French block airlift of British troops to Basra

[Michael Petukhov]

French block airlift of British troops to Basra 16.09.2003 [06:41]


The French government has told an airline that it is not to ferry
British troops to Basra, a ban that will be seen as reflecting Paris's
opposition to the occupation of Iraq.

Corsair, which has been chartered numerous times to transport UK
forces around the world, pulled out of a contract to fly
reinforcements to Basra at the weekend.

About 1,400 more troops are being sent to Basra as part of an attempt
to prevent the "strategic failure" predicted by Jack Straw, the
Foreign Secretary, with a similar number expected to be announced
within weeks.

A Corsair Airbus A330 was chartered to fly troops of the Royal Green
Jackets from Brize Norton, Oxon, but at the last moment the French
transport ministry grounded the aircraft citing safety concerns.

Transport ministry officials were reported yesterday as saying the
move had nothing to do with safety but was a result of the
intervention of the foreign ministry.

The foreign ministry denied the report, saying there was "no political
motive". But British defence officials appeared to confirm that the
ban was political and not technical.

"We have used them time and time again to fly troops into trouble
spots," one said. "They have been everywhere for us. We always thought
they were pretty robust."

A Corsair spokesman said most of the flights undertaken for the MoD
took troops to training exercises. For security and insurance reasons
they rarely flew to war zones.

"We did fly to Pristina during the Kosovo crisis, but only once it had
been cleared for civil aviation."

Basra is already open to civilian aircraft.



Source: Telegraph.co.uk, UK

[Christians for Cheeseburgers.]

"Michael Petukhov" > wrote in message
m...
> French block airlift of British troops to Basra 16.09.2003 [06:41]
>

Sooner or later there will need to be some serious payback for France and
Germany.

>
> The French government has told an airline that it is not to ferry
> British troops to Basra, a ban that will be seen as reflecting Paris's
> opposition to the occupation of Iraq.
>
> Corsair, which has been chartered numerous times to transport UK
> forces around the world, pulled out of a contract to fly
> reinforcements to Basra at the weekend.
>
> About 1,400 more troops are being sent to Basra as part of an attempt
> to prevent the "strategic failure" predicted by Jack Straw, the
> Foreign Secretary, with a similar number expected to be announced
> within weeks.
>
> A Corsair Airbus A330 was chartered to fly troops of the Royal Green
> Jackets from Brize Norton, Oxon, but at the last moment the French
> transport ministry grounded the aircraft citing safety concerns.
>
> Transport ministry officials were reported yesterday as saying the
> move had nothing to do with safety but was a result of the
> intervention of the foreign ministry.
>
> The foreign ministry denied the report, saying there was "no political
> motive". But British defence officials appeared to confirm that the
> ban was political and not technical.
>
> "We have used them time and time again to fly troops into trouble
> spots," one said. "They have been everywhere for us. We always thought
> they were pretty robust."
>
> A Corsair spokesman said most of the flights undertaken for the MoD
> took troops to training exercises. For security and insurance reasons
> they rarely flew to war zones.
>
> "We did fly to Pristina during the Kosovo crisis, but only once it had
> been cleared for civil aviation."
>
> Basra is already open to civilian aircraft.
>
>
>
> Source: Telegraph.co.uk, UK

[NEMO ME IMPUNE]

YES, But US and Brits and others are yet paying a high toll for their
stuborness

"Christians for Cheeseburgers." > a écrit dans le
message de news: ...
>
> "Michael Petukhov" > wrote in message
> m...
> > French block airlift of British troops to Basra 16.09.2003 [06:41]
> >
>
> Sooner or later there will need to be some serious payback for France and
> Germany.
>
> >
> > The French government has told an airline that it is not to ferry
> > British troops to Basra, a ban that will be seen as reflecting Paris's
> > opposition to the occupation of Iraq.
> >
> > Corsair, which has been chartered numerous times to transport UK
> > forces around the world, pulled out of a contract to fly
> > reinforcements to Basra at the weekend.
> >
> > About 1,400 more troops are being sent to Basra as part of an attempt
> > to prevent the "strategic failure" predicted by Jack Straw, the
> > Foreign Secretary, with a similar number expected to be announced
> > within weeks.
> >
> > A Corsair Airbus A330 was chartered to fly troops of the Royal Green
> > Jackets from Brize Norton, Oxon, but at the last moment the French
> > transport ministry grounded the aircraft citing safety concerns.
> >
> > Transport ministry officials were reported yesterday as saying the
> > move had nothing to do with safety but was a result of the
> > intervention of the foreign ministry.
> >
> > The foreign ministry denied the report, saying there was "no political
> > motive". But British defence officials appeared to confirm that the
> > ban was political and not technical.
> >
> > "We have used them time and time again to fly troops into trouble
> > spots," one said. "They have been everywhere for us. We always thought
> > they were pretty robust."
> >
> > A Corsair spokesman said most of the flights undertaken for the MoD
> > took troops to training exercises. For security and insurance reasons
> > they rarely flew to war zones.
> >
> > "We did fly to Pristina during the Kosovo crisis, but only once it had
> > been cleared for civil aviation."
> >
> > Basra is already open to civilian aircraft.
> >
> >
> >
> > Source: Telegraph.co.uk, UK
>
>

[Peter Kemp]

On 17 Sep 2003 04:17:05 -0700, (Michael
Petukhov) wrote:

>French block airlift of British troops to Basra 16.09.2003 [06:41]
>
>
>The French government has told an airline that it is not to ferry
>British troops to Basra, a ban that will be seen as reflecting Paris's
>opposition to the occupation of Iraq.
>
>Corsair, which has been chartered numerous times to transport UK
>forces around the world, pulled out of a contract to fly
>reinforcements to Basra at the weekend.

Good planning by the French.

Net effect of the move - Corsair loses the various UK charter
contracts to another, probably non-French firm, and generates some
anti French feeling in the UK. Oops.

