Yes your right the 13 colonies were never represented in parliament, however they had effectively devolved government like Canada did, but Canada didn't have the banking of the French and Spanish, so didn't have a revolution., have ever Canada did have civil unrest and want more rights. I have no idea why the British parliament was unwilling to give the 13 colonies seats in Parliament, but we are also unwilling to give the British Overseas territories seats in Parliament and I have no idea why. You say he was sucking the 13 colonies dry and that he was cheap and didn't send help when the 13 colonies were being attacked by Indians, get in a the later post you talk about the French-Indian war where the British sent a huge army to defeat the French, Spanish and their Indian allies as part of the 7 years war. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colossus_computer Well Britain is right next to the USSR, we were very worried about what could happen in the North Sea if the USSR submarines attacked shipping and oil rigs. Plus the troops we had in Germany and the threat of a nuclear attack.A large percentage NATO's front line capabilities in Europe we European with much of the being Britain, mainly in naval terms. I don't drink beer or drive so I wouldn't know anything about that.
Well considering the hammering the UK took in WW2 we are in a rather strong position now. Of course the UK could be a lot stronger, have a bigger economy and more political power, but useless I wouldn't say that. The UK military is the second best in the world, that doesn't mean it could defeat China, India or Russia in a land war, it means we have overall capabilities they do not have in terms of power projection, training, equipment, experience and technology. No the UK couldn't have defeat Saddam's Iraq in 1991. The UK would have a very hard time transporting the troop numbers need to Burma to be able to defeat the Burmese army. If the UK really wanted to it could though with limited US help like the Falklands. France has never laid how, it has been defeated but never just gave up without a fight. The UK would defeat France without question, our army, navy and aircraft is better.
It was laughable that the Japanese navy could defeat the British navy in 1920 but 20 years later it happened. I realised 2 weeks ago that my strategy was wrong for trying to defeat the US navy, I was trying to out do the US navy across the board, rather than trying to be better than then US where the US is weakest in naval terms. It's lack of escorts and huge crew reqirement for it's carriers and less modern Ticon's and AB's. So I have scrapped the idea of building better carriers than the US, rather building carriers with half the aircraft but at a third of the cost and crew, so I can put more money into AAW and ASW escorts and missiles to defend my carriers. I am doing away with nuclear powered ships, but the submarines would still be nuclear powered. I would also uses the same hull design for my LHA's as the carriers to keep costs down. I have very little doubt that the UK even with a smaller budget and population could out do the US navy, as the UK can put more money into ships and doesn't need as much crew, and doesn't need a 1 million strong army. In strategic terms this is a huge advantage that the UK has. Does the USN have crew spare for this reserve fleet or would they all be on the active ships? Sure you can put the Iowa's back in overhaul and refit for years to get them back to sea and capable of doing shore bombardment if you want. Mean while I would be building 6 mobile artillary ships with 4 13 inch gun for the role of shore bombardment at less cost and less crew. His army was bigger, but better trained it was not.
Canada in the last half of the 18th Century was very different then the "Original Colonies" for several reasons. For one, they were still largely under military occupation, having been captured from the French just over a decade before the Revolution started. And to add to that, they were much more agrarian then the "American Colonies", having only 2 or 3 large cities, compared to the number in the 13 colonies. The rebellious colonies did try to get the Canadians into the Revolution (and invaded them), but it did no good. Either they were to pinned down by British Rule (especially those of French descent), or had no interest in joining the revolt (the Loyalists, many had come from England or Loyalist areas of the US). Canada was actually the area in North America where the UK was most secure, since it was a recent acquisition.
Dude. Just stop. Your stories are silly. UK can't beat USA on the seas, in the air, or on the ground. We could wipe your silly little island out in 3 weeks just like we did to Iraq in 1991. I understand you want to have country pride just like we do here in USA. I get that. But be serious - our Navy is literally 100x the size of yours. For every ship you have, we have 100. For every trained naval officer you have, we have 100. You seem to forget that the US Navy is the second largest air force on the planet, next only to the US Air Force. Our ability to put 10 aircraft carriers at a single location with over 2,000 naval fighter jets an 10,000 cruise missiles is something your country couldn't even do a tenth of.
