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  
•       •       •

17857 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
 
2012-04-14 10:34:28 PM
I bet the French did this.
 
2012-04-14 10:45:23 PM
Who else is going to cross a river and kill you in your sleep on Christmas?
 
2012-04-14 10:48:04 PM
Plus
www.viceland.com
 
2012-04-14 10:48:25 PM
*steps in*

*posts quizzical dog pic*

*Godwins thread*

*exits*
 
2012-04-14 10:48:53 PM
George Washington has been named as the greatest foe ever faced by the British.

To qualify, each commander had to come from the 17th century onwards


This contest fails.

However, USA! USA! USA!
 
2012-04-14 10:53:36 PM

toddalmighty: *steps in*

*posts quizzical dog pic*

*Godwins thread*

*exits*

"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. "

 
2012-04-14 11:06:44 PM

violentsalvation: toddalmighty: *steps in*

*posts quizzical dog pic*

*Godwins thread*

*exits*

"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. "


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.
 
2012-04-14 11:06:48 PM
Napolean?
 
2012-04-14 11:08:05 PM

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.
 
2012-04-14 11:11:13 PM

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.
 
2012-04-14 11:21:03 PM

Relatively Obscure: George Washington has been named as the greatest foe ever faced by the British.

To qualify, each commander had to come from the 17th century onwards

This contest fails.

However, USA! USA! USA!


.

.

Yeah.

Also - National Army Museum So they didn't consider naval commanders & battles, so that list utterly fails.
 
2012-04-14 11:25:04 PM

GAT_00: violentsalvation: toddalmighty: *steps in*

*posts quizzical dog pic*

*Godwins thread*

*exits*

"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. "

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.


I am pretty sure he left that planning up to Erich Raeder who was already convinced it was entirely impossible within Hitler's desired timeframe, especially with the British attacking everything the Nazi's tried to set up for an invasion. So they went east.

If you ever get a chance and if you haven't read it, this book is fascinating. It goes well with Berlin Diary and is more oral than rise and fall.
 
2012-04-14 11:27:37 PM

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


It was a brilliant military move. No doubt that it helped the rebellion win the war. It was the biggest morale booster to the rag-tag Army that we had back then.

/Those German farks had it comin
 
2012-04-14 11:49:48 PM
i41.tinypic.com


One of the most important things he did...

He recruited regulars and assigned Baron and General Friedrich von Steuben, a veteran of the Prussian general staff, to train them.

And he made booze. Wish we had anyone even close to him today.
 
2012-04-14 11:52:28 PM

violentsalvation: If you ever get a chance and if you haven't read it, this book is fascinating. It goes well with Berlin Diary and is more oral than rise and fall.


I have that and read it MANY years ago. Great book.

/CSB - People on the bus tend to leave you alone when you are reading something with a swastika on the cover.
 
2012-04-14 11:54:14 PM

toddalmighty: *steps in*

*posts quizzical dog pic*

*Godwins thread*

*exits*


what about gandhi?? Didnt the brits loose more slaves, I mean citizens when they lost india??
 
2012-04-14 11:59:24 PM
David Lister.
 
2012-04-15 12:19:45 AM
He loved the children.

But not the British children.
 
2012-04-15 12:26:28 AM

The Onanist: violentsalvation: If you ever get a chance and if you haven't read it, this book is fascinating. It goes well with Berlin Diary and is more oral than rise and fall.

I have that and read it MANY years ago. Great book.

/CSB - People on the bus tend to leave you alone when you are reading something with a swastika on the cover.


That book and other books by Shirer are just so good. I know rise and fall has been analyzed and criticized since it was first written but Shirer saw so much first hand, and he took part in so many things, like the first world news round up. Seeing things from his perspective and how he tells it is just so interesting. We get histories from civilians and holocaust survivors and soldiers and not to put him above any of those, but his perspective is so unique.
 
2012-04-15 12:26:54 AM
Was dental hygiene a contender for greatest foe at all?
 
2012-04-15 01:47:47 AM

The Onanist: /CSB - People on the bus tend to leave you alone when you are reading something with a swastika on the cover.


My tall black friend carries around a large black hardback book. It looks a LOT like a bible. People avoid him like the plague. They are so worried that he try to bring the word of jesus to them.

It is hilarious to watch in action.
 
2012-04-15 02:14:27 AM
'murika

27.media.tumblr.com
 
2012-04-15 03:34:27 AM

namatad: The Onanist: /CSB - People on the bus tend to leave you alone when you are reading something with a swastika on the cover.

My tall black friend carries around a large black hardback book. It looks a LOT like a bible. People avoid him like the plague. They are so worried that he try to bring the word of jesus to them.

It is hilarious to watch in action.


They are avoiding him because he is a black. They don't want to get raped on. That's why I always carry a basketball when I have to use public transportation. Great distraction.
 
2012-04-15 03:35:32 AM
 
2012-04-15 03:39:50 AM

namatad: what about gandhi?? Didnt the brits loose more slaves, I mean citizens when they lost india??


Well, by virtue of his method of resistance, Gandhi never led an army in the field against the British -- the main criterion used to define "foe" for the purposes of the contest. That's also why Hitler was ineligible for this contest.
 
2012-04-15 03:44:13 AM
WHAT? No General Sir Douglas Haig? I could have assembled a decision machine out of wooden planks and twine that would have made more sense than this military pylon.
 
2012-04-15 03:46:54 AM
"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
 
2012-04-15 03:50:48 AM
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.
 
2012-04-15 03:52:56 AM
3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-04-15 03:53:56 AM

FishyFred: 'murika

[27.media.tumblr.com image 500x437]


It's not three wolves moon shirt, but it'll do.
 
2012-04-15 03:56:34 AM

violentsalvation: toddalmighty: *steps in*

*posts quizzical dog pic*

*Godwins thread*

*exits*

"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. "


Even without that stipulation, Hitler lost - so not so great a foe.
 
2012-04-15 04:01:26 AM

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.
 
2012-04-15 04:02:39 AM

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.


And look at the mess we've made of things since. God, we're all assholes.
 
2012-04-15 04:11:42 AM

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.
 
2012-04-15 04:12:22 AM

Molavian: God, we're all assholes.


Amen, brother.
 
2012-04-15 04:12:32 AM

FishyFred: 'murika

[27.media.tumblr.com image 500x437]


A womble riding a moterbike or is it a chicken? O.o
 
2012-04-15 04:14:43 AM
www.mahatmagandhionline.com
Where did he finish?
 
2012-04-15 04:15:25 AM
farm7.staticflickr.com
 
2012-04-15 04:18:47 AM

NDP2: Where did he finish?


Gandhi was great and all, but as for this contest... Worst. Military. Commander. EVAR.

/except for maybe MLK
 
2012-04-15 04:19:27 AM

johndbandit: [farm7.staticflickr.com image 435x500]


Yeah, it was a dumb quote when he said it then and it's a dumb quote now. Gotta love human nature. "IT'S US OR THEM! ATTAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACK!"
 
2012-04-15 04:21:32 AM
I'm pretty sure Britain's greatest foe is the gum disease known as gingavitus*.