Peter Kemp

[Tarver Engineering]

"Peter Kemp" <peter_n_kempathotmaildotcom> wrote in message
...
> On 17 Sep 2003 04:17:05 -0700, (Michael
> Petukhov) wrote:
>
> >French block airlift of British troops to Basra 16.09.2003 [06:41]
> >
> >
> >The French government has told an airline that it is not to ferry
> >British troops to Basra, a ban that will be seen as reflecting Paris's
> >opposition to the occupation of Iraq.
> >
> >Corsair, which has been chartered numerous times to transport UK
> >forces around the world, pulled out of a contract to fly
> >reinforcements to Basra at the weekend.
>
> Good planning by the French.
>
> Net effect of the move - Corsair loses the various UK charter
> contracts to another, probably non-French firm, and generates some
> anti French feeling in the UK. Oops.

If the UK public were to boycott French products like the American People
have, the French People would riot.

[tscottme]

Tarver Engineering > wrote in message
...
>
>
> If the UK public were to boycott French products like the American
People
> have, the French People would riot.
>

I suspect the French people would look to hire someone to riot for them,
probably one of their Arab terrorist allies.

--

Scott
--------
"the Arabs should remember that they invaded and occupied important
parts of Europe hundreds of years before the Crusades wars. "
Zuheir Abdallah-columnist for the London-based Arabic daily Al-Hayat
http://www.memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD55103

[Tarver Engineering]

"tscottme" > wrote in message
...
> Tarver Engineering > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >
> > If the UK public were to boycott French products like the American
People
> > have, the French People would riot.
> >
>
> I suspect the French people would look to hire someone to riot for them,
> probably one of their Arab terrorist allies.

People without work might II Deuce, Chirac.

[Kevin Brooks]

"NEMO ME IMPUNE" > wrote in message >...
> YES, But US and Brits and others are yet paying a high toll for their
> stuborness

Much better to be a toll payer than a freeloader like France. When was
the last time France paid its own "tolls"? That would have been about
1918, right?

Brooks

>
> "Christians for Cheeseburgers." > a écrit dans le
> message de news: ...
> >
> > "Michael Petukhov" > wrote in message
> > m...
> > > French block airlift of British troops to Basra 16.09.2003 [06:41]
> > >
> >
> > Sooner or later there will need to be some serious payback for France and
> > Germany.
> >
> > >
> > > The French government has told an airline that it is not to ferry
> > > British troops to Basra, a ban that will be seen as reflecting Paris's
> > > opposition to the occupation of Iraq.
> > >
> > > Corsair, which has been chartered numerous times to transport UK
> > > forces around the world, pulled out of a contract to fly
> > > reinforcements to Basra at the weekend.
> > >
> > > About 1,400 more troops are being sent to Basra as part of an attempt
> > > to prevent the "strategic failure" predicted by Jack Straw, the
> > > Foreign Secretary, with a similar number expected to be announced
> > > within weeks.
> > >
> > > A Corsair Airbus A330 was chartered to fly troops of the Royal Green
> > > Jackets from Brize Norton, Oxon, but at the last moment the French
> > > transport ministry grounded the aircraft citing safety concerns.
> > >
> > > Transport ministry officials were reported yesterday as saying the
> > > move had nothing to do with safety but was a result of the
> > > intervention of the foreign ministry.
> > >
> > > The foreign ministry denied the report, saying there was "no political
> > > motive". But British defence officials appeared to confirm that the
> > > ban was political and not technical.
> > >
> > > "We have used them time and time again to fly troops into trouble
> > > spots," one said. "They have been everywhere for us. We always thought
> > > they were pretty robust."
> > >
> > > A Corsair spokesman said most of the flights undertaken for the MoD
> > > took troops to training exercises. For security and insurance reasons
> > > they rarely flew to war zones.
> > >
> > > "We did fly to Pristina during the Kosovo crisis, but only once it had
> > > been cleared for civil aviation."
> > >
> > > Basra is already open to civilian aircraft.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Source: Telegraph.co.uk, UK
> >
> >

[Pooh Bear]

Tarver Engineering wrote:

> "Peter Kemp" <peter_n_kempathotmaildotcom> wrote in message
> ...
> > On 17 Sep 2003 04:17:05 -0700, (Michael
> > Petukhov) wrote:
> >
> > >French block airlift of British troops to Basra 16.09.2003 [06:41]
> > >
> > >
> > >The French government has told an airline that it is not to ferry
> > >British troops to Basra, a ban that will be seen as reflecting Paris's
> > >opposition to the occupation of Iraq.
> > >
> > >Corsair, which has been chartered numerous times to transport UK
> > >forces around the world, pulled out of a contract to fly
> > >reinforcements to Basra at the weekend.
> >
> > Good planning by the French.
> >
> > Net effect of the move - Corsair loses the various UK charter
> > contracts to another, probably non-French firm, and generates some
> > anti French feeling in the UK. Oops.
>
> If the UK public were to boycott French products like the American People
> have, the French People would riot.

If the French really want to irritate the UK they just get their farmers /
truck drivers / fishermen / ATC / whatever to go on strike.

If you're not familiar with the effect, I'd be glad to explain further.


Graham

[Tarver Engineering]

"Pooh Bear" > wrote in message
...
> Tarver Engineering wrote:
>
> > "Peter Kemp" <peter_n_kempathotmaildotcom> wrote in message
> > ...
> > > On 17 Sep 2003 04:17:05 -0700, (Michael
> > > Petukhov) wrote:
> > >
> > > >French block airlift of British troops to Basra 16.09.2003 [06:41]
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >The French government has told an airline that it is not to ferry
> > > >British troops to Basra, a ban that will be seen as reflecting
Paris's
> > > >opposition to the occupation of Iraq.
> > > >
> > > >Corsair, which has been chartered numerous times to transport UK
> > > >forces around the world, pulled out of a contract to fly
> > > >reinforcements to Basra at the weekend.
> > >
> > > Good planning by the French.
> > >
> > > Net effect of the move - Corsair loses the various UK charter
> > > contracts to another, probably non-French firm, and generates some
> > > anti French feeling in the UK. Oops.
> >
> > If the UK public were to boycott French products like the American
People
> > have, the French People would riot.
>
> If the French really want to irritate the UK they just get their farmers /
> truck drivers / fishermen / ATC / whatever to go on strike.
>
> If you're not familiar with the effect, I'd be glad to explain further.

Is ther an odor?

