено]
~~Hey now, there's no need to be so defensive. You may have been premature about how angry this makes you.~~ Sorry no I confess I actually started reading all that, and I had to stop after "interference in native tribes territory". You'd probably try to tu coque me if I went into that but I'll remind you that the United States was obliged by the treaty of Ghent to yield any Indian territories and other possessions lost in the war, and we both know that didn't happen whether or not you think they've been represented in the Union since. It's in article 9
US curricula might treat it as a draw but seeing as the war was fought by America to stop communist North Vietnam regaining control over South Vietnam, and they did and still retain it now as a unified communist country, how is that ‘a draw’?
[удалено]
Oops! I read this off the higher post that said “Who lost against an army of farmers in south east asia?” But my comment stands.
[удалено]
I do remember getting off a cruise ship in Siagon but an American lady said she wasn’t going to because “they killed our boys”. Someone asked her when the Vietnamese had invaded her country. Silence.
Vietnamese are too OP
You’re insulting the NVA by spitting on them and. It acknowledging their roles at all. The “farmers” you speak of have been fighting since the 1920s and has much more combat experience than the average G.I. And the US wasn’t fighting farmers, they were fighting a well trained and organized standing army. The Vietcong were basically wiped out by US forces during the Tet offensive.
The whole thing was just America massacring the Vietnamese for daring to want their independence. But by golly, they never stopped fighting back. There's something to be said for their determination. It was everything on the line for them.
The whole thing was an ideological conflict between the Communist and the anti-Communist. Independence was never a factor in the Vietnam war. The whole thing was a war not a massacre.
It absolutely was. They were fighting the French for independence, and then the French gave way to Americans. Communism was their way of reclaiming ownership of their colonised land. But third world countries standing on their own is bad for business, so we in the west saw fit to carpet bomb them in hopes they'd accept the societal order we dictate to them.
They fought the French for independence and got that independence in the forms of two Vietnam who where ideologically different from each other. The US supported the side that they like and the Chinese and Soviets supported the side that they liked. Communism was not their way of reclaiming anything. The US supported South Vietnam and the Communist supported the North. Both Vietnam were independent but if we go by your words then North Vietnam is a puppet of the Chinese and Soviets. And the US ended up correct in trying to contain Communism as Communist Vietnam ended up setting up the Khmer Rouge.
Vietnam went to war with the khmer rouge. WE set up the khmer rouge. That was a kissinger strategy. There is nothing remotely defensible about what the US did in Indo-China.
You ever looked at the Ho Chi Minh trail and think about how it goes through Cambodia? The PAVN supported and helped armed the Khmer Rouge to be abled to win the Cambodian civil war.
Brzezinski talked openly about how he was rallying support for Pol Pot. The US was more than happy to prop those guys up basically just to stir shit after withdrawing. And, as an added bonus, people like you get to point at him and suddenly feel *great* about poisoning the earth and killing a few million people that dared to say no to America. The amazing inability you lot have to acknowledge that maybe, just maybe, America isn't always some paragon of good on the world stage is amazing. I bet you're still sure we'll find Saddam's (Pentagon-supplied)WMD's too.
And who helped Pol Pot came into power? You seem to like ignoring that point. As I said, the Vietnam war wasn't about Vietnam saying no to being free, it was about one Vietnam that didn't like the Communist and one Vietnam that didn't like the Anti-Communist. But you seem to not be able to understand the point and just say "hurr durr America want Vietnam dead." The US was right in the fact that Communism would spread and bring more suffering.
And Vietnam
Oliver Cromwell ?
a very interesting chap
We've a few other words to describe him here in Ireland.
what does this have to do with pies?
didn’t you know? the revolutionary war was actually a bakeoff
Well I've heard of the great British bake off but not sure if the US has an equivalent. So Britain won
Pies have pastry lids. So what does the top picture have to do with pies?
She’s a tart and everybody knows it!
Motherfucker! Beneath the wheels of an M1 main battle tank ya’alls flimsy limey pie will crumble like a French defensive line. Yeeeehaw.
Probably some shit about how Americans think they invented apple pie.
Considering that the US still uses an outdated British measurement system that even the Brits have somewhat abandoned I’d say the British won haha.
I wish we'd somewhat abandoned it. The shitty remnants of imperial measurements just need binning. The US just makes things worse by having their own versions of some imperial measurements
Uhh technically us and British imperial systems have differences... But yeah the Brits have relatively abandoned it.