/probably spelled wrong
 
2012-04-15 04:21:43 AM

batcookie: Yeah, it was a dumb quote when he said it then and it's a dumb quote now. Gotta love human nature. "IT'S US OR THEM! ATTAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACK!"


Overgeneralizing generals is generally overly general. Or...uh...something.
 
2012-04-15 04:22:33 AM

johndbandit: [farm7.staticflickr.com image 435x500]


I read that as "There is nothing so likely to produce pease as a well prepared meal for an enemy"
 
2012-04-15 04:22:57 AM
gingivitis
 
2012-04-15 04:23:18 AM
What about Maradona?

4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-04-15 04:26:20 AM
farm8.staticflickr.com
 
2012-04-15 04:29:26 AM

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.


Well, it's like Washington always said, "I cannot tell a lie......f*** the n****ers."

I guess he was a pretty good general though, and probably could have installed himself as King if he really wanted to be a dick about it.
 
2012-04-15 04:33:55 AM

NeauxFear: Overgeneralizing generals is generally overly general.


images3.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2012-04-15 04:37:41 AM
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.
 
2012-04-15 04:39:08 AM
USA greatest foe: Calories
 
2012-04-15 04:39:48 AM

gumpy: USA greatest foe: Calories


Really? I'd go with stupid. I mean, we don't have to eat the calories, but the stupid makes it so hard to resist!
 
2012-04-15 04:46:36 AM
America is really all about drugs, sex, music, TV, movies, violence, religion, freedom, guns, food, materialism, cars, protests, money, money, money, (MONAAY!), independence, and fireworks.
 
2012-04-15 04:51:29 AM
I was honestly hoping to be more Brad Neely references in here...
 
2012-04-15 04:57:48 AM

Yogimus: Washington, washington... 6'8" weighs a farking ton... (new window)


That completely made my day. That little bit of silliness had never come across my radar screen, so, thanks ;)
 
2012-04-15 05:01:20 AM

TheJoe03: America is really all about drugs, sex, music, TV, movies, violence, religion, freedom, guns, food, materialism, cars, protests, money, money, money, (MONAAY!), independence, and fireworks.


FTFY. The rest of the stuff is, for the most part, just a side effect of the money thing.
 
2012-04-15 05:29:18 AM

DamnYankees: Napolean?


Napoleon lost. It was more the British who were Napoleon's greatest foes, instead of vice versa.
 
2012-04-15 05:33:51 AM

Relatively Obscure: George Washington has been named as the greatest foe ever faced by the British.

To qualify, each commander had to come from the 17th century onwards

This contest fails.

However, USA! USA! USA!


What do you mean? Great Britain didn't exist as a country until the Act of Union merged the kingdoms of Scotland and England into the Kingdom of Great Britain in 1707. They have shared the same monarch since 1603, but that's no different to Canada and Australia having the same monarch today. If anything, the time period contemplated is a little on the liberal side.
 
2012-04-15 05:46:03 AM

TheJoe03: America is really all about drugs, sex, music, TV, movies, violence, religion, freedom, guns, food, materialism, cars, protests, money, money, money, (MONAAY!), independence, and fireworks.


oi41.tinypic.com
 
2012-04-15 05:47:04 AM
And yet they have a statue of their GREATEST foe in Trafalgar Square?

i.imgur.com

I know the article said 17th century and onward (thus throwing out Phillip II & the Spanish Armada), but still.

George Washington did not plan nor try to execute an invasion of Great Britain. He also got his ass kicked a few times by the British.

On the other hand, Phillip II tried to actually invade Great Britain.
Hitler bombed London to rubble, and had plans to invade.
Napoleon was...Napoleon, and should have focused on Great Britain instead of marching towards Moscow.

There are other enemies that were greater foes to Great Britain, but George Washington was probably not in the top 5.
 
2012-04-15 05:55:39 AM
Adam Weishaupt you mean?
 
2012-04-15 06:01:32 AM

thisispete: TheJoe03: America is really all about drugs, sex, music, TV, movies, violence, religion, freedom, guns, food, materialism, cars, protests, money, money, money, (MONAAY!), independence, and fireworks.

[oi41.tinypic.com image 640x523]


... I'm an American, and that's how we sound to me too.
 
2012-04-15 06:04:09 AM
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.
 
2012-04-15 06:15:13 AM

batcookie: johndbandit: [farm7.staticflickr.com image 435x500]

Yeah, it was a dumb quote when he said it then and it's a dumb quote now. Gotta love human nature. "IT'S US OR THEM! ATTAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACK!"


Except that's not what its suggesting.
Its more of a "speak softly but carry a big stick" or "peace through superior firepower" quote.

It may sound paranoid but nations have no friends. People are like animals and will do whatever is in their own interest or steal whatever you haven't secured. If you are prepared for a fight then others are much more likely to treat you with respect and ask for your consultation in peace time.
If you aren't, well... Why barter for what you can simply take? Its not like the rules of society mean anything on that level.

Considering the time Washington lived in, with nations like Britain running around and gobbling up whole continents, its a valuable quote.
 
2012-04-15 06:16:07 AM
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...
 
2012-04-15 06:17:34 AM

way south: batcookie: johndbandit: [farm7.staticflickr.com image 435x500]

Yeah, it was a dumb quote when he said it then and it's a dumb quote now. Gotta love human nature. "IT'S US OR THEM! ATTAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACK!"

Except that's not what its suggesting.
Its more of a "speak softly but carry a big stick" or "peace through superior firepower" quote.

It may sound paranoid but nations have no friends. People are like animals and will do whatever is in their own interest or steal whatever you haven't secured. If you are prepared for a fight then others are much more likely to treat you with respect and ask for your consultation in peace time.
If you aren't, well... Why barter for what you can simply take? Its not like the rules of society mean anything on that level.

Considering the time Washington lived in, with nations like Britain running around and gobbling up whole continents, its a valuable quote.


Translation: humans suck and will always suck, so the quote unfortunately rings true.

I rather dislike that conclusion.
 
2012-04-15 06:19:07 AM

gamempire: And yet they have a statue of their GREATEST foe in Trafalgar Square?

[i.imgur.com image 332x500]

I know the article said 17th century and onward (thus throwing out Phillip II & the Spanish Armada), but still.

George Washington did not plan nor try to execute an invasion of Great Britain. He also got his ass kicked a few times by the British.

On the other hand, Phillip II tried to actually invade Great Britain.
Hitler bombed London to rubble, and had plans to invade.
Napoleon was...Napoleon, and should have focused on Great Britain instead of marching towards Moscow.

There are other enemies that were greater foes to Great Britain, but George Washington was probably not in the top 5.


Did you know that Benjamin Franklin's london home is still intact and just around the corner from that statue?

Also I can tell you didn't RTFA otherwise you would have answered some of your own questions by being familiar with the selection criteria.
 
2012-04-15 06:26:41 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.


The rules seem too contrived.
Hitler may have never led an army, but the man tried to reduce the island to a smoldering heap in ways that would have horrified even Washington.
That's got to get you an honorable mention at least.
 
2012-04-15 06:27:36 AM
i40.photobucket.com

Imma let you finish, but Mohandas Hilter was the greatest enemy of all time...OF ALL TIME
 
2012-04-15 06:28:30 AM

cretinbob: [i40.photobucket.com image 255x313]

Imma let you finish, but Mohandas Hilter was the greatest enemy of all time...OF ALL TIME


As old as that is, it was so perfect in this situation that I lol'd. Hard.
 