The only thing that matters is naval power for the UK, the US needs to put resources into a huge aircraft, army and marines. This why the UK with a much smaller budget could have a navy as good as more better than the US navy. It would take you months in not year to build up the forces needed to invade the UK. Most likely the US would blockade British trade using it's navy. The US navy isn't 100 times bigger than the Royal navy otherwise you would need over 1,000 ships. I think it is fair to say the US navy is about 10 times bigger than the Royal Navy, with a much greater tonnage and capabilities than 10 times, but it is not 100 time bigger or better than the currently Royal Navy. You numbers are wrong, US carriers operation at anyone time is 4 with 2 on standby, so the US could at most put 6 in one place at the same time. However to do that they would need to go around the Drake Passage right past the Falklands. US carriers can carry at most 90 F/A-18's 90 x 6 is 540, not 2,000. Also where have you got this number of 10,000 cruiser missile from?
I think your need to look at the strategic facts the US is a huge country with huge border it has a huge army and air force because of this, so can't spned as much on the navy and marines. The UK on the other hand is a small country with small land border so has a very small army and air force. So the UK can put more of what it has into the navy and marines. So the UK with 30% less spending than the US could have a better navy and marines. Still the £400 billion is about 60% of UK government spending and 25% of UK GDP. I think you don't understand at all how much this difference matters to militaries, why China can't over take the US at sea isn't because of money, technology or training, but a matter of them have even bigger land borders to defend and as much air space to defend, so they can't put enough money into the navy to over take the US. The UK can, this is how Britain was able to defeat France, Holland and Spain in naval terms they needed huge armies and were fighting wars all the time, the British has small very well trained and highly equipped army back by the best trained and equipped navy in the world. Of course there are problems for the UK mainly Ireland not being part of the UK so the UK basically has a blind spot which can be used by the US, like it was by the Germans. Infact Ireland would need to be taken by the UK if it wanted any chance of winning that war, which would mean increasing the army at the cost of the navy. The second main problem is distance the US has operated huge fleets for years and conducted operations that the UK doesn't done since WW2. So I see a need for the UK to gain experience by invading another country otherseas and conducting the sort of operations the US does. I would he somewhat helpful if war with Brazil and Argentina again to test capabilities.
You are probably much closer to correct with 10x. I was just being dramatic to poke at you. As of this very day we have active: 11 carriers, 22 cruisers, 61 destroyers, 30 frigates, 2 LCS's, 53 nuclear armed submarines, 14 SSBN's, 4 SSGN's, 14 mine warfare ships, 34 amphibious ships, 122 surface warships, and 47 auxiliary ships. We also have six naval reserve fleets with 129 able warships (battleships, aircraft carriers, etc). 39 of those are kept in "Retention Status", meaning they have to be in the exact condition they were in when they went into service. Our Naval Air Force consists of 2,700 fighting aircraft and 50,000 non combat craft. Once the navy can maintain a temporary air facility, the US Air Force has 5,778 commissioned aircraft to work with the USN's 2,700 aircraft, as well as aircraft from the US Army, US Coast Guard, and US Marine Corps. USA has 6,000 Tomahawk missiles, which the US Navy reports is 50% of their cruise missile capability. USA also has five types of ballistic missiles able to reach England. Within our ballist arsenal are 9,900 nuclear warheads with 4,700 operationally deployed. There are 2,000 more in the responsive force, and over 3,000 extra warheads to increase the operational force in a time of war. Another 3,000 are in the reserves but scheduled to be dismantled as per the SORT treaty. We have 1,430,000 active servicemen and 851,000 reservists. We also have 108,000 "Other DoD Personnel" and 250,000 private troops working for Private Military Companies (PMC / Mercenaries) such as Blackwater USA, DynCorp (my old company), Northrop Grumman, Halliburton, and others. We also spend $780 billion on defense yearly; which is more than the next 10 countries combined (China is #2 at a mere $130B and Russia is 3rd at $70B). UK comes in fourth with a spend of a piddly $60B, about a 12th of what USA spends. Yeah, the UK war machine is a laughable joke compared to USA. We would squish you like a bug in no time flat.