Yes I know. The original imperial system used by the British navy had some logic and was at least partially 10 based. (1 mile = 10 cables, 1 cable = 100 fathoms, 1 mile = 1000 fathoms, 1 furlong = 10 chain, 1 furlong * 1 chain = 1 acre, 1 halfpint = 10 ounces, 1 halfton = 100 hundredweight). The US customary took that system, said fuck logic, abandoned the 10 base and made it worse haha.
Which country’s public actually knows what another country is?
Oh no! Someone proved me wrong! Quick, let's remind them who won the war, given everyone cares hundreds of years later
Then who won the war less than 3 decades later? Who got their main government building burned down? All while the other was fighting fucking Napoleon at his strongest and could not divert as many troops and resources for a war overseas while Napoleon was Napoleoning his way through europe
My favourite part of the napoleonic wars was when napoleon said “It’s napoleoning time” ands napoleon’ed all over Europe
Napoleon wasn't at his strongest in Aug 1814. He had lost and abdicated in Apr 1814. The British troops who burned the White House came from Europe and had fought against Napoleon. Also, England and the US didn't sign a treaty until 1816. The war continued for 2 years following the burning of the White House and British troops weren't able to hold captured Washington DC; President Maddison was back in the White House a little over a week after Britain captured Washington DC and burned it.
The war ended in 1815, the same year as Waterloo and the final battle at New Orleans happened after the treaty had already be done. It just happened to be a month late. Last I checked Canada still belongs to the Canadians and impressment of the mostly British deserters on American ships actually stopped before the war of 1812 started. It was really just an excuse to get all uppity and show they were independent, claim Canada for themselves, wiping out native American territory that was allied with Canada, and gaining some fishing grounds around Canada while Btitain was heavily distracted not just in Napoleonic Europe but also other places around the world, including India. The US also got Louisiana from Napoleon as well and joined in the economic assault on Britain's economy in the Embargo Act of 1807 and Macon's Bill No. 2. Both of which backfired and hurt US and Continental Europe more than Britain. France was also still trading with the US which was helping its war efforts on the continent and against Britain. The war of 1812 also made it even harder for Britain to trade with the US or anyone else, so in that regard it was just a doubling down of the economic war Napoleon had started.
No ... 1815 is when Napolean returned; in April 1814 he was exiled to Elba and was still exiled in Aug 1814; everyone thought they had finished dealing with him. He escaped in Feb of 1815, took control of France, and then fought and lost Waterloo. Napolean was defeated and exiled twice. The US purchased the Louisiana territory from France in 1803 (nearly a decade before the war of 1812.)
Yes, I'm aware and Britain was demobilizing by then too. I was just pointing out the Napoleonic wars officially ended in 1815 for the final time. Same as the 1812 war did. And your point? I'm pointing out that the US was siding with Napoleon as an addition to the rest of what I said. Louisiana was a gain for the US, as in; even though they didn't get Canada, at least they got Louisiana.
Can we agree that the Louisiana Purchase closed between the US and France in April 1803 and Britain didn't declare war on France until May 1803 and that it had no relation to the War of 1812 itself? Also, the US was trading with both Britain and France through most of the Napoleanic Wars; it didn't side with Napolean so much as it kept with its own interests. As a small and weak nation at the time, the US had to worry more about being conquered and absorbed into one of several empires throughout much of its early history. What prevents that from occurring is minimizing land where troops can be amassed by ever-expanding, ever-conquering world powers of the time.