2012-04-15 06:28:36 AM

violentsalvation: The Onanist: violentsalvation: If you ever get a chance and if you haven't read it, this book is fascinating. It goes well with Berlin Diary and is more oral than rise and fall.

I have that and read it MANY years ago. Great book.

/CSB - People on the bus tend to leave you alone when you are reading something with a swastika on the cover.

That book and other books by Shirer are just so good. I know rise and fall has been analyzed and criticized since it was first written but Shirer saw so much first hand, and he took part in so many things, like the first world news round up. Seeing things from his perspective and how he tells it is just so interesting. We get histories from civilians and holocaust survivors and soldiers and not to put him above any of those, but his perspective is so unique.


I agree with this statement; for reasons I will not elucidate here, I think Rise & Fall of the Third Reich is and will always be the best general history on that particular subject, all the historicism to the contrary notwithstanding. Shirer was the right writer in the right job, and he lived through those times.
 
2012-04-15 06:37:35 AM
The article listed the top 5, but I was unable to find the full list of 20 they started from.

This guy should get an honorable mention at least for Islandwana:

i672.photobucket.com

Same as this guy:

upload.wikimedia.org

Zulu's and Boer's....really kind of upset the applecart on British Imperialism.
 
2012-04-15 06:41:54 AM

gamempire: And yet they have a statue of their GREATEST foe in Trafalgar Square?

[i.imgur.com image 332x500]

I know the article said 17th century and onward (thus throwing out Phillip II & the Spanish Armada), but still.

George Washington did not plan nor try to execute an invasion of Great Britain. He also got his ass kicked a few times by the British.

On the other hand, Phillip II tried to actually invade Great Britain.
Hitler bombed London to rubble, and had plans to invade.
Napoleon was...Napoleon, and should have focused on Great Britain instead of marching towards Moscow.

There are other enemies that were greater foes to Great Britain, but George Washington was probably not in the top 5.


The American Revolution lasted from 1775 to 1783. That's 8 years, or 2 years longer than World War II. George Washington was the commander from the beginning of the war to the end. The war was so protracted, and so expensive that funding it was a direct cause of the French Revolution. It ended with the capture of an entire British Army.

The loss of the colonies brought about a complete upheaval of the British Economy and government. It also brought about an upheaval of the French Government. So you can't exactly say that Britain wasn't affected.

And also don't forget the the Americas were British territory at the start of the war. So yes. General Washington did attack british soil.
 
2012-04-15 06:42:20 AM

batcookie: humans suck and will always suck


You have said in six words what it took Sun Tzu a lifetime to discover and fifty nine pages to explain.

/I would like to make it a better planet but first I'd have to kill all the people who disagree with me.
 
2012-04-15 06:42:29 AM

rico567: violentsalvation: The Onanist: violentsalvation: If you ever get a chance and if you haven't read it, this book is fascinating. It goes well with Berlin Diary and is more oral than rise and fall.

I have that and read it MANY years ago. Great book.

/CSB - People on the bus tend to leave you alone when you are reading something with a swastika on the cover.

That book and other books by Shirer are just so good. I know rise and fall has been analyzed and criticized since it was first written but Shirer saw so much first hand, and he took part in so many things, like the first world news round up. Seeing things from his perspective and how he tells it is just so interesting. We get histories from civilians and holocaust survivors and soldiers and not to put him above any of those, but his perspective is so unique.

I agree with this statement; for reasons I will not elucidate here, I think Rise & Fall of the Third Reich is and will always be the best general history on that particular subject, all the historicism to the contrary notwithstanding. Shirer was the right writer in the right job, and he lived through those times.


I'm partway through his massive tome "The Collapse Of The Third Republic", a detailed history of the events leading up to the invasion of France in May 1940 and the country's utter collapse within six weeks... it's shockingly exhaustive. Definitely not a light read, but for anyone interested in root cause analysis of one of the most jaw-dropping losses in the history of warfare, it's one helluva book.

Shirer was amazing, no doubt.
 
2012-04-15 06:51:06 AM

way south: I would like to make it a better planet but first I'd have to kill all the people who disagree with me.


FTFM. :-)
 
2012-04-15 07:02:38 AM

namatad: what about gandhi?? Didnt the brits loose more slaves, I mean citizens when they lost india??


Your shift key and apostrophe key seem to be broken, but your o key is stuck down....
 
2012-04-15 07:06:24 AM
What kind of history do they teach in England these days?
Maldwyn Jones quotes a contemporary London newspaper as "any general in the world other than General Howe could have beaten General Washington; and any general in the world could have beaten General Howe." The British just didn't give a shiat; their attitude towards us was much the same as was our attitude towards Vietnam. If Washington ever actually threatened Britain,the way Hitler did, or Napolean did, he would have been stomped like a bug.
 
2012-04-15 07:13:35 AM

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.


Actually, they did, albeit in a half-assed way. One of the reasons they stopped trying after Goering's failure was all the river barges they had tied up along the coast in France were REALLY needed for inland commerce, and renting them from their commercial owners was costing them a fortune.

Some of the more experienced German army commanders were, of course, a bit dubious about crossing the Channel in river boats...ONE Brit destroyer gets loose, all it has to do is go to ramming speed, it'll practically sink you with its propwash.

Of course, there's also the interesting question of what Stalin would do, if he noticed all of Germany's panzers off on an island somewhere...
 
2012-04-15 07:18:29 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...

Burning crops and towns are legitimate military targets. It's called total warfare. No different then bombing rail lines or shipyards. No food=no ability to fight.

 
2012-04-15 07:20:26 AM
Hitler was sooooo much better at parades.

/ granted, the jewish thing may somewhat color his legacy, but he sure did look much more commanding in his uniform.
 
2012-04-15 07:21:00 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...


The friend of my enemy is my enemy.
 
2012-04-15 07:25:05 AM

rumpelstiltskin: What kind of history do they teach in England these days?
Maldwyn Jones quotes a contemporary London newspaper as "any general in the world other than General Howe could have beaten General Washington; and any general in the world could have beaten General Howe." The British just didn't give a shiat; their attitude towards us was much the same as was our attitude towards Vietnam. If Washington ever actually threatened Britain,the way Hitler did, or Napolean did, he would have been stomped like a bug.


Indeed, Washington was not a great tactical general in the vein of Napoleon or Patton. He faced a series of a foes who utterly failed to capitalize on their victories and put the Continental Army out of commission. Burgoyne was a better commander than Howe by a large margin, and were he not defeated at Saratoga (and most likely would have been defeated if not Benedict Arnold) he stood a strong chance of succeeding in splitting the colonies.

What elevated Washington to the top of the list is his ability to organize, motivate and promote capable people into the right positions. He was also able to play politics very well, keeping the Army from disintegrating through the bad years of the war. The public has painted Washington as this amazing General who defeated his enemies at every turn, he lost more than the won. The fact he managed to stay in the game at all, holding out for the French, speaks more to his skill than his combat record.
 