[Tank Fixer]

In article >, says...
>
> "Peter Kemp" <peter_n_kempathotmaildotcom> wrote in message
> ...
> > On 17 Sep 2003 04:17:05 -0700, (Michael
> > Petukhov) wrote:
> >
> > >French block airlift of British troops to Basra 16.09.2003 [06:41]
> > >
> > >
> > >The French government has told an airline that it is not to ferry
> > >British troops to Basra, a ban that will be seen as reflecting Paris's
> > >opposition to the occupation of Iraq.
> > >
> > >Corsair, which has been chartered numerous times to transport UK
> > >forces around the world, pulled out of a contract to fly
> > >reinforcements to Basra at the weekend.
> >
> > Good planning by the French.
> >
> > Net effect of the move - Corsair loses the various UK charter
> > contracts to another, probably non-French firm, and generates some
> > anti French feeling in the UK. Oops.
>
> If the UK public were to boycott French products like the American People
> have, the French People would riot.
>



Is it spring already ?


--
0763rd Messkit & Gameboy Repair Company
404th Area Support Group (Lemming)

[robert arndt]

"Christians for Cheeseburgers." > wrote in message >...
> "Michael Petukhov" > wrote in message
> m...
> > French block airlift of British troops to Basra 16.09.2003 [06:41]
> >
>
> Sooner or later there will need to be some serious payback for France and
> Germany.
>

Not while US forces in Iraq are still dying and the new election year
is looming ahead. President Bush has recently praised German forces
for their participation in Afghanistan and their evolving role in the
region.
Berlin for its part would be willing to send German troops to Iraq
should the US properly cede military and political control of that
nation over to the UN. The US could still have the biggest piece of
the peace dividend/restoration contracts... but Berlin wants a share
plus the reestablishment of its business contracts and monies owed.
Sounds fair enough to me. But then again, we live in the US and
consume an awful lot of gas. Iraq currently holds the second largest
oil reserves and when its industry and resources are properly
developed will surpass Saudi Arabia. For the US to relinquish control
of such a strategic asset now in the midst of unprecedented
international terrorism and national vunerability makes that proposal
unlikely.
Despite the rising death toll we will still probably arrogantly refuse
to budge until Bush's numbers start to seriously fall or another
conflict breaks out that requires calling up all the reserves.
US troops are already grumbling and we still have no exit strategy.
This can't go on forever with Bush merely asking Congress for
ever-increasing funds for a failed mission. We can't go it alone no
matter how powerful we are and we look foolish on the international
scene with the conspicuous absence of any WMD proof or link of Saddam
to 9/11. Simply waving a flag and invoking 9/11 memories won't last
forever. The US is still vunerable, our missions in Afghanistan and
Iraq are failures (no Osama, no Saddam, no WMDs, no restoration),
Saudi Arabia is not our friend and seeking nukes now, Iran is right
next door to our forces and has a nuclear weapons program, and the
DPRK situation remains unresolved... not to mention the Mideast
roadmap is in ruins.
So when do you propose payback on France and Germany? And why?
Shouldn't we be striking Syria, Iran, and the DPRK first? Shouldn't we
find Osama and Saddam? And shouldn't we stop meddling in Israel, allow
them to rid themselves of Yasser, and sit down with a real Palestinian
PM candidate willing to disarm Hamas and accept reasonable terms with
Israel that guarnatees them a state and Israel security?
I think you have your priorities mixed up.

Rob

[Pooh Bear]

Tarver Engineering wrote:

> "Pooh Bear" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Tarver Engineering wrote:
> >
> > > "Peter Kemp" <peter_n_kempathotmaildotcom> wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > On 17 Sep 2003 04:17:05 -0700, (Michael
> > > > Petukhov) wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >French block airlift of British troops to Basra 16.09.2003 [06:41]
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >The French government has told an airline that it is not to ferry
> > > > >British troops to Basra, a ban that will be seen as reflecting
> Paris's
> > > > >opposition to the occupation of Iraq.
> > > > >
> > > > >Corsair, which has been chartered numerous times to transport UK
> > > > >forces around the world, pulled out of a contract to fly
> > > > >reinforcements to Basra at the weekend.
> > > >
> > > > Good planning by the French.
> > > >
> > > > Net effect of the move - Corsair loses the various UK charter
> > > > contracts to another, probably non-French firm, and generates some
> > > > anti French feeling in the UK. Oops.
> > >
> > > If the UK public were to boycott French products like the American
> People
> > > have, the French People would riot.
> >
> > If the French really want to irritate the UK they just get their farmers /
> > truck drivers / fishermen / ATC / whatever to go on strike.
> >
> > If you're not familiar with the effect, I'd be glad to explain further.
>
> Is ther an odor?

I think I see where you're coming from. :-)

Actually the main effect is to block main traffic routes to the European
mainland.- whether they be by air , sea, or road ( via any means of crossing the
Channel ) . I'm not sure if Eurotunnel operatives have done it too - in which
case possibly by rail too.

Sometimes being an island has its disadvantages.


Graham

[Simon Robbins]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
> If the UK public were to boycott French products like the American People
> have, the French People would riot.

That's not likely to happen so long as the British public have a more
grown-up attitude to politics than a class of first-graders.

Si

[Peter McLelland]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message >...
> "Peter Kemp" <peter_n_kempathotmaildotcom> wrote in message
> ...
> > On 17 Sep 2003 04:17:05 -0700, (Michael
> > Petukhov) wrote:
> >
> > >French block airlift of British troops to Basra 16.09.2003 [06:41]
> > >
> > >
> > >The French government has told an airline that it is not to ferry
> > >British troops to Basra, a ban that will be seen as reflecting Paris's
> > >opposition to the occupation of Iraq.
> > >
> > >Corsair, which has been chartered numerous times to transport UK
> > >forces around the world, pulled out of a contract to fly
> > >reinforcements to Basra at the weekend.
> >
> > Good planning by the French.
> >
> > Net effect of the move - Corsair loses the various UK charter
> > contracts to another, probably non-French firm, and generates some
> > anti French feeling in the UK. Oops.
>
> If the UK public were to boycott French products like the American People
> have, the French People would riot.