I think you are the one who is a joke. I am not saying the current Royal Navy where the UK spends £36.3 billion on defense could defeat the US navy, what I am saying is if the UK increased it's defense spending too around £400 billion it could match what the US spends on it's navy and marine, even with a smaller budget because it doesn't need a huge army and air force to defend it's borders and air space, not including everything the US needs to do overseas. So you think the US would start a nuclear war with another nuclear power which has enough missiles on one sub to destroy every city on the east coast from thousand of miles away, with the same missiles as the US uses. So I very much doubt nuclear war is possible. It's easy quoting numbers but think of it in real life where you can't deploy you entire force to one place, how many ships could the US deploy to a naval battle in the North Atlantic or to taking the Falklands? Then it is just a matter of what would the UK need to defeat that force. I don't think the US could deploy even with their amazing replenish or sealift capabilities more than 3 carriers groups and maybe a division of marines to take the Falklands. The US would have the same problem trying to take Ascension and an even bigger problem when it was trying to take the UK, no land bases for aircraft, no replenishment near by for ships and not enough marines.
You say the most absolutely retarded things. How in the world do you think UK could spend the $800 billion we do? Your economy is a small sliver of ours. Our GDP is $16 trillion. Yours is $2.3 trillion. A quarter of your GDP is north sea oil. We would own that within minutes of going to war with you idiots. And since we aren't in any major wars with anyone else and nobody could invade a country that has 350 million people, 325 million small arms, and air national guards and army national guards in each state, we could easily put all 11 carrier groups in the area of UK and not worry one iota about leaving USA barren. With 11 carrier groups around your shores, you would be gone in hours. You think what Hitler did to your silly little island was ugly? Imagine what 1 million USA troops (we have 2.5 million at present) and 5,000 aircraft would do to you. Do yourself a favor and just drop it. Listening to you carry on about bad-ass UK is just a pathetic joke. You aren't a real player in the world stage. If we really thought you funny looking Monty-Python clowns were a threat we could overnight move our defense to $3 trillion or $4 trillion by using our credit and absolutely crush you. Nobody would give you people a few trillion in credit to go up against USA. They would laugh at you; like I am now.
I have said a number of times now where and why the US is weaker in strategic terms than the UK. All you do is come back with the same numbers and insulting the British. As for increasing your budget to 3 tillion dollars go ahead and bankrupt yourself if you want. The UK could increase defence spending to £400 billion but it would take atleast 20 years to rebalance the UK economy away from the NHS back to the Royal Navy as the main employer in the UK. It is all well and good you saying we have all this and all these troops, but how are you going to get more than 20% of it to the UK with out years and years of build up and planning.
We have thousands of ships in our merchant marine. DUH. I'm done with this silly argument. Your country is weak compared to USA, and you are silly to think the truth is anything but that. We kicked your arses every time we tried, and we could do it again. Period. Have a good life, sparky.
Since you are leaving the argument, you lose the argument. Thus I win the argument. No actually both times in the 13 colonies war of independence and the war of 1812-1815 we drew. The problem the British had was the French and Spanish in the 13 colonies war of independence. I will have a better life than you richard.
Whatever you say, stumpy. Wake me up when you lily lip Benny Hill's decide to attack USA. I want to watch that 15 minute fight on Comedy Central. I'm not just leaving the argument, I have decided to send you off to the bozo bin just so I don't have to see any more of your asinine drivel. I can't keep lowering myself to your level of infantile fantasy. You will beat me with experience.
