Was the Revolutionary War right or wrong?

[Lord Claremorris]

Yes, Germany was perhaps the most outstandind combatant of the Second World War. It had many imaginative commanders (Kurt Student, father of the Paratroopers, Erich von Manstein, the man who conceived of the plan to invade France, Erwin Rommel, Heinz Guderian, the father of the Blitzkrieg etc.) an excellent military with high competence and unswerving morale. It definitely performed much better than either the British or Americans, and it would have smashed Russia to pieces if Russia hadn't so much land and men. I'd say hats off to the Germans, even if they were fighting for all the wrong reasons, they put up a damn good fight.

[Aeon221]

Maybe an odd question to ask, but, regarding the accent and speech of the colonists, would it have been closer to a current British or American accent? In films depicting the War of Independence, the colonists are always shown to possess an almost "vanilla" American accent, yet would this have been the case?

Also, this seems to be a good place to ask where I can read up on the guerilla tactics of the colonists; anyone have any particularly informative sources I could check out?

Oddly enough, if you ask any linguist they'd tell you that the modern American pronunciation and spelling is closer to the original than the modern British. The same linguistic relationship exists between Quebec and France.

There's some postulation as to why, with much whickering about the linguistic conservativism of a people dispossessed of its homeland, but no really convincing theory has been advanced to explain the facts as they exist.

I would like to add that I continue to think that this is one of the most ignorant threads I have ever seen.

[uos_spo6]

Was the Revolutionary War right or wrong?

The colonists claimed to rebel for lack of representation, but think about it. Before this event, Britain just fought over 5 wars against France and helped defend the colonies. Without Britain, France would have decimated the colonies wthin months. Did Britain have a right to tax them as they did? I personally think they did.


Sounds like a good topic.

Well in the most general sense the rise of every single nation on the planet today probably owes itself to war and more importantly victory in it. I don't think you can call into question the right or wrong of a war that births a nation, because all justification for said war of independence and the nation that becomes of it is derived from victory in it.

Can you fault Kosovo for struggling for independence? Tibet? Uighars in China? the various groups in Georgia? the Jews against Egyptians? Palestinians against Israel?

The same question relates to the South in the American Civil War. They were a group of people of united interest that differed from those trying to put their ways upon them, same as American colonists. This situation will never cease to exist across the globe, hence war and more specifically war over national independence will never cease.

People are inclined to form groups with other people holding mutual interests. Sometimes they result in war and sometimes those wars result in the rise of nations. No man has no claim over another and to argue anyones birth right to fight for independence from whomever they deem oppressive seems arrogant to me. The justification for it will certainly be questionable to those outside or on the opposite side of the conflict, but in reality you have to consider that there are no truths, only opinions and perspectives.

[Lord Claremorris]

Well in the most general sense the rise of every single nation on the planet today probably owes itself to war and more importantly victory in it. I don't think you can call into question the right or wrong of a war that births a nation, because all justification for said war of independence and the nation that becomes of it is derived from victory in it.

Can you fault Kosovo for struggling for independence? Tibet? Uighars in China? the various groups in Georgia? the Jews against Egyptians? Palestinians against Israel?

The same question relates to the South in the American Civil War. They were a group of people of united interest that differed from those trying to put their ways upon them, same as American colonists. This situation will never cease to exist across the globe, hence war and more specifically war over national independence will never cease.

People are inclined to form groups with other people holding mutual interests. Sometimes they result in war and sometimes those wars result in the rise of nations. No man has no claim over another and to argue anyones birth right to fight for independence from whomever they deem oppressive seems arrogant to me. The justification for it will certainly be questionable to those outside or on the opposite side of the conflict, but in reality you have to consider that there are no truths, only opinions and perspectives.

I'm quite drunk right now, but yes, I agree with you fully. If a nation desires to be independent, then who has the right to stop them? Unless they crush any rebellion with armed force......But the United States, along with the former Colonies of Spain and Portugal have all created independent states, and so have many countries in Africa. It's ironic that European nationalism has undone Europe's dominion of the globe...

[boche]

I'm quite drunk right now, but yes, I agree with you fully. If a nation desires to be independent, then who has the right to stop them? Unless they crush any rebellion with armed force......But the United States, along with the former Colonies of Spain and Portugal have all created independent states, and so have many countries in Africa. It's ironic that European nationalism has undone Europe's dominion of the globe...

not everyone has the right to call itself a nation, if what you say is correct, then we should let the basques and catalans in spain and certain canarias etc have their own nation? hell no. ill die before i see that happening

[boche]

Yes, Germany was perhaps the most outstandind combatant of the Second World War. It had many imaginative commanders (Kurt Student, father of the Paratroopers, Erich von Manstein, the man who conceived of the plan to invade France, Erwin Rommel, Heinz Guderian, the father of the Blitzkrieg etc.) an excellent military with high competence and unswerving morale. It definitely performed much better than either the British or Americans, and it would have smashed Russia to pieces if Russia hadn't so much land and men. I'd say hats off to the Germans, even if they were fighting for all the wrong reasons, they put up a damn good fight.

definatelly, you got to give it to them, they made great soldiers.