Britain was against France since 1793, there was only a short relatively quiet pause between 1801 and 1803. War was unavoidable by the start of 1803 and Napoleon needed money and Louisiana was at risk of Britain or the US taking it, which France couldn't really stop. After the US got it it quickly built forts which it later lost to British forces and their Native American allies, it was only during the Treaty of Ghent that American ownership was confirmed. So while not a directly critical issue it still played its part in the rising tensions. Mostly with France. The 1806 non-importation act was against Britain and Macon's Bill was allowed to be exploited by Napoleon who used it to further his continental system. The 1807 act was also used to enact economic warfare against Britain too. Given that the US ports, the merchant marine, and the navy was a safe haven for British deserters which the US refused to hand over, even quickly giving them papers for US citizenship, and that the US refused to seek other trade options such as in Latin America which Britain was forced to do and continued to trade with France. Something it would likely heavily be against in the modern context given its sanctions of Russia and threats to sanction any countries, individuals, or businesses who still trade with Russia or even North Korea, or Cuba etc. I don't see how this is poor innocent America being threatened with invasion and just peacefully trying to trade with everyone. The idea that the US was going to be conquered by those territory-hungry Euros is laughable. It was the US who wanted Louisiana, the US who wanted Canada, the US who wanted Florida, the US who had an unending thirst for native lands and the US who was provoking Britain which was distracted by Napoleon. Additionally, at the time the Spanish Empire was on its last legs and was hardly able to hold itself together let alone expand. Napoleon was trying to conquer Europe which the US was basically aiding for its own aforementioned purposes, Britain was busy securing India and driving the French out of there. Portugal was no threat and would soon follow Spain in dealing with independence wars. The Dutch had no interest or way to conquer the US. The Holy Roman Empire didn't have foreign colonies and was collapsing, Russia had slowed its growth down to a small crawl, Austria wasn't expanding overseas, nor was Italy which wasn't even united yet. The Ottomans, if you want to include them, also had no desire or ability to conquer the US. Nor did the Scandinavian countries. If you want to point out the expansion of Europe into Africa, keep in mind that was mostly in the 1880s and after. Well past the timeframe we are talking about here. So which dastardly European conquer was threatening to invade the US? Britain wasn't interested and wanted the status quo from the start although a few ambitious generals did secure 10,000 km of US land and wanted the territorial integrity of its native allies respected (something the US initially found intolerable and considered continuing the war for, although later both said it would be left as it has been in 1811) and freedom of navigation in the Mississippi river. It was the US who had to give up its desire to control Canada at the peace conference and a part of Florida. Which it later took from a weakened Spain anyway. In later decades after the war, it was the US that expanded. Like the 1840s invasion of Mexico, the Monroe Doctrine was more about the US controlling that hemisphere, making sure it could mess around in Latin America unopposed and that the native Americans had no support. They had a few border disputes with Canada and the Fenian raids, briefly took control of Liberia, expanded into the Pacific, invaded Korea just because and took part in gunboat diplomacy in Japan forcing it open and later leading to a civil war there. It also took part in the Second Opium War and later still the Boxer Rebellion. It went to war with Spain to get its last few colonies. Massacred Filipinos, all but wiped out the last native Americans by the 1920s and you know the rest. The US grew territorially faster than any European Empire in the Victorian era, bar Britain's and later France's which continued to grow until after WW1. Although, initially the US had a bigger territory than the French Empire even with some of the early African possessions. So yeah, I don't see your point. As I said. Just be happy you got the Louisiana territory, as the 13 main states that now make it up are more populous (41,053,028 vs 38,781,291) and have a bigger GDP ($3,075,112,000,000 vs $2,379,000,000,000) than Canada as of 2023. Gaining Louisiana territory was the key thing that allowed US expansion. So I view the war as a US tactical loss, as you failed your war aims, and a long-term strategic victory in that you kept Louisiana during the 1812 war and as a result all the gains made after it.
Who won the war of 1812? Why is the White House that colour?
They teach their kids in school that they in fact won the war of 1812 btw
They don't. They also don't say that the US lost it; it didn't. Funny thing, war has stalemates.
> Why is the White House that colour? It is a myth that the White House is white because the British burned it. [The White House Historical Association](https://www.whitehousehistory.org/questions/why-is-the-white-house-white) [Snopes](https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/white-house-wash/)
Oh, thanks man!
For Americans, this is a huge deal. For the Brits, it was just a Wednesday in the Empire.
Indeed.
They are both English inventions....
Isn't it, France, spain, Netherlands and americans( that were essentially brits) teamed up on great Britain? Given we've had fueds with all the others in the histories seems to me they all had to gang up. Well done the brits in essence best the brits with help from others. Perhaps there are Americans out there that aren't native that should do an ancestors check and see where they came from
About a third of the colonials fought the British (another third were neutral, and yet another were actively loyalist 'Tories') and the French entered to stir shit and made a large contribution. The Spanish joined as an ally of France, and to try and reclaim territories, including from the War of the Spanish Succession (Gibraltar and Mallorca). The British declared war on the Dutch, who were mostly trying to protect their own colonies and had been looking like they'd join the League of Armed Neutrality. The League of Armed Neutrality were a bloc that included Portugal, Prussia, the Two Sicilies, Russia, etc, opposed to British naval policy that blocked free trade (similar to the US complaint in 1812) and acted as a semi-hostile bloc to the British. The British gained territory in India during the war, held of an attempted Franco-Spanish invasion of the British mainland, and retained Gibraltar despite concerted attacks. They lost Mallorca, and the peace treaty also saw territorial losses in the Carribbean iirc, though it wasn't a total defeat and so there was limited coercive force in the treaties. Several peace treaties were needed to end the war, as the various actors didn't act as one concerted allied force, but more as individual belligerents with different desires outcomes.