Interestingly enough the French usually reserve their riots for their
own government and have a pretty good record of making their
government change it's policy this way.

Shades of the revolution and all that.

Peter

[William Black]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...

> If the UK public were to boycott French products like the American People
> have, the French People would riot.

I wish they would

The price of champagne and decent cheese would drop even lower.

Or do you prefer freedom fries and coke?

--
William Black
------------------
On time, on budget, or works;
Pick any two from three

[Tarver Engineering]

"Peter McLelland" > wrote in message
om...
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
>...
> > "Peter Kemp" <peter_n_kempathotmaildotcom> wrote in message
> > ...
> > > On 17 Sep 2003 04:17:05 -0700, (Michael
> > > Petukhov) wrote:
> > >
> > > >French block airlift of British troops to Basra 16.09.2003 [06:41]
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >The French government has told an airline that it is not to ferry
> > > >British troops to Basra, a ban that will be seen as reflecting
Paris's
> > > >opposition to the occupation of Iraq.
> > > >
> > > >Corsair, which has been chartered numerous times to transport UK
> > > >forces around the world, pulled out of a contract to fly
> > > >reinforcements to Basra at the weekend.
> > >
> > > Good planning by the French.
> > >
> > > Net effect of the move - Corsair loses the various UK charter
> > > contracts to another, probably non-French firm, and generates some
> > > anti French feeling in the UK. Oops.
> >
> > If the UK public were to boycott French products like the American
People
> > have, the French People would riot.
>
> Interestingly enough the French usually reserve their riots for their
> own government and have a pretty good record of making their
> government change it's policy this way.

I wasn't thinking the anger of the French people would be directed at the
UK.

[Tarver Engineering]

"William Black" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > If the UK public were to boycott French products like the American
People
> > have, the French People would riot.
>
> I wish they would
>
> The price of champagne and decent cheese would drop even lower.

French wine is all from California vines and we can't buy French cheese.

[Kevin Brooks]

(robert arndt) wrote in message >...
> "Christians for Cheeseburgers." > wrote in message >...
> > "Michael Petukhov" > wrote in message
> > m...
> > > French block airlift of British troops to Basra 16.09.2003 [06:41]
> > >
> >
> > Sooner or later there will need to be some serious payback for France and
> > Germany.
> >
>
> Not while US forces in Iraq are still dying and the new election year
> is looming ahead. President Bush has recently praised German forces
> for their participation in Afghanistan and their evolving role in the
> region.
> Berlin for its part would be willing to send German troops to Iraq
> should the US properly cede military and political control of that
> nation over to the UN.

Not gonna happen, not even in your wildest Wagnerian dreams, Robert.
Perhaps you would like to enlighten us as to the massive record of
past UN successes in this regard--like the Middle East, or Somalia?


The US could still have the biggest piece of
> the peace dividend/restoration contracts... but Berlin wants a share
> plus the reestablishment of its business contracts and monies owed.
> Sounds fair enough to me. But then again, we live in the US and
> consume an awful lot of gas. Iraq currently holds the second largest
> oil reserves and when its industry and resources are properly
> developed will surpass Saudi Arabia. For the US to relinquish control
> of such a strategic asset now in the midst of unprecedented
> international terrorism and national vunerability makes that proposal
> unlikely.
> Despite the rising death toll we will still probably arrogantly refuse
> to budge until Bush's numbers start to seriously fall or another

Did you catch yesterday's poll results? Bush beats *every* Democratic
challenger by a wide margin? Where is this massive drop in Bush's
numbers you keep mumbling about?

> conflict breaks out that requires calling up all the reserves.

LOL! We now have over 172K reservists on active duty; how much more
are required in order to meet this doomsday scenario you forecast?

> US troops are already grumbling and we still have no exit strategy.

US troops always grumble; part of what makes US troops unique, I
guess.

> This can't go on forever with Bush merely asking Congress for
> ever-increasing funds for a failed mission.

Failed mission? My, you continue to demonstrate a tremendous
capability for fantasy. Is Saddam in control? No. Is the interim Iraqi
leadership accepting more responsibility for their own governance?
Yes. Are *all* of the schools, universities, and hospitals open again?
Yes. Are Iraqis being herded into the desert and gunned down by their
mass graves as they were throughout Saddam's reign? No. And you call
that *failure*?! God only knows what you require of our military to
acheive *success* if that is the case.

We can't go it alone no
> matter how powerful we are and we look foolish on the international
> scene with the conspicuous absence of any WMD proof or link of Saddam
> to 9/11.

We are not alone. That you are terribly myopic to the point of
considering any venture that does not include French and German
participation as "solitary" does not change the fact that British,
Dutch, Polish, Spanish, Australian, Italian, Lithuanian, Latvian,
Estonian, Honduran, Czech, etc., ad nauseum, forces are now serving or
have served in Iraq.

Simply waving a flag and invoking 9/11 memories won't last
> forever. The US is still vunerable, our missions in Afghanistan and
> Iraq are failures (no Osama, no Saddam, no WMDs, no restoration),

So you say; but then again, you have not exactly told us how to define
"success", have you? FYI, military operations are usually not the best
manner to capture a single individual; merely dislocating him from
power is a rather good first step.

Brooks


<snip further rant>

[Grantland]

"Tarver Engineering" > bellowed:

>France seems intent on isolating herself from the civilized world.
>
Oh the irony. Exquisite!

Grantland

[William Black]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Peter McLelland" > wrote in message
> om...

> > Interestingly enough the French usually reserve their riots for their
> > own government and have a pretty good record of making their
> > government change it's policy this way.
>
> I wasn't thinking the anger of the French people would be directed at the
> UK.

Why ever not, it has been for the last thousand years or so.

I'm afraid we just don't get on.

Which is odd, because I like the place and I like the food. I even like
the people outside the big cities.

However the French in the big cities are a ghastly bunch, although I think
they hate their own provincials more than they hate the Brits...

--
William Black
------------------
On time, on budget, or works;
Pick any two from three

[William Black]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>
> "William Black" > wrote in message
> ...

> > The price of champagne and decent cheese would drop even lower.
>
> French wine is all from California vines and we can't buy French cheese.

