If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Telegraph)   George Washington named Britain's greatest ever foe   (telegraph.co.uk) divider line 219
    More: Hero, George Washington, Britain, Irish Republican Army, University of York, Napoleon Bonaparte, British Forces, secret ballots, George Washington named  
•       •       •

17855 clicks; posted to Main » on 15 Apr 2012 at 3:23 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



219 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-04-15 08:30:05 AM

UCFRoadWarrior: batcookie: Oh how we forget the flaws of our forefathers... Washington was one of the worst racists of all the founding fathers. He wouldn't even let African-Americans enlist in the continental army to fight for American independence. He'd rather have risked losing than acknowledge that they were people. This didn't apply to those who were already serving, mind you, because in the north there were a good number that were already enlisted... but when Washington made his "no negro" rule, he and the other southern delegates actually wanted to throw out the African-Americans that were already in the army, and they would have if the delegates from the north hadn't gotten PISSED about them disrespecting these men who were "fighting bravely." Finally Washington agreed to let the ones who were already serving stay, probably to avoid starting a civil war before we were even done with the revolution yet. All in all, like so many of the founding fathers, not a very cool guy when you look at him without the red, white and blue goggles.

First: At the time Washington led the Continental Army, he, and everyone else in America at the time...were British subjects. And, nowhere did the British use blacks in their military...outside of being servants. Washington was no more racist than any other colonial

Second: Quite a lot of Northerners had slaves at the time. So, this "Southern Bigot" argument is kinda lame. You will find that only a small few wanted blacks in the Continental Army


First: Name Seymour Burr ring a bell? No? How about Lord Dunmore? After he proclaimed that any black loyalists fighting for the British would be freed, the number of soldiers of African decent shot up in the British ranks. Obviously not enough for them to win, but... certainly enough to counter your "there were no black people fighting for the British" nonsense. There were WAY more black red coats than there were in the Continental army. And Washington was extremely racist. Not to say the others weren't, but saying he's not that bad because EVERYONE did it is like (Godwin in 3...2...) defending Herman Goering because so many OTHER people were nazis too.

Second: Ratio and proportion, my friend. When 90% of the country is okay with slavery, but 99% of the abolitionists live in the north.... now I'm pulling the actual numbers out of my ass, but you see where I'm going here. If it weren't for the northern delegates, there would have been NO voice of reason.
 
2012-04-15 08:32:20 AM

Leon_Michiel: TheJoe03: He also set the tone for the eventual political revolutions as well as independence movements. The affect he had on Europe alone is staggering and led to the modern era. Not only did it lead to more democratic societies in Europe (America was the first to succeed in making an enlightenment based nation), but it also led to the US overtaking European nations as the most powerful force in the world. England dropped the ball when they lost to the US, and no matter how they wish to minimize the Revolutionary War, it took another century or so for another British colony to gain independence.

... The Dutch would like to have a word with you about setting the tone for political revolutions and independence movements.

But yeah, the guy made his mark but proclaiming him to be some sort of 18th century Jesus-figure might be a bit much, don't you think?

I don't know but the idea of a planter taking on and defeating the worlds only super power is awesome!
 
2012-04-15 08:38:43 AM

batcookie: UCFRoadWarrior: batcookie: Oh how we forget the flaws of our forefathers... Washington was one of the worst racists of all the founding fathers. He wouldn't even let African-Americans enlist in the continental army to fight for American independence. He'd rather have risked losing than acknowledge that they were people. This didn't apply to those who were already serving, mind you, because in the north there were a good number that were already enlisted... but when Washington made his "no negro" rule, he and the other southern delegates actually wanted to throw out the African-Americans that were already in the army, and they would have if the delegates from the north hadn't gotten PISSED about them disrespecting these men who were "fighting bravely." Finally Washington agreed to let the ones who were already serving stay, probably to avoid starting a civil war before we were even done with the revolution yet. All in all, like so many of the founding fathers, not a very cool guy when you look at him without the red, white and blue goggles.

First: At the time Washington led the Continental Army, he, and everyone else in America at the time...were British subjects. And, nowhere did the British use blacks in their military...outside of being servants. Washington was no more racist than any other colonial

Second: Quite a lot of Northerners had slaves at the time. So, this "Southern Bigot" argument is kinda lame. You will find that only a small few wanted blacks in the Continental Army

First: Name Seymour Burr ring a bell? No? How about Lord Dunmore? After he proclaimed that any black. loyalists fighting for the British would be freed, the number of soldiers of African decent shot up in the British ranks. Obviously not enough for them to win, but... certainly enough to counter your "there were no black people fighting for the British" nonsense. There were WAY more black red coats than there were in the Continental army. And Washington was extremely racist. Not to ...