[uos_spo6]

not everyone has the right to call itself a nation, if what you say is correct, then we should let the basques and catalans in spain and certain canarias etc have their own nation? hell no. ill die before i see that happening

Well naturally your perspective or at least the one you've give pertains to your personal interest and relation to the situation so your feeling on it is understandable and rational, but if you remove whatever interest you have at stake in the situation, you have to sympathize for anyone who wants independence.

You can't pick and choose who to side with in matters of national independence and maintain the integrity of unbiased-ness. The Basques and Catalans are a group of people with interest separate of yours, and though I'm not extremely familiar with the specifics, separate of that of the government of the country they reside in.

People want to govern themselves and you can't fault them for it. When a system/nation/government/whatever becomes too large, too diverse and comprised of too many different sects and interests, and a group feels persecuted or unfairly treated it's bound to have a split, or at least attempt to. Especially if said government is unsympathetic to their desires and is unable or unwilling to appease them.

I dunno much about Catalans and Basques in Spain, other than I think Basques are a Muslim people. My point is just that one mans freedom fighter is another mans terrorist. Neither is right or wrong in a universal view, only within relative perspectives.

Victory is validation and defeat would only be fanning the flames of dissent. It's a self perpetuating cycle of man.

EDIT - Not at all debating against your view. Prejuidices and biasedness is understandable and I have many I just try and elevate above loyalties when looking at issues like this one.

[uos_spo6]

I'm quite drunk right now.

Yeah, I'm still nursing myself back to a maximum projected 50% functionability for the day. Can't get enough Gatorade. Need to replenish them electrolytes!

My stomach is having a revolution against my cold white castles breakfast as we speak. It's a tireless seige with equal losses on both sides atm.

[l33tl4m3r]

Yeah, I'm still nursing myself back to a maximum projected 50% functionability for the day. Can't get enough Gatorade. Need to replenish them electrolytes!

My stomach is having a revolution against my cold white castles breakfast as we speak. It's a tireless seige with equal losses on both sides atm.

Let's just hope you don't need the cannons.

Sorry, back on topic!

[Amaz]

Philippines has had it a bit harder... we've been under the Spanish for 331 years I think then the revolution then America owned us then the war then independence... I think....

[uos_spo6]

Let's just hope you don't need the cannons.

Choose your reply. . .

A. My dogs of war have been barking fruitlessly at the porcelein throne all day long.

B. Cannons? Oh those got used up in a controlled combustion scenario last night to.

[uos_spo6]

Philippines has had it a bit harder... we've been under the Spanish for 331 years I think then the revolution then America owned us then the war then independence... I think....

Didn't Japan temporarily hold the Philipines in WWII as well? Never followed the pacific theatre too closely.

Either way, any country full of Filipino women is pretty well off - revolution, civil war, foreign government of not!

[Lord Claremorris]

Yeah, I'm still nursing myself back to a maximum projected 50% functionability for the day. Can't get enough Gatorade. Need to replenish them electrolytes!

My stomach is having a revolution against my cold white castles breakfast as we speak. It's a tireless seige with equal losses on both sides atm.

Gatorade is amazing stuff. I drink gallons of that every morning after a rough bout of drunkeness. My "cousin" I guess you'd call him, took me out to White Castle for the first time some weeks ago. He and I ate all we could, being quite drunk and not really worrying about taste, but the next morning we both had horrible hangovers and we puked it all up. After we got all the White Castle out we felt fine. So I blame that horrible American fast food.

[uos_spo6]

After we got all the White Castle out we felt fine. So I blame that horrible American fast food.

Dont talk about The Castle like that. IF YOU KNOW WHATS GOOD FOR YOU.

[Amaz]

wait... what is White Castle?

[uos_spo6]

wait... what is White Castle?

If fast food restaurants were graded on a level based upon relation to species of fish, white castles would be a cat fish - i.e. a bottom feeder.

The only time it is acceptable and even feasible to enjoy white castles is in a drunken stupor at which point consumption of said biowaste is pretty much enjoyable only through nostalgic satisfaction.