And the Californian vines came from where originally?

I've tried that stuff they sell as 'domestic champagne' in the USA,
including the stuff made by Mumm, which chemical plant makes it?

Not being able to buy French cheese is a cruel and unusual punishment...

--
William Black
------------------
On time, on budget, or works;
Pick any two from three

[Peter Kemp]

On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 16:25:34 +0000 (UTC), "William Black"
> wrote:

>
>"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> "William Black" > wrote in message
>> ...
>
>> > The price of champagne and decent cheese would drop even lower.
>>
>> French wine is all from California vines and we can't buy French cheese.
>
>And the Californian vines came from where originally?
>
>I've tried that stuff they sell as 'domestic champagne' in the USA,
>including the stuff made by Mumm, which chemical plant makes it?
>
>Not being able to buy French cheese is a cruel and unusual punishment...

Tarver obviously has a shopping problem since last time I was at the
supermarket in the US (last night) there was plenty of cheese from
France. Now tracking down a decent mature farmhouse cheddar is a real
challenge!

Peter Kemp

[Keith Willshaw]

"William Black" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "William Black" > wrote in message
> > ...
>
> > > The price of champagne and decent cheese would drop even lower.
> >
> > French wine is all from California vines and we can't buy French cheese.
>
> And the Californian vines came from where originally?
>


The French (and Californian) vines were destroyed by the
Phyloxera infestation in the 19th century but it was found
that the native American rootstocks found in Missouri
were resistant, all modern French wine is grown from cuttings
grafted on to those American rootstocks.


Keith

[Tarver Engineering]

"William Black" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Peter McLelland" > wrote in message
> > om...
>
> > > Interestingly enough the French usually reserve their riots for their
> > > own government and have a pretty good record of making their
> > > government change it's policy this way.
> >
> > I wasn't thinking the anger of the French people would be directed at
the
> > UK.
>
> Why ever not, it has been for the last thousand years or so.

That could be associated with the English invading France; you know that
whole burning a girl at the stake thing.

> I'm afraid we just don't get on.
>
> Which is odd, because I like the place and I like the food. I even like
> the people outside the big cities.

Yes, we had a Parisian exchange student here in the house and she was very
nice, but her family spent all the weekends in the country. Her parents
were both physicians and I hoep they did not get in trouble over the 15,000
that died from the heat. That sort of euthanasia should save Chirac's
Government many EU in pensions.

> However the French in the big cities are a ghastly bunch, although I
think
> they hate their own provincials more than they hate the Brits...

France seems intent on isolating herself from the civilized world.

[Tarver Engineering]

"William Black" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "William Black" > wrote in message
> > ...
>
> > > The price of champagne and decent cheese would drop even lower.
> >
> > French wine is all from California vines and we can't buy French cheese.
>
> And the Californian vines came from where originally?

Italy.

> I've tried that stuff they sell as 'domestic champagne' in the USA,
> including the stuff made by Mumm, which chemical plant makes it?

I have to say, the White Star I bought for my friends at New Years is much
better.

> Not being able to buy French cheese is a cruel and unusual punishment...

The FDA says French cheese is a biohazard.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Peter Kemp" <peter_n_kempathotmaildotcom> wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 16:25:34 +0000 (UTC), "William Black"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>
> >> "William Black" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >
> >> > The price of champagne and decent cheese would drop even lower.
> >>
> >> French wine is all from California vines and we can't buy French
cheese.
> >
> >And the Californian vines came from where originally?
> >
> >I've tried that stuff they sell as 'domestic champagne' in the USA,
> >including the stuff made by Mumm, which chemical plant makes it?
> >
> >Not being able to buy French cheese is a cruel and unusual punishment...
>
> Tarver obviously has a shopping problem since last time I was at the
> supermarket in the US (last night) there was plenty of cheese from
> France. Now tracking down a decent mature farmhouse cheddar is a real
> challenge!

Oh no silly child, Mr. Black is refering to the good kind of French cheese.

[Earl]

"William Black" > wrote in
:

>
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "William Black" > wrote in
>> message ...
>
>> > The price of champagne and decent cheese would drop even
>> > lower.
>>
>> French wine is all from California vines and we can't buy
>> French cheese.
>
> And the Californian vines came from where originally?
>
> I've tried that stuff they sell as 'domestic champagne' in
> the USA, including the stuff made by Mumm, which chemical
> plant makes it?
>
> Not being able to buy French cheese is a cruel and unusual
> punishment...
>
> --
> William Black
> ------------------
> On time, on budget, or works;
> Pick any two from three
>
>

IIRC the plants came from Tuscany along with all those little
ole winemakers that dotted the California countryside. The
French and their grapes stayed home to prepare for the Franco
Prussian War and WW1.

I thought the adultration of wines to be sold at top prices was
a French art. There certainly have been enough Frenchmen caught
at it lately.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Earl" > wrote in message
...
> "William Black" > wrote in
> :
>
> >
> > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >>
> >> "William Black" > wrote in
> >> message ...
> >
> >> > The price of champagne and decent cheese would drop even
> >> > lower.
> >>
> >> French wine is all from California vines and we can't buy
> >> French cheese.
> >
> > And the Californian vines came from where originally?
> >
> > I've tried that stuff they sell as 'domestic champagne' in
> > the USA, including the stuff made by Mumm, which chemical
> > plant makes it?
> >
> > Not being able to buy French cheese is a cruel and unusual
> > punishment...
> >
> > --
> > William Black
> > ------------------
> > On time, on budget, or works;
> > Pick any two from three
> >
> >
>
> IIRC the plants came from Tuscany along with all those little
> ole winemakers that dotted the California countryside. The
> French and their grapes stayed home to prepare for the Franco
> Prussian War and WW1.

Italinans in the Central Valley funded a civil war against the railroads,
with their wine. They are the Dalton brothers.

> I thought the adultration of wines to be sold at top prices was
> a French art. There certainly have been enough Frenchmen caught
> at it lately.

A little anti-freeze, perhaps?:)

[Tarver Engineering]

"Grantland" > wrote in message
...
> "Tarver Engineering" > bellowed:
>
> >France seems intent on isolating herself from the civilized world.
> >
> Oh the irony. Exquisite!