Applying modern values to a historical figure? Don't! Even those who hated slavery then weren't loving the blacks. Heck they came up with the idea of send them back.
 
2012-04-15 08:38:46 AM
ecx.images-amazon.com

White people problems.
 
2012-04-15 08:40:54 AM

RobertBruce: DamnYankees: GAT_00: I don't know about that. He tried to lead one, they just couldn't get across the Channel. Otherwise that study is saying that all modern political leaders don't count, which really doesn't make sense.

Eh, they didn't even really try to get across the channel. No serious attempt was ever made to invade Britain Operation Sealion existed on paper, but I don't think they ever mobilized for it at all.

They couldn't figure out how to get the tanks across.


Duh, use the Chunnel.
 
2012-04-15 08:43:35 AM

batcookie: After he proclaimed that any black loyalists fighting for the British would be freed, the number of soldiers of African decent shot up in the British ranks.


One wonders, and I am sure there is a scholarly answer to this but I am not going to the trouble of research right now, how much this actually helped the Continental cause? A decent percentage of the slave holding South had at least loyalist sympathies if not open Loyalists. By promising emancipation in exchange for service, the British played straight into the fears of full emancipation in the Colonies.

Washington's own racism, and I agree with you that he was, aside there is no way he could take any other position than the one he did and keep the South from breaking away and returning to the Crown. The South simply would not stand for anything that even hinted at freeing blacks.

/Honestly, the Civil War might have well been written on an invitation (You are cordially invited to bitter, bloody war because we are split in the issue of Slavery!), because it was set in motion long before there was even the dream of the United States.
 
2012-04-15 08:53:11 AM

thunderbird8804: "These are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as freedom should not be highly rated. Britain, with an army to enforce her tyranny, has declared that she has a right (not only to tax) but "to bind us in all cases whatsoever" and if being bound in that manner, is not slavery, then is there not such a thing as slavery upon earth. Even the expression is impious; for so unlimited a power can belong only to God."

/A greater foe of monarchy than Washington could have ever hoped to be


The power to enslave belongs to God? Really? The first European Americans truly were smoking the good shiat when it came to 'do as I say not as I do.'
 
2012-04-15 08:59:37 AM

NeauxFear: NeauxFear: batcookie: Oh how we forget the flaws of our forefathers... Washington was one of the worst racists of all the founding fathers. He wouldn't even let African-Americans enlist in the continental army to fight for American independence. He'd rather have risked losing than acknowledge that they were people. This didn't apply to those who were already serving, mind you, because in the north there were a good number that were already enlisted... but when Washington made his "no negro" rule, he and the other southern delegates actually wanted to throw out the African-Americans that were already in the army, and they would have if the delegates from the north hadn't gotten PISSED about them disrespecting these men who were "fighting bravely." Finally Washington agreed to let the ones who were already serving stay, probably to avoid starting a civil war before we were even done with the revolution yet. All in all, like so many of the founding fathers, not a very cool guy when you look at him without the red, white and blue goggles.

Hey, nobody's perfect.

/Fun fact: Denzel Washington is from Mount Vernon.
//Mount Vernon, NY.

AND...Washington won, therefore your argument is invalid. But like I said, nobody's perfect. Thomas Jefferson was a rapist, John Brown was a raving messianic lunatic, Andrew Jackson was a genocidal bigamist, and Alexander Hamilton was an arugula-eating elitist of the first order. And I won't even get into JFK. They all contributed to the success of the American experiment, though, and their contributions pretty much outweigh their crimes and personal shortcomings.


I don't know about that. I guess it's the 'good men don't make good leaders/look at Jimmy Carter's treatment' argument, though? You don't want good men in office, you want dudes who get the job done. Like, this nation forgives its Hitlers because they got the job done.

Anyway, John Brown was publically executed; and Alexander Hamilton -- whose brother could pass as black, and was hassled as such on more than one occassion -- was privately executed before he could do any damage as president.