Actually, that is not quite true. In 1781, you had the surrender of Lord Cornwallis at Yorktown, and the support of the citizens went from low to hostile against the war. Prime Minister North resigned his position, and there was a large political shift in the UK over the war. Increasingly, the English were becoming nervous with the large expenditure of both money and manpower to keep what was thought of as English Citizens oppressed and denying their rights. And in 1781, this came to a head. After Lord North resigned, a "Peace Party" took control of Parlaiment, and the House of Commons voted to end the conflict. Because even after the surrender of Lord Cornwallis, there were over 30,000 troops involved in simply holding down the cities of New York, Charleston and Savannah. In total there were over 80,000 troops serving in the "American Colonies" who were still trying to conduct the war and occupy cities (this is not counting the over 8,000 that surrendered at Yorktown). Of the over 170,000 British Sailors involved in the war, over 20,000 died (mostly from disease), and another 42,000 deserted. If the almost 30,000 Hessian (German) troops, almost 8,000 died (mostly from disease), and another 5,500 requested to remain in the Colonies after the war ended, so only a little over half of the invading force returned to Germany when it was over with. Lord North is remembered as the first Prime Minister to be removed from office after losing a vote of no confidence. There were even failed attempts to bring him to trial for many of his actions, which made the British subjects nervous because if things like the Intolerable acts could be done against British Citizens in the colonies, what would stop them from happening in areas of England? In fact, relations between the US and UK greatly improved in the decade after the war, causing many historians to shift the blame away from King George III (as most people believe), and actually towards Lord North, who was really leading the Government at the time. The war had been loosing support back in England for years,
Yes the British apart from WW2 have never really supported losing wars. This is both great and bad, like in WW1 by the end of 1914 support for the war was high in Britain after the Royal Navy had total control of the world's Oceans after the battle of the Falklands. After Jutland support dropped. Many people say the lack of a British victory at Jutland didn't matter, but it would have had a huge effect on moral. People like short quick victories, not long slogs. However the question must be asked would the British have been losing the war if they weren't also fighting the France and then the Spanish at the same time. Also didn't the French navy have some impact on what happened at Yorktown? The 13 colonies war of independence was a total failure of the whole British state, it caused huge changes. Including a resuffle of the government and changes to the Royal Navy and Army. However North was a scapegoat, like Chamberlain in WW2. Many of the problems in the colonies started before he came into office. Also parliament is never blamed for anything it is always the government fault or the Kings fault, but Parliament is at fault as well. My overall view is the 13 colonies couldn't have won without the French and Spanish, that the British should have moved closer to what the 13 colonies wanted and there should have been reforms of the Army and Navy with the lesson learned from the 7 years war. It was bad for France in the end with the monarchy be removed some years later. Then them supporting the rebellion in Ireland which in the end was the start of Irish independence movement.
Still more majestic shalt thou rise, More dreadful, from each foreign stroke; As the loud blast that tears the skies, Serves but to root thy native oak. "Rule, Britannia! rule the waves: "Britons never will be slaves."
Thee haughty tyrants ne'er shall tame: All their attempts to bend thee down, Will but arouse thy generous flame; But work their woe, and thy renown. "Rule, Britannia! rule the waves: "Britons never will be slaves."