Don't foget the golden rule, Grantland:

He who has the gold, makes the rules.

[Robert]

"Peter McLelland" > wrote in message
om...
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
>...
> > "Peter Kemp" <peter_n_kempathotmaildotcom> wrote in message
> > ...
> > > On 17 Sep 2003 04:17:05 -0700, (Michael
> > > Petukhov) wrote:
> > >
> > > >French block airlift of British troops to Basra 16.09.2003 [06:41]
> > > >
> > > >
[trim]
> >
> > If the UK public were to boycott French products like the American
People
> > have, the French People would riot.
>
> Interestingly enough the French usually reserve their riots for their
> own government and have a pretty good record of making their
> government change it's policy this way.
>
> Shades of the revolution and all that.
>
> Peter

Wasn't France (not USSR/Russia) the first nuclear armed country to have a
military coup? Or was the Algerian revolution before they got nukes?

Is that why they get so upset about the US military stay-with-it? Their
army took casualties and had a failed colonial occupation in an Aram contry
that lead to the army taking over the govt to get out of the colony
business, and the US hasn't?

[Robert]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>
> "William Black" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Peter McLelland" > wrote in message
> > > om...
> >
> > > > Interestingly enough the French usually reserve their riots for
their
> > > > own government and have a pretty good record of making their
> > > > government change it's policy this way.
> > >
> > > I wasn't thinking the anger of the French people would be directed at
> the
> > > UK.
> >
> > Why ever not, it has been for the last thousand years or so.
>
> That could be associated with the English invading France; you know that
> whole burning a girl at the stake thing.

Wasn't that more a case of the grand kids fighting over the inheritance?
Remember France took over England before then. 1066 ring a bell? So the
French in England were squabbling with the French in Brittany.

Something about domestic fights are always the worst.
[trim]

[Tarver Engineering]

"Robert" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "William Black" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > "Peter McLelland" > wrote in message
> > > > om...
> > >
> > > > > Interestingly enough the French usually reserve their riots for
their
> > > > > own government and have a pretty good record of making their
> > > > > government change it's policy this way.
> > > >
> > > > I wasn't thinking the anger of the French people would be directed
at the
> > > > UK.
> > >
> > > Why ever not, it has been for the last thousand years or so.
> >
> > That could be associated with the English invading France; you know that
> > whole burning a girl at the stake thing.
>
> Wasn't that more a case of the grand kids fighting over the inheritance?

Ahh, to Andrew Jackson's sport hunting of bipeds; so much simpler a time.

> Remember France took over England before then. 1066 ring a bell? So the
> French in England were squabbling with the French in Brittany.

An army was raised in the highlands at Tarves and that is my name.

> Something about domestic fights are always the worst.
> [trim]

Do they have free cheese?

[ArVa]

"Robert" > a écrit dans le message de
link.net...
> >
> > Interestingly enough the French usually reserve their riots for their
> > own government and have a pretty good record of making their
> > government change it's policy this way.
> >
> > Shades of the revolution and all that.
> >
> > Peter
>
> Wasn't France (not USSR/Russia) the first nuclear armed country to have a
> military coup? Or was the Algerian revolution before they got nukes?

Well, the first French atomic bomb was detonated in Sahara in 1960, two
years after the June1958 coup that failed pretty quickly anyway as De Gaulle
refused to follow the generals who had initiated it and as there was no
support at all from the public in the metropole.

>
> Is that why they get so upset about the US military stay-with-it? Their
> army took casualties and had a failed colonial occupation in an Aram
contry
> that lead to the army taking over the govt to get out of the colony
> business, and the US hasn't?
>

I honestly don't see many links between the decolonization war in Algeria
and the current US foreign policy. Now if you're talking about mutual
failures... :-)

Regards,
ArVa

[Owe Jessen]

Am Thu, 18 Sep 2003 16:25:34 +0000 (UTC), schrieb "William Black"
> :
>I've tried that stuff they sell as 'domestic champagne' in the USA,
>including the stuff made by Mumm, which chemical plant makes it?
>

But it has the three essential vitamines D, O and W.
Owe
--
21 ist nur die halbe Wahrheit!
www.owejessen.de

[L'acrobat]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
m...

>
> > US troops are already grumbling and we still have no exit strategy.
>
> US troops always grumble; part of what makes US troops unique, I
> guess.

Hardly.

The old maxim that probably goes back beyond the Romans is "you start to
worry when the troops stop bitching".

[L'acrobat]

"William Black" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "William Black" > wrote in message
> > ...
>
> > > The price of champagne and decent cheese would drop even lower.
> >
> > French wine is all from California vines and we can't buy French cheese.
>
> And the Californian vines came from where originally?
>
> I've tried that stuff they sell as 'domestic champagne' in the USA,
> including the stuff made by Mumm, which chemical plant makes it?
>
> Not being able to buy French cheese is a cruel and unusual punishment...

If you like fine cheese, try tracking down a King Island Double Brie.

The perfect food.

[Cub Driver]

>> I wasn't thinking the anger of the French people would be directed at the
>> UK.
>
>Why ever not, it has been for the last thousand years or so.

I've been watching the CBS Video History of WWII. Last night was
Torch, the invasion of North Africa. The U.S. troops landed first
because the Allies believed that the French would be less likely to
fire on them than the British, because of the "hatred" (Walter
Cronkite's word) they bore for the Brits.

To be sure, the lower the rank, the less this attitude prevailed. And
in the end, when the Allies moved east to Tunisia, French colonial
forces joined them.


all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Cub Driver]

>> Berlin for its part would be willing to send German troops to Iraq
>> should the US properly cede military and political control of that
>> nation over to the UN.
>
>Not gonna happen, not even in your wildest Wagnerian dreams,

Actually, Schroeder's latest offer is for troops but no money!

To be sure, the troops would be used for training Iraqi police and
military, not for active use.

What's the German army like these days? Is it anything like Holland's,
over-weight, over-aged, and the troops in hair nets?