/John Brown's craziness was southern propaganda
//If Nat Turner was insane, then all slaves were insane
 
2012-04-15 09:02:28 AM

batcookie: UCFRoadWarrior:
...
Second: Quite a lot of Northerners had slaves at the time. So, this "Southern Bigot" argument is kinda lame. You will find that only a small few wanted blacks in the Continental Army
...
Second: Ratio and proportion, my friend. When 90% of the country is okay with slavery, but 99% of the abolitionists live in the north.... now I'm pulling the actual numbers out of my ass, but you see where I'm going here. If it weren't for the northern delegates, there would have been NO voice of reason.


I have to agree. History has to be seen in context. I have foolishly gotten into "discussions" about the Civil War here in Dixie, and let me tell you, Southerners will go to great lengths to demonize Yankees and abolitionists. They will give you the economic argument, the states' rights argument, and the fact that the free states were still pretty racist as excuses, but ultimately the Southern army had rich officers leading poor white trash to save slavery.
 
2012-04-15 09:02:40 AM
Ridiculous. Napoleon and Hitler (or whatever Nazi general that genuinely threatened Britain's freedom.)
 
2012-04-15 09:03:04 AM

batcookie: Oh how we forget the flaws of our forefathers... Washington was one of the worst racists of all the founding fathers.


Yes, the only Founding Father to will his slaves free was "one of the worst racists"...
 
2012-04-15 09:03:59 AM

gh0strid3r: Also a genocidal racist. The Iroquois call him The Town Destroyer because he marched his army through Iroquois lands killing every Indian he could find and burning their towns and crops because they honored their treaty with the British and didn't take America's side during the Revolution, even though they were sympathetic to the American cause.

Some hero...


.
.
So what you are telling us is that he chose to kill people who wanted to kill him.
 
2012-04-15 09:10:50 AM

ExperianScaresCthulhu: NeauxFear: NeauxFear: batcookie: Oh how we forget the flaws of our forefathers... Washington was one of the worst racists of all the founding fathers. He wouldn't even let African-Americans enlist in the continental army to fight for American independence. He'd rather have risked losing than acknowledge that they were people. This didn't apply to those who were already serving, mind you, because in the north there were a good number that were already enlisted... but when Washington made his "no negro" rule, he and the other southern delegates actually wanted to throw out the African-Americans that were already in the army, and they would have if the delegates from the north hadn't gotten PISSED about them disrespecting these men who were "fighting bravely." Finally Washington agreed to let the ones who were already serving stay, probably to avoid starting a civil war before we were even done with the revolution yet. All in all, like so many of the founding fathers, not a very cool guy when you look at him without the red, white and blue goggles.

Hey, nobody's perfect.

/Fun fact: Denzel Washington is from Mount Vernon.
//Mount Vernon, NY.

AND...Washington won, therefore your argument is invalid. But like I said, nobody's perfect. Thomas Jefferson was a rapist, John Brown was a raving messianic lunatic, Andrew Jackson was a genocidal bigamist, and Alexander Hamilton was an arugula-eating elitist of the first order. And I won't even get into JFK. They all contributed to the success of the American experiment, though, and their contributions pretty much outweigh their crimes and personal shortcomings.

I don't know about that. I guess it's the 'good men don't make good leaders/look at Jimmy Carter's treatment' argument, though? You don't want good men in office, you want dudes who get the job done. Like, this nation forgives its Hitlers because they got the job done.

Anyway, John Brown was publically executed; and Alexander Hamilton -- whose brother could pass as ...


John Brown murdered settlers in Kansas and planned open revolt. That alone is enough to hang the nut job
 
2012-04-15 09:11:08 AM

Mid_mo_mad_man: I don't know but the idea of a planter taking on and defeating the worlds only super power is awesome!


That would have been the 19th century, in the 18th century the British Empire was still very much contested.

Funny though, how that happened after the American War of Independence. You would have thought George Washington and the Founding Discipels had marked the end of the British Empire, based on earlier posts...

But yeah, planters are so awesome. I can just imagine how hard-toiling Washington, bending over his fields to plant his beloved crops, hears the call of arms and stands upright. Sweaping the sweat of his forehead with his dirt-black hands, he explains to his fellow black planters that he'll be right back. Picking up his tomahawk and musket, he charges the British at Yorktown carrying the US flag and wins the war. He wonders why the French came so late.
 