2012-04-15 07:31:27 AM
I can't see how he would be higher on the list than Napoleon, but he was probably the worthiest of Britain's foes.
 
2012-04-15 07:32:07 AM
pics.livejournal.com

One of my ancestors.

Yes I'm bragging.
 
2012-04-15 07:36:49 AM
pecosdave:
One of my ancestors.

Yes I'm bragging.


Wait, is that Princess Leia?
 
2012-04-15 07:38:39 AM

phlegmmo: pecosdave:
One of my ancestors.

Yes I'm bragging.

Wait, is that Princess Leia?


Nah, James Monroe, both a long, long time ago, but Leia was in a galaxy far, far away.
 
2012-04-15 07:46:56 AM
pecosdave:

James Monroe? That is really cool.
 
2012-04-15 07:48:40 AM

pecosdave: [pics.livejournal.com image 600x352]

One of my ancestors.

Yes I'm bragging.


I'm descended from Hessians. Actually Bruinswick was the home of my fathers ancestors but they were all called Hessians. He was a pow that never got back on the ship home. Not the famous chirstmas ones thou. Later his descendants fought as bushwhackers during the war of northern aggression. My family is 0-2 against the USA
 
2012-04-15 07:56:52 AM
It's hard to lose when time is on your side. Like Ireland, America would have ultimately proved ungovernable anyway, in the long run.
 
2012-04-15 07:58:02 AM

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
 
2012-04-15 07:59:08 AM

Tailgunner Joe: The article listed the top 5, but I was unable to find the full list of 20 they started from.

This guy should get an honorable mention at least for Islandwana:

[i672.photobucket.com image 639x438]

Same as this guy:

[upload.wikimedia.org image 220x286]

Zulu's and Boer's....really kind of upset the applecart on British Imperialism.


According to TFA they were in the top 20 but didn't get enough online votes from the public to make it to the finale. (

// Good Lord, we are running history contests like American Idol (actually Pop Idol since it was a Brit contest) which also explains why an Irish Guerilla came in second
 
2012-04-15 08:03:18 AM

TwistedFark:
Did you know that Benjamin Franklin's london home is still intact and just around the corner from that statue?

Also I can tell you didn't RTFA otherwise you would have answered some of your own questions by being familiar with the selection criteria.


Actually, I didn't know that about Franklin's house. Did you know there was a temporary state named after Benjamin Franklin? Also one could argue that Ben Franklin was far more of a foe to Britain than Washington was. His diplomatic skills (as well as his skills with French women) were one of the primary reasons that the French came to the aid of the 13 colonies, and that Washington accepted Baron Von Steuben as a military advisor and later his chief of staff. Had it not been for Franklin's letter to Washington to employ Von Steuben as an advisor and commander, and the subsequent reorganization of the Continental Army because of him, one could argue that the war could have easily been lost after devastating the winter of '77 to '78.

Also, I wasn't really arguing with the fact that he was Britain's greatest foe in terms of the amount of direct and indirect damage he caused. I was arguing with the idea that some people were saying he was Britain's most dangerous foe, which is a big difference. My apologies for not making myself more clear. I'm also surprised that Liman von Sanders wasn't mentioned at all in the "poll", as it was through his advising and eventual leadership of the Ottoman Army that led to their decisive victory over the British (and French) during the Gallipoli campaign. But then again, a lot of people seem to forget about World War I.



Evil Twin Skippy:
The American Revolution lasted from 1775 to 1783. That's 8 years, or 2 years longer than World War II. George Washington was the commander from the beginning of the war to the end. The war was so protracted, and so expensive that funding it was a direct cause of the French Revolution. It ended with the capture of an entire British Army.

The loss of the colonies brought about a complete upheaval of the British Economy and government. It also brought about an upheaval of the French Government. So you can't exactly say that Britain wasn't affected.

And also don't forget the the Americas were British territory at the start of the war. So yes. General Washington did attack british soil.


Yes, the economy in europe tanked so bad after the American revolution that it brought about the French revolution which in turn led to the Napoleonic Wars. Yes the economy of the continent was in turmoil, but do you know what the French Revolution and Napoleon's grand vision allowed Britain to do? It allowed Britain to marginalize the remaining French influence in India, and basically control the entire Indian subcontinent. The crown jewel of the British Empire was far more profitable than the American colonies ever were. Britain's focus on Europe after the Revolutionary War is basically what allowed the era of the Pax Britannica to be ushered in. The only real threat Britain had to worry about after 1815 was possible encroachment on India by Russia, which you can read about in the wonderful book The Great Game by Peter Hopkirk if you're at all interested.
 
2012-04-15 08:03:19 AM

Mid_mo_mad_man: 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...

Burning crops and towns are legitimate military targets. It's called total warfare. No different then bombing rail lines or shipyards. No food=no ability to fight.


cdn0.sbnation.com
 
2012-04-15 08:03:45 AM

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.


This may have already been covered, but his sole purpose in taking that route was to keep the coalition intact. He would have lost the support of some of the southern regiments if he had allowed blacks to enlist. (Not saying he wasn't a racist - although contemporary standards were far different then - but his move was much more politically motivated than anything else.)
 
2012-04-15 08:04:15 AM

Jlop985: I can't see how he would be higher on the list than Napoleon, but he was probably the worthiest of Britain's foes.


Washington's chief virtue as a military leader was that he never got captured nor suffered a defeat so crushing that the British stopped seeing him as a threat or that he cease to be a symbol of the revolution.

I don't think that qualifies him as the greatest foe because merely surviving would not have been good enough were it not for many other Americans (such as Arnold!) and especially the Frenc h.

There are probably many other greater military foes no one has heard much about, including Koos de la Rey and the French Marshall de Saxe.

And of course Napoleon. Washington would be Britains greatest colonial political foe except fo Gandhi.

They like him because he fought in the same old British way because he was trained by them instead of being a guerilla.
 
2012-04-15 08:04:48 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


John Freeman was a black spy for Washington during the war. He made a good shy because he had been a house slave and he could read. Allowed him to serve as servant for british officers. Being black was like being invisible and they hid nothing never thinking they had a spy in there mist
 
2012-04-15 08:14:33 AM

Mart Laar's beard shaver: Mid_mo_mad_man: 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...

Burning crops and towns are legitimate military targets. It's called total warfare. No different then bombing rail lines or shipyards. No food=no ability to fight.

[cdn0.sbnation.com image 223x218]


Yes my ansectors were there. Some of are finest work. All kidding aside the Jayhawkers weren't nice guys either.
 
2012-04-15 08:17:39 AM
i181.photobucket.com
 
2012-04-15 08:17:45 AM
He once held an opponent's wife's hand in a jar of acid. At a party.
 
2012-04-15 08:23:10 AM

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?
 
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."
 
2012-04-15 11:22:27 AM
Hey, shut up Britain. We kicked your ass in WWII, and we can do it again.
 
2012-04-15 11:35:52 AM
I think someone feels cheated.
farm3.staticflickr.com
 
2012-04-15 11:51:30 AM
Washington's greatest accomplishment was not defeating the British. Washington's greatest action, the one that separates him from most other military or revolutionary leaders throughout history was the simple act of ceding power. That's why his hero tag transcends his military achievement. Napoleon had himself crowned emperor, Washington went back to his farm.