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Iain Rae]

Cub Driver wrote:
>>>I wasn't thinking the anger of the French people would be directed at the
>>>UK.
>>
>>Why ever not, it has been for the last thousand years or so.
>
>
> I've been watching the CBS Video History of WWII. Last night was
> Torch, the invasion of North Africa. The U.S. troops landed first
> because the Allies believed that the French would be less likely to
> fire on them than the British, because of the "hatred" (Walter
> Cronkite's word) they bore for the Brits.

That's not that surprising since the French had been under RN guns about
two years previously and relations between the UK and the Vichy
government were never good with the French harrassing Gibraltar airspace
and interning the crew of a damaged RN vessel. Probably there are
complaints on the French side.







http://www.angelfire.com/ia/totalwar/MersElKebir.html




--
Iain Rae Tel:01316505202
Computing Officer JCMB:2418
School of Informatics
The University of Edinburgh

[Keith Willshaw]

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>
> >> I wasn't thinking the anger of the French people would be directed at
the
> >> UK.
> >
> >Why ever not, it has been for the last thousand years or so.
>
> I've been watching the CBS Video History of WWII. Last night was
> Torch, the invasion of North Africa. The U.S. troops landed first
> because the Allies believed that the French would be less likely to
> fire on them than the British, because of the "hatred" (Walter
> Cronkite's word) they bore for the Brits.
>
> To be sure, the lower the rank, the less this attitude prevailed. And
> in the end, when the Allies moved east to Tunisia, French colonial
> forces joined them.
>

To be fair some French colonial forces joined the British
fighting the Germans and Italians long before Torch.

General LeClerc and his Free French Troops never stopped
fighting the Boche and the Vichy regime, having seized
control of Cameroon and Chad he and his men made
an epic journey through Chad and Southern Libya to
join up with the 8th Army in 1941

Keith

[George Z. Bush]

"Iain Rae" > wrote in message
...
> Cub Driver wrote:

(Snip)

> That's not that surprising since the French had been under RN guns about
> two years previously and relations between the UK and the Vichy
> government were never good with the French harrassing Gibraltar airspace ...

I don't recall hearing or reading anything about the French harassing Gibraltar
airspace. How did they manage that? Out of Algeria or Morocco? What was the
Spanish reaction to such incursions? Did the RAF have a presence in Gibraltar
at the time?

George Z.

[Andrew Chaplin]

"L'acrobat" > wrote in message
...
>
> If you like fine cheese, try tracking down a King Island Double Brie.
>
> The perfect food.

Especially if you have to pill the dog. Just a cut thin slice when it is
not quite room temperature, wrap the pill in it, and down it goes with
nary a protest. My dog is spoiled rotten.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

[William Black]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...

> That could be associated with the English invading France; you know that
> whole burning a girl at the stake thing.

Well as the burning was actually done by a French bishop's court it's
possible the story may well be exagerated somewhat.

Besides, as most serious countries have noticed in the past few centuries,
invading France is fun. They can't fight, the food and drink are wonderful
and the women very welcoming.

The French government in recent years has even taken to sponsering
re-enactments of various invasions, and very nice the two I went on were...
There's something deeply satisfying about hanging around the village of
Crecy dressed as an English archer...

--
William Black
------------------
On time, on budget, or works;
Pick any two from three

[Tarver Engineering]

"William Black" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > That could be associated with the English invading France; you know that
> > whole burning a girl at the stake thing.
>
> Well as the burning was actually done by a French bishop's court it's
> possible the story may well be exagerated somewhat.

That all depends on which of the many versions one hears.

> Besides, as most serious countries have noticed in the past few
centuries,
> invading France is fun. They can't fight, the food and drink are
wonderful
> and the women very welcoming.

Not exactly rapeing and pillaging then.

> The French government in recent years has even taken to sponsering
> re-enactments of various invasions, and very nice the two I went on
were...
> There's something deeply satisfying about hanging around the village of
> Crecy dressed as an English archer...

My family were once archers.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>
> >> Berlin for its part would be willing to send German troops to Iraq
> >> should the US properly cede military and political control of that
> >> nation over to the UN.
> >
> >Not gonna happen, not even in your wildest Wagnerian dreams,
>
> Actually, Schroeder's latest offer is for troops but no money!

Schroder's current offer is to kiss GW's ass and beg forgivnance.

> To be sure, the troops would be used for training Iraqi police and
> military, not for active use.

Works for me.

[Dr. George O. Bizzigotti]

On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 11:48:52 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
> wrote:

>To be fair some French colonial forces joined the British
>fighting the Germans and Italians long before Torch.

>General LeClerc and his Free French Troops never stopped
>fighting the Boche and the Vichy regime, having seized
>control of Cameroon and Chad he and his men made
>an epic journey through Chad and Southern Libya to
>join up with the 8th Army in 1941

Indeed, and that was just the first chapter of Leclerc's epic. I had
the distinct pleasure of residing in Strasbourg for two years when I
was, ahem, younger, where I learned this story (one of the major
streets of the old town is named "Rue De La Division Leclerc"). On 1
March 1941, Leclerc vowed that he would not put down his weapons until
the colors which he had just raised over Koufra (in southeast Libya)
float over the cathedral of Strasbourg.* Leclerc went on to lead the
Allies into Paris in August 1944. In December 1944, Leclerc's second
armored division fulfilled his oath at Koufra, liberating
Strasbourg.**

*Jurez de ne déposer les armes que lorsque nos couleurs, nos belles
couleurs flotterons sur la cathédrale de Strasbourg ! I still have a
photo of that cathedral in my office.

**with a bit of help from the US Army. Whatever one thinks about the
current state of Franco-American relations, historically, we have
tended to do our best work when both nations were on the same side.

Regards,

George
************************************************** ********************
Dr. George O. Bizzigotti Telephone: (703) 610-2115
Mitretek Systems, Inc. Fax: (703) 610-1558
3150 Fairview Park Drive South E-Mail:
Falls Church, Virginia, 22042-4519
************************************************** ********************


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

[Avalon]

"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Iain Rae" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Cub Driver wrote:
>
> (Snip)
>
> > That's not that surprising since the French had been under RN guns about
> > two years previously and relations between the UK and the Vichy
> > government were never good with the French harrassing Gibraltar airspace
....
>
> I don't recall hearing or reading anything about the French harassing
Gibraltar
> airspace. How did they manage that? Out of Algeria or Morocco? What was
the
> Spanish reaction to such incursions? Did the RAF have a presence in
Gibraltar
> at the time?
>

The Vichy French bombed Gibraltar.