2012-04-15 09:12:03 AM

TheJoe03: According to the criteria, it is hard to argue against Washington. For all his faults (his racism, for one), he is definitely one of the most important figures in all of world history. The precedent he set for the executive branch on its own has had a very positive effect on the development of the United States and the relative freedom we have compared to most of the world. He also set the tone for the eventual political revolutions as well as independence movements. The affect he had on Europe alone is staggering and led to the modern era. Not only did it lead to more democratic societies in Europe (America was the first to succeed in making an enlightenment based nation), but it also led to the US overtaking European nations as the most powerful force in the world. England dropped the ball when they lost to the US, and no matter how they wish to minimize the Revolutionary War, it took another century or so for another British colony to gain independence.


Isn't it pretty easy to overtake somebody who has 'more important things to worry about'? One of the US's biggest wars -- that French Indian mess -- is just a blip on Europe's radar. Europe fighting itself coupled with US early isolationism is what allowed the US to stick a flag on top of other people's destructive efforts, right?

As for democracy ............................... what happened in the Western Hemisphere (and Africa) is a tale of what happens when democracy is only good for white folks, everyone else has to sit down and shut up, right?

/If you're an American, remember all those stories about Russian propaganda and Nazi youth propaganda?
//How do we deal with the shoe being on the other foot?
 
2012-04-15 09:17:44 AM
Abraham Lincoln used to tell a joke that in Britain, they would keep pictures of Washington in the outhouse, "because nothing makes an Englishman shiat faster than General Washington"
 
2012-04-15 09:18:32 AM

sloughtown4ever: from TFA, as people's reading comprehension is farking terrible...

"To qualify, each commander had to come from the 17th century onwards - the period covered by the museum's collection - and had to have led an army in the field against the British, thus excluding political enemies, like Adolf Hitler."

As someone said earlier, naval battles are out which is a shame.


with the exclusion of naval battles, they're making nice with Spain, and with the exclusion of political enemies, they're making nice with other Europeans..... in the same way that that World's Deadliest Warrior show had the US 'make nice' with the Russians and the Israelis in the conclusions of their simulated battles?
 
2012-04-15 09:20:39 AM

Leon_Michiel: Mid_mo_mad_man: I don't know but the idea of a planter taking on and defeating the worlds only super power is awesome!

That would have been the 19th century, in the 18th century the British Empire was still very much contested.

Funny though, how that happened after the American War of Independence. You would have thought George Washington and the Founding Discipels had marked the end of the British Empire, based on earlier posts...

But yeah, planters are so awesome. I can just imagine how hard-toiling Washington, bending over his fields to plant his beloved crops, hears the call of arms and stands upright. Sweaping the sweat of his forehead with his dirt-black hands, he explains to his fellow black planters that he'll be right back. Picking up his tomahawk and musket, he charges the British at Yorktown carrying the US flag and wins the war. He wonders why the French came so late.


Someone had to run the plantations! The British was the worlds superpower following the French & Indian war. Also called the seven year war.
 
2012-04-15 09:21:44 AM
Fist bump!
 
2012-04-15 09:23:23 AM

NDP2: www.mahatmagandhionline.com

Where did he finish?


He's wasn't really a commander. He was more of a moral force and an icon who killed the Brits with kindness.
 
2012-04-15 09:26:18 AM

DamnYankees: Napolean?


You mean that ice cream with chocolate vanilla and strawberry? I love that stuff!
 
2012-04-15 09:31:33 AM

MAYORBOB: NDP2: [www.mahatmagandhionline.com image 300x427]

Where did he finish?

He's wasn't really a commander. He was more of a moral force and an icon who killed the Brits with kindness.


Should have been hung. The Indian people are not better off with self rule
 
2012-04-15 09:47:21 AM
musingsfrombagend.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-04-15 09:51:07 AM

MAYORBOB: NDP2: [www.mahatmagandhionline.com image 300x427]

Where did he finish?

He's wasn't really a commander. He was more of a moral force and an icon who killed the Brits with kindness.


Also if you were thinking of giving to him the award should be handed to the British Press instead.
 
2012-04-15 09:53:36 AM

Mid_mo_mad_man: MAYORBOB: NDP2: [www.mahatmagandhionline.com image 300x427]

Where did he finish?

He's wasn't really a commander. He was more of a moral force and an icon who killed the Brits with kindness.

Should have been hung. The Indian people are not better off with self rule


That's a really idiotic thing to say, especially for an American. I could very easily say the same thing about most of the states south of the Mason-Dixon line, yet the right of self determination is enshrined in our constitution, so being patriotic - I won't.
 