Or, in the words of George III "if Washington went back to his farm after his public career he would be the greatest character of the age."
 
2012-04-15 11:53:18 AM
In other new, not only did Michael Collins orbit the moon while Neil and Buzz pranced around on the surface, he was also one of Britain's greatest foes.

Who knew?

Oh, and his brother Phil is a famous musician!
 
2012-04-15 12:04:32 PM
Good to know that over 200 years later, the English are still butthurt about it.
 
2012-04-15 12:21:01 PM

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


An unintended consequence.
Following batcookie's rule of "humans suck and will always suck", the good work of Ghandi in gaining independence from the British was quickly perverted into new power struggles once the empire was forced out of town.
Its not what he wanted or expected, and there isn't proof that it wouldn't have happened if the British stayed. Two world wars and a quickly evolving communist front sapped their power to maintain the peace by force.

As soon as the local warlords smelled that big brother wasn't coming to fix a problem, there'd be chaos.
 
2012-04-15 12:23:01 PM
Now, we have millions of pages of tax and law while our constitution is seen as one of the weakest in the world.

The Red Coats won.
 
2012-04-15 12:31:09 PM
Maybe Britain should ask why all those people hate their freedoms.
 
2012-04-15 12:33:17 PM
USA!
USA!
USA!
USA!
USA!
USA!
USA!
USA!
 
2012-04-15 12:34:44 PM

way south: Mouser: Ghandi is responsible for killing more Indians than the Brits ever hoped to be.

An unintended consequence.


An unintended consequence is still a consequence.
 
2012-04-15 12:39:32 PM

SharkTrager: way south: Mouser: Ghandi is responsible for killing more Indians than the Brits ever hoped to be.

An unintended consequence.

An unintended consequence is still a consequence.


If I rescue a baby from a burning building, and that baby grows up to be Hitler, am I responsible for the Holocaust?
 
2012-04-15 12:43:21 PM
Two minor points: Washington was not necessarily a great general. He certainly got his ass handed to him regularly, especially in set-piece battles. However, he was a great motivator and a master of the fighting retreat. His best attribute was in making full use of the home-field advantage. In this, he was very Russian. He let the British get bogged down in a land war in North America until he could pick his opportunities, which revolved around Ben Franklin's Cicero-level of charm and oratory in front of Frenchmen.

Second: The greatest foe the British ever faced was Karl Donitz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donitz#Commander_of_the_submarine_fleet) .

Britain was very close to being starved of food, fuel and materiel to continue the war, and couldn't build ships fast enough to replace the torpedoed ones, or their merchant navy crews. He was defeated primarily by code breakers, as if you know where the U-boat wolfpacks are, you can at least have a chance of avoiding them.

Hitler defeated himself by killing or scaring off most of the German-Jewish intellectual class, failing to continue destroying the RAF on the ground in 1940 and attacking Russia, declaring war on America and generally not letting his generals general.
 
2012-04-15 12:45:07 PM
weird though because well, the British trained him... he was a high ranking officer in the british army, because we trained him to be.

And to be honest we almost won (as we did when America attempted to invade canada in 1816).

But 1) america was too far away 2) england had a mad king on the throne (literally) 3) european upper class didn't even think of the colony's as equals 4) we had other pressing concerns and there was no money or effort in recapturing the colonies.

We left america alone, because we didn't see them as a threat. still don't to be honest, an amusing side pocket of entertainment, but... no wonder the other countries don't fear america... too easy to provoke and too indoctorined in their own "patriotic" (see fanatic)

infact Americans are more fanatical about their ideals than the muslims and communists, it's an irony of all ironies.

amuses me greatly
 
2012-04-15 12:48:07 PM

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


This is picking nits, but the Royal Navy did have in its ranks a number of black men as seamen. I am not aware of any that were rated any higher than able seaman, but it is possible that some may have rated higher.

However, in the language of the day, "the military' referred only to the Army, so you are correct from that standpoint.
 
2012-04-15 12:51:54 PM

Need_MindBleach: If I rescue a baby from a burning building, and that baby grows up to be Hitler, am I responsible for the Holocaust?


Theres some irony in that statement somewhere. I'm sure the final solution will come to me and I'll figure it out.

/Holocaust jokes. Because if you can't laugh about the Holocaust, what can you laugh at?
//Seriously, a good friend of mine that's a Rabbi said that to me once.
 
2012-04-15 12:53:07 PM

deplorable: weird though because well, the British trained him... he was a high ranking officer in the british army, because we trained him to be.

And to be honest we almost won (as we did when America attempted to invade canada in 1816).

But 1) america was too far away 2) england had a mad king on the throne (literally) 3) european upper class didn't even think of the colony's as equals 4) we had other pressing concerns and there was no money or effort in recapturing the colonies.

We left america alone, because we didn't see them as a threat. still don't to be honest, an amusing side pocket of entertainment, but... no wonder the other countries don't fear america... too easy to provoke and too indoctorined in their own "patriotic" (see fanatic)

infact Americans are more fanatical about their ideals than the muslims and communists, it's an irony of all ironies.

amuses me greatly


George III wasn't mad in the 1770s, and the war was definitely the most pressing concern at the time, Britain had assembled a larger fighting force and fleet than it had every assembled before for the war, and in fact American issues had been the dominating issue for the last three administrations or so. If anything, the importance of the 13 colonies was over-estimated by the British administration, which is why the war lasted for eight freaking years.

Seriously, read your own parliamentary history.

Fun fact: Losing the 13 colonies actually improved the British economy, due to increased trade efficiency.
 
2012-04-15 12:56:55 PM
Saying "quite a lot of Northerners had slaves at the time" is dubious and depends on how far north you're talking. Massachusetts, the largest colony in New England, had a grand total of less than 100 slaves in 1775.
 
2012-04-15 01:11:06 PM

herrDrFarkenstein: [ecx.images-amazon.com image 300x300]

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.


Seconded this. AWESOME read.
 
2012-04-15 01:12:27 PM
Need_MindBleach SmartestFunniest 2012-04-15 12:56:55 PM


Saying "quite a lot of Northerners had slaves at the time" is dubious and depends on how far north you're talking. Massachusetts, the largest colony in New England, had a grand total of less than 100 slaves in 1775.


Then it's ok i guess. Additionally, their economy didnt depend on the mass production of goods that required large amounts of labor. The norths stane on slavery was not abotu slaves, in fact most northerns could have cared less about slavery, they just didnt liek the idea of the south being all uppity and leaving the Union. So...whatever lets you sleep at night
/neutral stater
 
2012-04-15 01:14:36 PM

deplorable: weird though because well, the British trained him... he was a high ranking officer in the british army, because we trained him to be.

And to be honest we almost won (as we did when America attempted to invade canada in 1816).

But 1) america was too far away 2) england had a mad king on the throne (literally) 3) european upper class didn't even think of the colony's as equals 4) we had other pressing concerns and there was no money or effort in recapturing the colonies.