You can get like ten of these mini burgers called sliders that are just lil buns, steamed meat slabs (or so they say!) and grilled onions and a pickle. The idea being you eat like ten of them and then if all goes well you wake up the next morning with hopefully no recollection of it with the exception of horrid gas.

Despite all this, it is never socially acceptable to insult The Castle. It is a beacon of hope and sanctuary amid many an otherwise catastrophic blurry nights.

You will respect The Castle.

(disclaimer: it is not wise to consume White Castle in a sober state. Much like Twitter being treated as though it were useful, this is not it's intended purpose.)

[Amaz]

lol... well back on topic, any further say on the war?

[Pikemen]

Pikemen, Britain superior-trained and better-equipped infantry than the rebels did. When France, along with Spain and the Netherlands joined in, it was Britain and Prussian mercenaries vs. a rebel band and 3 of the most powerful nations in the world at the time. It could never have been won. Had France, etc. not helped the rebels, they wouldn't have lasted very long, as the rebels got some supplies, including weaponry, from France.

Then why couldn't they have crushed the Americans BEFORE France joined in? If Amerians where so stupid, ill-disaplined, and under bad command, Why couldnt have the British delt with the Americans before France, Spain, and the Netherlands joined in to help? You even said before that the Americans cold have won, it would have just caused more deaths without help from the French, Spain, and the NL. France Spain and the Netherlands entered the war after February 6, 1778 (Frances join date), nearly 3 years into the war (started 18 April 1775)

And yes, the Americans could have beaten off the English, but not by force.

Don't be a hypocrite. And I can't belive you are still arguing your point. Almost everyone on this thread disagrees with you, and you have no good and valid points to argue with.

Cheers,
Pikemen

[Lord Claremorris]

Then why couldn't they have crushed the Americans BEFORE France joined in? If Amerians where so stupid, ill-disaplined, and under bad command, Why couldnt have the British delt with the Americans before France, Spain, and the Netherlands joined in to help? You even said before that the Americans cold have won, it would have just caused more deaths without help from the French, Spain, and the NL. France Spain and the Netherlands entered the war after February 6, 1778 (Frances join date), nearly 3 years into the war (started 18 April 1775)

Therein lies the answer. The British weren't going to be "crushing" anybody. They were not capable of imposing their will across such a vast and hostile enviroment, that was also very far from their metropole. For all it's brave men and stocks of cash it couldn't defeat the Americans. The Americans may or may not have succeeded without France, Spain and the Netherlands, perhaps they'd make a compromise peace or some such thing, but we'll never know. I would say the colonists allies contributed far more indirectly, than directly, by drawing British troops to other theaters, interfering with British communications, providing advisors, money etc. It was mostly American soldiers who won the big land battles against the British, Yorktown, Saratoga, Trenton, etc. The European coalition created to oppose Britain was extraordinarily benificial to the American war effort, but perhaps was not entirely indispensable.

Don't be a hypocrite. And I can't belive you are still arguing your point. Almost everyone on this thread disagrees with you, and you have no good and valid points to argue with.


Cheers,
Pikemen

Indeed, he's let the stereotypical British Redcoat > American Rebel go to his head. It is not so simple as that. The Americans were brave and capable soldiers, and their experience grew as they fought, and the British lost many of their tough "old hands" in stupid assaults that cost them more than they gained. I'd say that the two sides were about equal 3-4 years into the war. I estimate this on the similiar pattern observed in the Seven Years War where the Austrians and Prussians fought battles where training, discipline, experience, and rate of fire were all heavily tilted in the Prussians favour, but as the Prussian troops began to take casualties in ever inceasing numbers the gap narrowed, and some have concluded that the Austrian and Prussian armies were more or less equal by 1760-1761.

[NYG 5]

Then why couldn't they have crushed the Americans BEFORE France joined in? If Amerians where so stupid, ill-disaplined, and under bad command, Why couldnt have the British delt with the Americans before France, Spain, and the Netherlands joined in to help? You even said before that the Americans cold have won, it would have just caused more deaths without help from the French, Spain, and the NL. France Spain and the Netherlands entered the war after February 6, 1778 (Frances join date), nearly 3 years into the war (started 18 April 1775)



Don't be a hypocrite. And I can't belive you are still arguing your point. Almost everyone on this thread disagrees with you, and you have no good and valid points to argue with.

Cheers,
Pikemen

its because america was too big of a terrirtory to garrison and suppress effectively. small garrisons would be left in towns when the main force went out looking for terrorists, then the terrorists would fire on the garrison until the main forcer returned, then the terrorists would disappear amoung the populace and move on to the harrass the next garrison. it didn't help the british that every american family had a hunting rifle