2012-04-15 09:55:59 AM

KingoftheCheese: Was dental hygiene a contender for greatest foe at all?


Wanted someone to post a pic of Tooth Decay from south park with a Disapproves cap
\guess this is the best i got
 
2012-04-15 09:57:08 AM
Mid_mo_mad_man:Someone had to run the plantations!

The British was the worlds superpower following the French & Indian war. Also called the seven year war.


What about the French, Prussians, even the Ottomans and Russians and let's not forget the Chinese? The British were not there yet, although they were getting closer. When France still has the capacity to do something like the French Revolution and Napoleonic Wars, you can't really call Britain the leading super power yet. They were still rivaled until they gained the advantage of industrialisation in the 19th century.

I know how cool it must sound for 'just a planter' to defeat the 'world's super power' but the truth is it was a very close call to begin with and to be honest, the British really couldn't be arsed with the colonies. If anything the US independence war was a power grab by a land-owning class that was then on-top of the local political food chain. Sure, the enlightment rhetoric sounds nice enough though.
 
2012-04-15 09:59:42 AM
I would've gone with the black plague.
 
2012-04-15 09:59:48 AM
FTFA:

To qualify, each commander had to come from the 17th century onwards - the period covered by the museum's collection - and had to have led an army in the field against the British, thus excluding political enemies, like Adolf Hitler

Well, yeah, that would limit the entries.

The museum selected the format - of an online poll followed by a closed vote - to filter out tactical voting, reducing the risk that a candidate could win thanks to orchestrated "block" voting - along national lines - rather than on the specific criteria of their performance in battle against the British. The eventual winner, George Washington, came fourth in the online poll, with less than two per cent of the vote.

Oh. Wow. Can't believe this got greenlit.

hot92and100.com
 
2012-04-15 10:02:08 AM

GAT_00: Who else is going to cross a river and kill you in your sleep on Christmas?


Good point, except it was Hessian mercenaries he killed that night.
 
2012-04-15 10:04:51 AM

TwistedFark: Mid_mo_mad_man: MAYORBOB: NDP2: [www.mahatmagandhionline.com image 300x427]

Where did he finish?

He's wasn't really a commander. He was more of a moral force and an icon who killed the Brits with kindness.

Should have been hung. The Indian people are not better off with self rule

That's a really idiotic thing to say, especially for an American. I could very easily say the same thing about most of the states south of the Mason-Dixon line, yet the right of self determination is enshrined in our constitution, so being patriotic - I won't.


If the recent past has proved anything some people need a strong ruler to keep them in line and not killing each other. IE Iraq or former yugoslavia Btw my family did have some that were hung because of there fighting for the south.
 
2012-04-15 10:06:45 AM
27.media.tumblr.com
And of course, who can forget the time Washington fought that Bengal tiger. On a boat. In a hurricane.
 
2012-04-15 10:25:09 AM
When did America attack the UK? Tell you what: since you limeys are holding a grudge, you can have Snooky and the Kardashians as loot.
 
2012-04-15 10:30:07 AM

praxis44241: When did America attack the UK? Tell you what: since you limeys are holding a grudge, you can have Snooky and the Kardashians as loot.


Right after the civil war there was talk of seizing Canada Belize and other british territory in the new world as payment for the Alabama lisses
 
2012-04-15 10:34:19 AM
I would've thought modern dentistry would have won.
 
2012-04-15 10:35:22 AM

MAYORBOB: NDP2: [www.mahatmagandhionline.com image 300x427]

Where did he finish?

He's wasn't really a commander. He was more of a moral force and an icon who killed the Brits with kindness.


And following independence, India's Hindus and Muslims engaged in a communal slaughter that made the American Civil War look like a garden party.

Ghandi is responsible for killing more Indians than the Brits ever hoped to be.
 
2012-04-15 10:41:08 AM
 
2012-04-15 10:44:11 AM

Mouser: MAYORBOB: NDP2: [www.mahatmagandhionline.com image 300x427]

Where did he finish?

He's wasn't really a commander. He was more of a moral force and an icon who killed the Brits with kindness.

And following independence, India's Hindus and Muslims engaged in a communal slaughter that made the American Civil War look like a garden party.

Ghandi is responsible for killing more Indians than the Brits ever hoped to be.


Point I made earlier. Some people can't handle self rule. I'm looking at u most of Africa.
 