We left america alone, because we didn't see them as a threat. still don't to be honest, an amusing side pocket of entertainment, but... no wonder the other countries don't fear america... too easy to provoke and too indoctorined in their own "patriotic" (see fanatic)

infact Americans are more fanatical about their ideals than the muslims and communists, it's an irony of all ironies.

amuses me greatly


WTF are you talking about? Washington was not a British officer. In fact, a great deal of his willingness to fight against the Brits probably stems (for personal reasons) from the fact that he very much wanted a commission in the British army, and he couldn't get it. It left him quite bitter for some time.
 
2012-04-15 01:15:30 PM

Gdalescrboz: Need_MindBleach SmartestFunniest 2012-04-15 12:56:55 PM


Saying "quite a lot of Northerners had slaves at the time" is dubious and depends on how far north you're talking. Massachusetts, the largest colony in New England, had a grand total of less than 100 slaves in 1775.

Then it's ok i guess. Additionally, their economy didnt depend on the mass production of goods that required large amounts of labor. The norths stane on slavery was not abotu slaves, in fact most northerns could have cared less about slavery, they just didnt liek the idea of the south being all uppity and leaving the Union. So...whatever lets you sleep at night
/neutral stater


Oh, I won't argue with you there.

The South seceded to preserve slavery.
The North fought the war to stop the South from seceding.
 
2012-04-15 01:21:11 PM
Washington was just very, very, lucky (or had US time agents assisting him). Cromwell was far more of a nemesis to Britain.
 
2012-04-15 01:32:58 PM

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.


True.

However, I will give him credit that he was capable of changing his mind when enough evidence presented to the contrary. (He wasn't terribly fond of *any* of the fighters who came down from the north at first either.)

If someone can do that, the rest is a matter of growth.
 
2012-04-15 01:38:23 PM
upload.wikimedia.org
 
2012-04-15 01:40:33 PM

Need_MindBleach: Massachusetts, the largest colony in New England, had a grand total of less than 100 slaves in 1775.


Whilst Rhode Island, right next door, was a key component in the slave trade.
 
2012-04-15 01:51:20 PM

Beerguy: Daniel Morgan is a close second.

[www.virginia-sar.org image 400x426]

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."


static.guim.co.uk
 
2012-04-15 01:51:53 PM
NSFW (new window)

And PecosDave?

I salute you
 
2012-04-15 01:53:03 PM

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.


just wanted to note that you don't really have to point out that a historical figure was flawed for conforming to the standards of times the lived in like almost everyone else that lived during that period.

racism, slavery, severe misogyny, superstition, cruelty, child labor, seeking personal vengeance for a perceived slight to one's honor, etc. were part and parcel of human interaction for 99% of the history of human civilization.
you don't need to preface your admiration for a historical figure by noting that they held views that were at odds with today's standards because intelligent people usually realize morality is a ever shifting societal continuum and they judge historical figures according to the one in which they lived in.

that's why Ghandi, Teddy Roosevelt, and even that inveterate racist Abraham Lincoln are so well thought of even though they had immense flaws by today's standards. generally we judge them by what was acceptable in their time and find that they showed a compassion for others that was relatively uncommon. though some lesser intellects will still claim that judging them by today's moral standards is a legitimate form of criticism.
 
2012-04-15 01:53:59 PM

GAT_00: violentsalvation: toddalmighty: *steps in*

*posts quizzical dog pic*

*Godwins thread*

*exits*

"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. "

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.


To be fair the Magnificent Bastard himself Erwin Rommel is on the list.
 
2012-04-15 01:57:15 PM

NeauxFear: namatad: what about gandhi?? Didnt the brits loose more slaves, I mean citizens when they lost india??

Well, by virtue of his method of resistance, Gandhi never led an army in the field against the British -- the main criterion used to define "foe" for the purposes of the contest. That's also why Hitler was ineligible for this contest.


A day that will live... in infamy. NeauxFear equated Gandhi with Hitler. And made it work.
 
2012-04-15 02:13:44 PM
s.pro-gmedia.com

I'd run too.
 
2012-04-15 02:33:15 PM

Relatively Obscure: George Washington has been named as the greatest foe ever faced by the British.

To qualify, each commander had to come from the 17th century onwards

This contest fails.

However, USA! USA! USA!


Probably because the 17th century is when the modern "Great Britain" came into existence. My guess is that the English Civil War is the point of demarcation.

Also, you're damned right he was, you limeys.
 
2012-04-15 02:43:43 PM

namatad: toddalmighty: *steps in*

*posts quizzical dog pic*

*Godwins thread*

*exits*

what about gandhi?? Didnt the brits loose more slaves, I mean citizens Subjects when they lost india??


(ftfy)
 
2012-04-15 02:44:28 PM

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.


The man helped the country form and his actions allowed it to develop into the one that abolished slavery and contributed immeasurable amounts to humanity.

What matters is that he held the colonies together and won. What would it matter if he were the perfect man but lost the war?
 
2012-04-15 03:13:47 PM
Britain's greatest-ever foe: irreverence.
The higher your pedestal, the easier it is to pick you off.

/and now for something completely different
 
2012-04-15 03:21:03 PM

Mart Laar's beard shaver: Mid_mo_mad_man: 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...

Burning crops and towns are legitimate military targets. It's called total warfare. No different then bombing rail lines or shipyards. No food=no ability to fight.

[cdn0.sbnation.com image 223x218]


Actually, that's somewhat difficult to quantify as a Missouri victory. I'm sitting in Engineering Building West, which is on the Columbia campus, working towards a degree in Information Technology, so I feel obligated to chip in here.

Missouri was just a huge ball of chaos during the Civil War. It's hard to paint it as either Confederate or Union. Columbia is probably as good of an example of this as you can get. It was a huge Union stronghold during the war, while the rest of Boone County was hardcore Confederate. Kansas City and St. Louis served as important cities during the war, and the Battle of Westport (in modern-day Kansas City) is often named the "Gettysburg of the West" because it marked the point at which the Confederates had lost all chances of definitively taking Missouri from the Union. Quantrill's Raid is often cited as an act of aggression belonging to Missouri against Kansas, but Quantrill was from Kentucky and the raid was never backed by any government orders or forces from Missouri. Quantrill was a bushwhacker and threatened towns on both sides of the state line.

Here's why Kansas sucks in all of that*.

Columbia and L*wrence were both centers of pro-Union and abolitionist thought during the period, and both were threatened by guerrillas during the Civil War. Prior to Quantrill's Raid, residents in L*wrence had built stockades, stockpiled weapons, and formed guard units to watch out for bushwhackers like Quantrill. However, after a few months passed by, the citizenry decided the threat had passed and took down their defenses. Quantrill then attacked, killing roughly 160 townspeople. Columbia, on the other hand, was never touched during the war... not because of luck, but because Confederate raiders knew they never had a chance of taking the city, despite the treasure that could have been gained: hundreds of imprisoned Confederate sympathizers being held in the University of Missouri's main academic building. A large contingent of Union troops were garrisoned on the Columbia campus, and 90 men who called themselves the "Missouri Tigers" formed a militia to guard the city, going as far to dig out a moat around the courthouse. The Confederates (who were invading Missouri at the time) and bushwhackers (who were based just north of Columbia) decided that Columbia was too difficult to take and went elsewhere. They were eventually stopped by the Union army at the aforementioned Battle of Westport.