Yes, I think they would have, it simply would have taken longer to accomplish. Not even counting the other conflicts (Spain, France, Netherlands, etc), fighting in the Colonies alone was not popular for several reasons. For one, the Colonists were British Citizens. And there was a large movement already in England that did not support their lack of representation in Parlaiment. As I stated, this had made many nervous because what would stop England from say removing representation from Scottland and doing the same thing? Then you had the large military expenditure, not just for material but in manpower. A huge percentage of the men of the UK were involved in trying to hold down these colonies, a war that even with the help of allies lasted for over 8 years. Without Spain and France, this would have dragged on even longer. And remember, these were British Citizens. That can't be emphicized anywhere near enough. Colonel Washington was a hero in the French-Indian Wars, and Dr. Franklin was a widely respected scientist, and known as a loyal Subject of the Empire and his son was the Governor of New Jersey. When these prominent individuals endorsed Independence and Seperation from the Crown, it started to make a lot of people re-examine how the Colonies had been treated. In the Colonies, Loyalist support at the beginning was estimated to be around 70-75%, but by 1781 this had erroded to less then 20%. France did not even become a major participant until 1778, 3 years after the revolt started. Spain did not get involved until 1779. By this time the support of the Loyalists had fallen below 50%, and nothing would have cause those numbers to rise short of a somplete change in the way the Colonies were handled, including full representation in Parlaiment and full pardons for those involved in the Revolt (along the lines of the later Reconstruction after the US Civil War). But this would never have happened, so the war would have continued with or without French and Spanish support. As the Revolution wore on, Loyalist support degraded under the increasingly harsh occupations and use of "Foreign Soldiers" being inflicted upon British Citizens. Also you had support degrade back in England because of the same reasons. The movement against Lord North was already in place, as was seen in the attempts and removals of many of the "Intolerable Acts" and other punitive actions that had been taken against the Colonies. Loosing the war was simply the final straw, but it was not something that simply popped up after the Surrender of General Cornwallis. You could probably add on a few more years to the length without the support of France and Spain, but the end was predictable once the Declaration of Independence was signed unanimously and the reaction was not an attempt to reconcile the differences but invasion. Myself, I see a lot of key actions in history snowballed from a handfull of bad decisions. Vietnam (the French-Indochina War) would not have been needed if the US had simply told France to work with Uncle Ho to give Vietnam their independence. And in the Colonies, if the UK had simply taken seriously the need to give the colonies representation. But once those decisions were made and then attempts made to enforce them, the outcome was inevitable. Even if the UK had won that war, the loyalist support was erroded forever, and another revolt would have happened within another decade, and Britan would have had to crack down even harder. Once support falls below 50%, increasing oppression would have been the only solution, and I don't think England would have tolerated that for very long.
Britain could never have held on to the American colonies because of the character of the Americans. Britain could never have stopped perpetual insurrection regardless of what France, Spain and Holland did. Britain wanted to hem in the growth of the American colonies at the Appalachian Mountains. Americans would never have tolerated that state of affairs because the colonists wanted land so they could be beholden to no man. George Washington was not a great military man. But he wouldn't give up. In that sense he was like Vo Nguyen Giap.
I think it could have held on, if only they had agreed to representation, either in Parlaiment or in a semi-autonomous Congress in the colonies. But they forgot that the Colonialists were also British citizens, and had the same stubborness that they themselves had. Essentially, they were trying to fight themselves.
If the British had defeated the Americans in the Revolutionary War, they would have treated the revolutionaries brutally, and imposed crippling taxes on all of the Colonies in order to finance Britain's North American wars. That's what triggered the unrest leading to the Revolution in the first place. All of these actions would have engendered hostility that would have forced the British to fight an endless series of insurrections. The character of the Americans was formed initially in the way the British permitted chartered colonies to be formed in the first place. That created autonomy and put the American character on a unique trajectory of development.
Yes they were British citizens who allied with the French and Spanish against the British crown and parliament, any chnace for a negotiated settlement was gone. In a long war without the French and Spanish, the British could have been able to move their position after a government reshuffle. The British wouldn't have been forced by the wars with France and Spain to accept peace and independence for the 13 colonies. The end result would have been American independence at a later date after the British give more powers to the coninental government. There was no rebellions in Britain, until the French started one in Ireland. The French supported the US independence movement from the start, the Spanish came in later. The fact is if you don't rebel the government doesn't take away your rights and freedoms, the British had representation in their parliament. I agree with you the British couldn't have stopped the unrest and would have ended up giving in along the line. However French military support was vital to the US military victory.
The British could have held them if the military victories had started coming and the Americans not been supported by the French. The majority of people wanted to say with Britain, until the war started and the British stated losing. As for the character of the Americans they still needed weapons and money, which they got by stealing from the British or the French. I agree British couldn't have stopped the unrest, but they would have been in a better position to move their position closer to what the 13 colonies wanted. Do you know why the British didn't want the "growth" of the American colonies because it would have meant another war with Native Americans, more troops and government spending. As the French and Spanish had territory west of their, it could have meant war with them.