2012-04-15 10:47:33 AM
I heard that motherfarker had like thirty goddamn dicks.
 
2012-04-15 10:47:54 AM

Mouser: MAYORBOB: NDP2: [www.mahatmagandhionline.com image 300x427]

Where did he finish?

He's wasn't really a commander. He was more of a moral force and an icon who killed the Brits with kindness.

And following independence, India's Hindus and Muslims engaged in a communal slaughter that made the American Civil War look like a garden party.

Ghandi is responsible for killing more Indians than the Brits ever hoped to be.


So we should blame GW for the American Civil War too? Not too far-fetched actually
 
2012-04-15 10:52:14 AM
Had this been the quest to find Canada's worst enemy general the winner would have been Sir Douglas Haig. No one killed more Canadians he used them as cannon fodder simply because they were not British
 
2012-04-15 10:52:34 AM

Mid_mo_mad_man: Mouser: MAYORBOB: NDP2: [www.mahatmagandhionline.com image 300x427]

Where did he finish?

He's wasn't really a commander. He was more of a moral force and an icon who killed the Brits with kindness.

And following independence, India's Hindus and Muslims engaged in a communal slaughter that made the American Civil War look like a garden party.

Ghandi is responsible for killing more Indians than the Brits ever hoped to be.

Point I made earlier. Some people can't handle self rule. I'm looking at u most of Africa.


Wow, this thread went from GW's military career to FarkRacistApology thread in less than twelve parsecs.
 
2012-04-15 10:54:36 AM

TwistedFark: Mid_mo_mad_man: MAYORBOB: NDP2: [www.mahatmagandhionline.com image 300x427]

Where did he finish?

He's wasn't really a commander. He was more of a moral force and an icon who killed the Brits with kindness.

Should have been hung. The Indian people are not better off with self rule

That's a really idiotic thing to say, especially for an American. I could very easily say the same thing about most of the states south of the Mason-Dixon line, yet the right of self determination is enshrined in our constitution, so being patriotic - I won't.


South of the Mason Dixon? seriously? I've spent a lot of time in states north and south of that "line." I'd take the people south of the line any day, northerners are still a bunch of stuck up assholes. I mean come on, Upstate NY(NYC gets a pass)? New Jersey? Pennsylvania? If I never see those states again I'll be ecstatic.

/border state resident
//travels the US a lot for work.
 
2012-04-15 10:59:15 AM
ecx.images-amazon.com

I read this a year ago and it is a 1000+ page masterpiece. I learned a ton about colonial life from it along with more about the birth of American politics that really gave me a better sense of where we came from. Couldn't put it down.
 
2012-04-15 11:04:53 AM

RobertBruce: DamnYankees: GAT_00: I don't know about that. He tried to lead one, they just couldn't get across the Channel. Otherwise that study is saying that all modern political leaders don't count, which really doesn't make sense.

Eh, they didn't even really try to get across the channel. No serious attempt was ever made to invade Britain Operation Sealion existed on paper, but I don't think they ever mobilized for it at all.

They couldn't figure out how to get the tanks across.


Plus, Hitler was a military disaster. As he increased his personal involvement things got worse.
 
2012-04-15 11:05:09 AM

johndbandit: [farm8.staticflickr.com image 381x500]


Lol, that's what I was thinking.
 
2012-04-15 11:10:51 AM
ultimatejamesbond.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-04-15 11:14:24 AM

herrDrFarkenstein: So we should blame GW for the American Civil War too? Not too far-fetched actually


Nop.

Jefferson, Adams and Madison.
 
2012-04-15 11:16:40 AM
I hate to interupt all you fools, but William Duke of Normandy was the greatest foe to the Brits OF ALL TIMNES
 
2012-04-15 11:21:02 AM
Daniel Morgan is a close second.

www.virginia-sar.org

From Wikipedia:

"He led this outstanding group of marksmen nicknamed "Morgan's Riflemen." What set Morgans Riflemen apart from other companies was the technology they had with their rifles. They had rifled barrels with thin walls and curved grooves inside the barrels which made them light and much more accurate than the British muskets. Morgan used this advantage to initiate guerrilla tactics by which he first killed the Indian guides the British used to find their way through the rugged terrain and also to kill the British officers that led the troops. While this tactic was viewed as dishonorable by the British elites, it was in fact an extremely effective method that created chaos and discord for the British Army."
 
Displayed 50 of 219 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report