So one town was burned to the ground due to the lack of diligence of its citizens, while the other was properly defended and went untouched through the entirety of the war. Even more astounding is that L*wrence had been attacked before Quantrill's Raid, and still, no one there thought it was necessary to maintain proper defenses.

All of this would be fine if that damned hellhole didn't have to play the victim card about Quantrill's Raid to this day. Kansas students and L*wrence residents, your town wasn't the only one to be threatened during the Civil War, but it was one of the few that was successfully attacked twice because of a complete logic disconnect on the part of the citizens. Any city in the US that decided summer 1863 was a good time to let their guard down was filled with idiots. I wouldn't be naming my school's mascot after people that dumb. I sure as hell wouldn't commemorate your town's "rise from the ashes" with a phoenix on the city seal. What happened was 100% preventable. It wasn't the big, bad, slave-owning Missourians who came in and preyed on the smart, decent citizens of L*wrence. It was a bunch of Confederate raiders who seized upon an opportunity during a time of war that never had to happen. L*wrence never had any sort of moral high-ground over Missouri, and you surely didn't have any strategy-forming advantage over the citizens and students in Columbia, who stopped going to school and picked up rifles to defend their town.

/* I am contractually obligated, as a tuition-paying student of the University of Missouri-Columbia, to explain why Kansas (particularly L*wrence) sucks every time the Civil War is discussed.
//and to replace the "a" with a "*".
 
2012-04-15 03:25:32 PM
25.media.tumblr.com
 
2012-04-15 03:27:19 PM

Marine1: I am contractually obligated, as a tuition-paying student of the University of Missouri-Columbia, to explain why Kansas (particularly L*wrence) sucks every time the Civil War is discussed.


hurray, slavery!
 
2012-04-15 03:32:58 PM
img404.imageshack.us
 
2012-04-15 03:37:55 PM
i104.photobucket.com
 
2012-04-15 03:42:20 PM

medius: Marine1: I am contractually obligated, as a tuition-paying student of the University of Missouri-Columbia, to explain why Kansas (particularly L*wrence) sucks every time the Civil War is discussed.

hurray, slavery!


Ah, another person who hasn't read a history book.
 
2012-04-15 03:43:04 PM
which one? I've read a few others.
 
2012-04-15 03:44:27 PM

kim jong-un: The man helped the country form and his actions allowed it to develop into the one that abolished slavery and contributed immeasurable amounts to humanity.


The US took 50 years and a civil war to follow the lead of the Dutch and British to outlaw slavery.
 
2012-04-15 04:04:18 PM

Norfolking Chance: kim jong-un: The man helped the country form and his actions allowed it to develop into the one that abolished slavery and contributed immeasurable amounts to humanity.

The US took 50 years and a civil war to follow the lead of the Dutch and British to outlaw slavery.


actually, the british pretty much enslaved the better part of an entire subcontinent from the mid 1700s until August 15, 1947. a population that ranged from 150 to 345 million over that time period. and the 1833 british slavery abolition act specifically made an exception for the territories in the possession of the East India Company.
 
2012-04-15 04:25:40 PM

duffblue: Good to know that over 200 years later, the English are still butthurt about it.


Yep, so butthurt that we have a statue of George Washington in Trafalgar Square, London.
 
2012-04-15 04:41:49 PM

Ennuipoet: 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.


England outlawed slavery in 1772. The southern slave owners fought the Revolutionary war for the same reason they fought the Civil War. They were convinced, as a colony of England that they too would be forced to give up their slaves. Between 1776 and 1865 the number of slaves grew more than ten fold. Without England's taxes the colonies would not have started using slaves to begin with. However once you start to do something wrong, it becomes very hard to stop once it makes you rich. Tragic and sad really.

With the divisions in how the colonist loyalties fell, Washington really had a small disorganized army to start with. One of Washington's biggest reasons he defeated a world power was he knew how to get real help. Not only France, but Washington also called on a Prussian general by the name of Friedrich Wilhelm von Steuben. He brought training and descipline to men who never fought before and formed an army. Washington was the first to deliver a blow that started the shrinking of power that England once held, by bringing the right people together at the right time.
 
2012-04-15 04:58:24 PM

lack of warmth: England outlawed slavery in 1772. The southern slave owners fought the Revolutionary war for the same reason they fought the Civil War. They were convinced, as a colony of England that they too would be forced to give up their slaves. Between 1776 and 1865 the number of slaves grew more than ten fold. Without England's taxes the colonies would not have started using slaves to begin with. However once you start to do something wrong, it becomes very hard to stop once it makes you rich. Tragic and sad really.


absolute nonsense.

Britain didn't outlaw the slave trade until 1807. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolition_of_the_Slave_Trade_Act
Britain didn't outlaw slavery itself until 1833, but even then allowed in territories held by the East India Company.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_Abolition_Act_1833
Slavery in India wasn't abolished until 1843.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Slavery_Act,_1843
So that means the British really only abolished slavery about 20 years before the U.S. did, but even then the entire Indian subcontinent was essentially kept in various forms of servitude to the British elite until those 350 million Indians finally won their freedom in 1947.
 
2012-04-15 05:02:37 PM
George Washington's ability as a miltary leader has always been more appreciated by non-Americans than by his own country. And honest appraisal of his ability considering what he had to work with and against would show him to be this country's greatest military leader (as well as greatest President).

His campaigns during the revolutionary war were widely studied by European miltiary leaders of the time and even in more modern times his tactics and strategy were studied by the likes of Mao.

Recommend reading:

Washington's Crossing By David Hackett Fischer

and

ALMOST A MIRACLE By John Ferling
 
2012-04-15 05:09:11 PM

velvet_fog: I would've thought modern dentistry would have won.


See, it's funny 'cuz no one in Britain ever brushes their teeth...EVER!
 
2012-04-15 05:10:48 PM

hasty ambush: as well as greatest President


wrong George W.
 
2012-04-15 05:19:45 PM

relcec: lack of warmth: England outlawed slavery in 1772. The southern slave owners fought the Revolutionary war for the same reason they fought the Civil War. They were convinced, as a colony of England that they too would be forced to give up their slaves. Between 1776 and 1865 the number of slaves grew more than ten fold. Without England's taxes the colonies would not have started using slaves to begin with. However once you start to do something wrong, it becomes very hard to stop once it makes you rich. Tragic and sad really.

absolute nonsense.

Britain didn't outlaw the slave trade until 1807. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolition_of_the_Slave_Trade_Act
Britain didn't outlaw slavery itself until 1833, but even then allowed in territories held by the East India Company.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_Abolition_Act_1833
Slavery in India wasn't abolished until 1843.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Slavery_Act,_1843
So that means the British really only abolished slavery about 20 years before the U.S. did, but even then the entire Indian subcontinent was essentially kept in various forms of servitude to the British elite until those 350 million Indians finally won their freedom in 1947.


The trial that first led the slavory abolition was in 1772, when a slave sued and won his freedom. After that slavery effectively came to an end in England itself. The colonies did not know when the new laws were going to follow that would outlaw slavery elsewhere. Washington used this uncertainty to convince the major slave owners to fight. Without scaring the slave owners into action, they surely would not have helped.

Somersett's Case of 1772 led to 10 to 14 thousand slaves in England and Wales to be released, as it was decided that slavery did not exist in British law. You can thank Lord Mansfield for this.
 