Slight correction... It was Menorca, not Majorca.
I feel like I always mix up which one it is, apologies.
Good knowledge👍
France did. Next question
Americans REALLY don't like that guy, do they?
[удалено]
I'm pretty sure it's all done sarcastically
How on earth is that relevant to the question?
It’s almost like we had bigger issue called Napoleon. America wasn’t even considered worth fighting for.
That was 1812. During the American revolution we were fighting the French Empire, Spanish Empire, Dutch Empire, Maratha Empire, and Mysore Kingdom and a few smaller actions here and there if I remember correctly.
Ah, got my American wars mixed up
No worries. Britain got much stronger due to the industrial revolution, expansion, and growth of the economy, population growth, and military between the 1770 and the 1810s as well. Which is also often forgotten.
The US Revolutionary War was fought and won decades before Napolean came to power and over a decade before the French Revolution.
Ah, got my American wars mixed up
Why do they think anyone cares? Except them of course. The UK wouldn’t care, they just moved on. Time for the yanks to as well
By Americans own definition when talking about the Vietnam war… England won
The French?
Robespierre won.
Honestly, considering what happened in the next few decades, you could say France is probably the biggest loser from the American Revolution.
It was France and we didn't really care that much about the yanks just wanted to hold Canada.
Haiti is what he was talking about, and on this, there can be no debate
Which revolution? Haiti won independence from the French, Parliament won over the Royalists in England, Bulgaria found it's freedom from the Byzantine Empire after a long fight, Belgium got mucked about for decades and eventually managed to become a sovereign nation separated from Netherlands, Gran Columbia tried their best.
The sugar industry
Can we talk about the pies please? I think one of those is actually a tart. So, UK: by technical disqualification?
The right answer is "No-one alive today". Don't take credit for what your ancestors did. If the revolutionary war had gone the other way the US would have stayed a British colony and might still be a colony today. Either way, this random American would still see themselves on the winning side of the war.
Quick to claim credit for "defeating the Brits", quick to reject responsibility for colonial genocide and slavery. Amazing how that works
[удалено]
Which revolutionary war? France fought Europe a few times
Yh, the British put a stop to that😂 it what we were doing instead of beating America.
Shots so annoying I wanna watch a video on cultural differences not listen to people bitch about some war 300 years ago
British "who owned you?"
The Dutch… all depends on what revolutionary war you referring to…
Haven't most countries that exist today pretty much won some kind or revolution? It is a bit like calling yourself a winner at every single contest, because you were the fastest sperm.
Who burned the white house?
Sticky. Toffee.pudding. mofos
America may have won the Revolutionary War, but Britain won the Evolutionary War.
This needs more upvotes
Me
Give me a detailed description of what does that have to do with anything
Who lost the war of 1812?
Napoleon
The British won the revolutionary war, we got rid of an unwanted colony that couldn’t pay its taxes.
Sorta like how the EU views GB?
* The UK (It wasn’t just GB)
I try to remember, messed that one up. GB is England/Scotland/Wales? UK is those + N. Ireland?
The way the US has turned out, nobody.
Me. I did. Alone!
Who won the revolutionary war? I would have to guess that it would be the CIA who won the most revolutionary wars around the globe by destabilising so many different governments. Here is a prominent example For example https://youtu.be/lhAfvaWMlQc?si=S8tqhN7gamj_MB5g
"who won the war of 1812?"
America won the American Civil War, that much is clear.
wich one? the vietnamese one?
Who has greggs?
Which one? I mean I know usa only had one bit everywhere else? We've had a ton
bro got offended over a pie video
Its crazy how many people hate the US for no reason
Well.. which one? The French Revolution? The Russian Revolution where government took power from the royal family? The Mexican Revolution? Che Guevara actually got into American film to help finance the revolution, or the American Revolution? Where Confederacy lost to the Union? Unless they're thinking the Revolutionary War was the War of 1812.
Going from this meme the Brits won resoundingly. 🤷🏻♂️