LOL - Denmark to reemerge as a global naval power?

[DinoDoc]

Read carefully what I said, I KH. I said you didn't win. I said nothing about the US winning though we did achieve some important goals. Ending the Indian threat to the Western and Southern borders being one.

[KrazyHorse]

The victory against Iraq has proceeded so well that there is now hardly any chance of a Baathist takeover of more than a small part of US territory.

GLORY HALLELUJAH

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Read carefully what I said, I KH. I said you didn't win. I said nothing about the US winning though we did achieve some important goals. Ending the Indian threat to the Western and Southern borders being one.

It doesn't matter whether you claim victory or stalemate based solely on the fact that the US was not conquered. It's irrelevant when your enemy has no interest in such a conquest, and never tries to attain it (quite rightly; it would have been impossible). Might as well say that the US revolutionary war was something other than a complete defeat for the Empire because George was still King over most of it at the end.

And by the way, what do you think the British goals were in that war?

There were two:

1) Avoid losing any more of BNA

2) Deal out some pain to the US for being such upstarts

Which they achieved, with reasonable losses.

The US failed miserably in the one major military maneuver they tried, namely the invasion of Canada. They gained no leverage through their military actions, because their position relative to the British was weaker during negotiations to end the war than it had been to start it. They had demonstrated their inability to successfully invade any part of BNA, even when it was only lightly defended by regulars and militia, which was something unexpected by most at the time. The War of 1812 was one which the British never wanted and had no real interest in, except to see the end of it. Once the US had taken enough that it was willing to go back to status quo ante bellum, the British were happy to grant it.

Victory is defined based on the aims of those who fight the war. The US failed in its aims. The British succeeded in theirs (which were more modest). Therefore it was a British victoy and an American defeat.

[KrazyHorse]

It's the same reason I consider the Korean war a victory for the US/SK/allied nations. They did not enter into the war because they wanted to conquer NK. They wanted to stop NK from conquering SK. As the war developed some flirted with the idea of a Western controlled united Korea, but that proved unfeasible.

At the end, SK was still standing, which was the aim of the anti-communist forces. Therefore they won, while the NK (and to a lesser extent the Chinese and Soviets) lost.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
It's the same reason I consider the Korean war a victory for the US/SK/allied nations. They did not enter into the war because they wanted to conquer NK. They wanted to stop NK from conquering SK. As the war developed some flirted with the idea of a Western controlled united Korea, but that proved unfeasible.

At the end, SK was still standing, which was the aim of the anti-communist forces. Therefore they won, while the NK (and to a lesser extent the Chinese and Soviets) lost.

do you believe all parties to a war either win or lose the war?

[KrazyHorse]

I believe there are sometimes pushes.

But I don't think 1812 was one of them.

The British achieved their goals significantly more effectively than did the Americans.

It was less than a total victory for the British or a complete loss for the Americans. The Americans didn't lose any territory, which they might well have had the war gone a little worse for them. They got several minor concessions, which could have been obtained through much more limited actions.

But in general the war did not achieve the lofty ambitions the Americans had when they started it, and it was a lesson they learned well enough to leave us pretty much alone (minor outrages like the Fenians and rap music excepted) from then till today.

[Kontiki]

We have, however, inflicted Celine Dion, Nickelback and Avril Lavigne on them, so we're making some ground on that rap thing.

[KrazyHorse]

If you want to look at it from the perspectives of the four major parties to the conflict (instead of the 2 simple sides) then:

The British won a small victory. They kept what they had, which is all they wanted. Furthermore, they demonstrated that they still could project power to the doorstep of the US.

The US lost a small defeat. They gained virtually nothing, but at least held their own when the war came to them. There was a significant rift between the hawks of the south and midwest and the peaceniks of the northeast (who actively engaged in smuggling and basically opted out of the war). This would have minor, but nonnegligible consequences for American unity down the road.

The Native American allies of the British lost a middling to large defeat. Once again they were sold down the river when it becamse convenient to do so.

The "Canadians" won a decisive victory. Militarily they defended their homes. Psychologically, the national myth of a valiant, unified, successful defence against a superior aggressor was born, and helped link the various colonies together. The British gained some respect for their martial abilities and loyalty, and this (in conjunction with other factors) would eventually lead to independence.

Only the Indians and Canadians had a real stake in the war. The other parties fought over issues which did not endanger their survival as a distinct group.

[Dis]

why does every thread end up in a discussion of the war of 1812? . Didn't the british stop the impressment of men into their navy? I'd say we achieved some goals.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
BTW, we're still bugging the Yanks about 1812.

nah, only some lame Internet trolls are

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
If you want to look at it from the perspectives of the four major parties to the conflict (instead of the 2 simple sides) then:

The British won a small victory. They kept what they had, which is all they wanted. Furthermore, they demonstrated that they still could project power to the doorstep of the US.

OMFG, the number one power in the world at that time, with assets from the west indies to capetown to India to Australia could still project power across the North Atlantic, only 3000 or so miles from London.

KH, if you ever get tired of physics, you could get a job at the DoD or the White House, spinning dismal situations into victories "We won in Iraq, we demonstrated we could still project power to the very doorstep of Iran!"

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
If you want to look at it from the perspectives of the four major parties to the conflict (instead of the 2 simple sides) then:

The British won a small victory. They kept what they had, which is all they wanted. Furthermore, they demonstrated that they still could project power to the doorstep of the US.

They could have kept that by conceding on the issue of impressment at the beginning. Would have saved a bunch of British and Canadian lives.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


Distorted history? Was the conquest of the US a stated war aim of Great Britain? Was the conquest of Canada a stated war aim of the US?

Give it up, DD.

The British had no interest in the reconquest of the US. They had no reason to think that they could manage then what they'd failed to do 40 years earlier against a much weaker enemy.

"On June 1, 1812, President James Madison sent the "war message" to Congress. This document cited numerous American grievances against Great Britain including; impressment, the practice of searching American vessels in American waters, trade embargoes detrimental to the American economy and finally, the alleged incitement to violence of the First Nations by the British Army. Although this message was not a overt call for war, its implication was obvious. "

Not a thing about conquering Canada. That was not a stated war aim either. All the stated war aims were achieved.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


OMFG, the number one power in the world at that time, with assets from the west indies to capetown to India to Australia could still project power across the North Atlantic, only 3000 or so miles from London.

OMFG 40 years before they hadn't been able to. The French had whipped their asses at sea, and they couldn't support the smallest of expeditions.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by lord of the mark



"On June 1, 1812, President James Madison sent the "war message" to Congress. This document cited numerous American grievances against Great Britain including; impressment, the practice of searching American vessels in American waters, trade embargoes detrimental to the American economy and finally, the alleged incitement to violence of the First Nations by the British Army. Although this message was not a overt call for war, its implication was obvious. "

Not a thing about conquering Canada. That was not a stated war aim either. All the stated war aims were achieved.

The grievances are not the same thing as war aims.

The grievances are generally a subset of the war aims.