2012-04-15 05:22:23 PM
Modern dentistry came in a close second.
 
2012-04-15 05:24:18 PM
Are they still going on about that big can of whoop-ass they took delivery of in Yorktown?
Leo keeps reminding them about it.
 
2012-04-15 05:28:54 PM

Relatively Obscure: To qualify, each commander had to come from the 17th century onwards

This contest fails.


Until the unification of the crowns in 1603 under James, which is to say, the 17th century, how could anyone be an enemy of the British? They could be an enemy of England, sure, or Soctland, yes, but not the British.

Franco: Washington was just very, very, lucky (or had US time agents assisting him). Cromwell was far more of a nemesis to Britain.


No, King Charles I was a nemesis to Britain; Cromwell was its (imperfect) savior.
 
2012-04-15 05:47:58 PM

lack of warmth: relcec: lack of warmth: England outlawed slavery in 1772. The southern slave owners fought the Revolutionary war for the same reason they fought the Civil War. They were convinced, as a colony of England that they too would be forced to give up their slaves. Between 1776 and 1865 the number of slaves grew more than ten fold. Without England's taxes the colonies would not have started using slaves to begin with. However once you start to do something wrong, it becomes very hard to stop once it makes you rich. Tragic and sad really.

absolute nonsense.

Britain didn't outlaw the slave trade until 1807. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolition_of_the_Slave_Trade_Act
Britain didn't outlaw slavery itself until 1833, but even then allowed in territories held by the East India Company.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_Abolition_Act_1833
Slavery in India wasn't abolished until 1843.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Slavery_Act,_1843
So that means the British really only abolished slavery about 20 years before the U.S. did, but even then the entire Indian subcontinent was essentially kept in various forms of servitude to the British elite until those 350 million Indians finally won their freedom in 1947.

The trial that first led the slavory abolition was in 1772, when a slave sued and won his freedom. After that slavery effectively came to an end in England itself. The colonies did not know when the new laws were going to follow that would outlaw slavery elsewhere. Washington used this uncertainty to convince the major slave owners to fight. Without scaring the slave owners into action, they surely would not have helped.

Somersett's Case of 1772 led to 10 to 14 thousand slaves in England and Wales to be released, as it was decided that slavery did not exist in British law. You can thank Lord Mansfield for this.


whatever.
you claimed england outlawed slavery in 1772, and you are still claiming it effectively ended in 1772, which is a load of horseshiat. christ, they didn't outlaw the slave trade until 1807, slavery itself wasn't outlawed until 1833 in england proper, and it wasn't outlawed in the most important British colonies until 1843.

you were trying to use the prohibition of slavery under the British that you claimed existed (but didn't) as a reason why the american colonies feared remaining.

only f*cking problem is your claim has been proven to be absolute bullshiat and Britain didn't outlaw slavery fully in it's colonies until 67 years after the declaration of independence and only 18 years before the American civil war.

quit continuing to try to dissemble and admit you are a liar and an asshole.
 
2012-04-15 06:16:18 PM
That's what I love about America. They had the guts to stand up to the Brits and claim their independence. We in Canada, on the other hand, buried our tongues in their a-holes and have remained there ever since.
 
2012-04-15 06:26:22 PM
Toothbrushes everywhere are saying, "PFFFFT."
 
2012-04-15 07:38:52 PM

violentsalvation: If you ever get a chance and if you haven't read it, this book is fascinating. It goes well with Berlin Diary and is more oral than rise and fall.


Interesting, I've never heard of The Nightmare Years. You don't feel it's completely redundant with Rise and Fall?
 
2012-04-15 07:39:12 PM
Hitler Finds Out George Washington Declared Britain's Greatest Ever Foe (new window)

/quick & dirty
//could swear it was Planko not Panko
 
2012-04-15 08:08:52 PM

relcec: 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.

just wanted to note that you don't really have to point out that a historical figure was flawed for conforming to the standards of times the lived in like almost everyone else that lived during that period.

racism, slavery, severe misogyny, superstition, cruelty, child labor, seeking personal vengeance for a perceived slight to one's honor, etc. were part and parcel of human interaction for 99% of the history of human civilization.
you don't need to preface your admiration for a historical figure by noting that they held views that were at odds with today's standards because intelligent people usually realize morality is a ever shifting societal continuum and they judge historical figures according to the one in which they lived in.

that's why Ghandi, Teddy Roosevelt, and even that inveterate racist Abraham Lincoln are so well thought of even though they had immense flaws by today's standards. generally we judge them by what was acceptable in their time and find that they showed a compassion for other ...


Thank you.

/like getting pissed off at a western movie because of how the women are treated...
 
2012-04-15 08:13:38 PM
Well, no wonder. Washington was twenty feet tall, and made of radiation.

He also had two sets of testicles, which were so divine.

Also -- will only save non-British children.
 
2012-04-15 08:22:49 PM

relcec: just wanted to note that you don't really have to point out that a historical figure was flawed for conforming to the standards of times the lived in like almost everyone else that lived during that period.


But I don't think it's very good to ignore such things if you actually do care about history. I think I made it clear that despite his faults that he is still one of the greatest men in world history. I think the same about Genghis Khan and he was obviously no saint, so I don't really see what your point was in regards to my post.
 
2012-04-15 09:38:47 PM

deplorable: weird though because well, the British trained him... he was a high ranking officer in the british army, because we trained him to be.


False.

He wasn't in the British Army. He was a colonel in the Virginia Militia. He couldn't become an officer in the British Army because he wasn't a noble and couldn't afford to buy a commission.

He trained in Virgina with other members of the militia--his tactics in the early portion of the Revolution displayed his North American training. No European-trained general would have execution his amazing retreat in Brooklyn. His European-style victories later in the Revolution--such as at Yorktown--were the result of his learning from the French.
 
2012-04-15 10:03:13 PM
beta_plus: Hitler Finds Out George Washington Declared Britain's Greatest Ever Foe (new window)

/quick & dirty
//could swear it was Planko not Panko


Probably the 2nd best Hitler reacts video i've ever seen, the best was him reacting to losing greatest rap battle in history to Darth Vader
 
2012-04-15 10:08:46 PM

Man On Pink Corner: violentsalvation: If you ever get a chance and if you haven't read it, this book is fascinating. It goes well with Berlin Diary and is more oral than rise and fall.

Interesting, I've never heard of The Nightmare Years. You don't feel it's completely redundant with Rise and Fall?


They overlap in some ways but The Nightmare Years is more of an autobiography of his life from 1930 to 1940 and what he saw living in Germany and reporting the war while America was still officially neutral.
 
2012-04-15 10:20:28 PM
img208.imageshack.us

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTcVNuNX8yY
 
2012-04-15 11:05:42 PM

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


The Klingons. Duh.
fc09.deviantart.net
 
2012-04-16 11:03:05 AM
Greatest Bond villian ever.

t1.gstatic.com
 
2012-04-16 11:51:01 PM

NutWrench: [27.media.tumblr.com image 500x333]
And of course, who can forget the time Washington fought that Bengal tiger. On a boat. In a hurricane.


In a jar of acid. At a party.
 
Displayed 219 of 219 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report