4 July 1940 near Gibraltar 3 French Hawks attacked a Sunderland of coastal
command. 1 Hawk downed, 1 damaged. In the first air combat of the IIWW
between Britain and France, victory to the porcupine. After the British
action against the french fleet Gibraltar was bombed in retaliation. The
most serious raids were however mounted during the Battle of Britain. 24th
September 1940 - 64 aircraft from Oran and Tafaroui in Algeria, and Merknes,
Mediouna and Kenitra in Morocco. Fighters were also deployed. D520s of
GCII/3 from Mediouna, Hawks from GCII/5 from Casablanca, and GC I/5 from
Rabat. 41 tonnes of bombs dropped and no loss. The following day 83 bombers
deployed, no fighter cover, again no fighter response. 56 tonnes of bombs
dropped. 1 LeO 451 shot down by flak. It was the largest bomber raid mounted
by the French since the war began. Probably the largest mounted by the
French during the entire war.

Peter

[Drewe Manton]

(Kevin Brooks) wrote in
m:

> US troops always grumble; part of what makes US troops unique, I
> guess.
>

Hardly! It's a characteristic of soldiers the world over, and led one
British CO to say "if the men are moaning, things are okay, when they STOP
moaning I'll start worrying because something is seriously wrong"

--
Regards
Drewe
"Better the pride that resides
In a citizen of the world
Than the pride that divides
When a colourful rag is unfurled"

[Cub Driver]

I continued to watch the below-mentioned video last night. It's a
curious production, and Torch was immediately followed by Overlord, on
the idea that both were big invasions, I guess.

In any event, I thought of this newsgroup when I saw the clip of
American PWs being protected by German soldiers as French civilians
tried to punch, kick, and spit on them (that is: punch, kick, and spit
on the Americans, not their German guards).

Good job you weren't shot down one any of your visits to France, Art!

On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 06:10:58 -0400, Cub Driver >
wrote:

>
>>> I wasn't thinking the anger of the French people would be directed at the
>>> UK.
>>
>>Why ever not, it has been for the last thousand years or so.
>
>I've been watching the CBS Video History of WWII. Last night was
>Torch, the invasion of North Africa. The U.S. troops landed first
>because the Allies believed that the French would be less likely to
>fire on them than the British, because of the "hatred" (Walter
>Cronkite's word) they bore for the Brits.
>
>To be sure, the lower the rank, the less this attitude prevailed. And
>in the end, when the Allies moved east to Tunisia, French colonial
>forces joined them.
>
>
>all the best -- Dan Ford
>email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9
>
>see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
>and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Cub Driver]

On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 11:48:52 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
> wrote:

>To be fair some French colonial forces joined the British
>fighting the Germans and Italians long before Torch.

Yes, that was mentioned in the CBS video. I didn't realize that they'd
come from North Africa--thought maybe they'd been sea-lifted from
Dunkirk and then moved around the Horn to Egypt.

The video also mentioned Free Polish troops in the 8th Army. How did
they get to Egypt?


all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Cub Driver]

>4 July 1940 near Gibraltar 3 French Hawks attacked a Sunderland of coastal
>command. 1 Hawk downed, 1 damaged.

The French in North Africa also flew the Hawk H-75s (P-36 types)
against U.S. Navy Wildcats during Operation Torch. I think some DB-9?
(A-20 type) light bombers were also used. I don't remember the exact
outcome, but the French got the worst of it.

I believe that was the only instance in WWII where American pilots had
to fight against American-built planes, though of course the
Russo-Finnish Continuation War saw instances of Brewster Buffaloes in
combat against Lend-Lease P-40s and perhaps P-39s.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Kevin Brooks]

Drewe Manton > wrote in message >...
> (Kevin Brooks) wrote in
> m:
>
> > US troops always grumble; part of what makes US troops unique, I
> > guess.
> >
>
> Hardly! It's a characteristic of soldiers the world over, and led one
> British CO to say "if the men are moaning, things are okay, when they STOP
> moaning I'll start worrying because something is seriously wrong"

That would appear to be a restatement of an old maxim. True enough
that troops the world over do grumble; my mistake for using the word
"unique", as opposed to maybe "typical of". ISTR it was one of your
officers who was somewhat amazed that US troops tended to have to be
told the "why" of their orders, as opposed to the quaint "yes, sir,
three bags full, sir" type of response to which he was accustomed...

Brooks

[Fred J. McCall]

(Kevin Brooks) wrote:

:That would appear to be a restatement of an old maxim. True enough
:that troops the world over do grumble; my mistake for using the word
:"unique", as opposed to maybe "typical of". ISTR it was one of your
:officers who was somewhat amazed that US troops tended to have to be
:told the "why" of their orders, as opposed to the quaint "yes, sir,
:three bags full, sir" type of response to which he was accustomed...

US troops are trained to expect and get explanations of what they're
doing and why. It's the only way they can intelligently fulfill their
orders and know when initiative in the field is and is not
appropriate.

--
"This is a war of the unknown warriors; but let all strive
without failing in faith or in duty...."

-- Winston Churchill

[Grantland]

(Kevin Brooks) wrote:

>Drewe Manton > wrote in message >...
>> (Kevin Brooks) wrote in
>> m:
>>
>> > US troops always grumble; part of what makes US troops unique, I
>> > guess.
>> >
>>
>> Hardly! It's a characteristic of soldiers the world over, and led one
>> British CO to say "if the men are moaning, things are okay, when they STOP
>> moaning I'll start worrying because something is seriously wrong"
>
>That would appear to be a restatement of an old maxim. True enough
>that troops the world over do grumble; my mistake for using the word
>"unique", as opposed to maybe "typical of". ISTR it was one of your
>officers who was somewhat amazed that US troops tended to have to be
>told the "why" of their orders, as opposed to the quaint "yes, sir,
>three bags full, sir" type of response to which he was accustomed...
>
>Brooks

Ah how disappointing. I thought you were quipping. Damn.

Grantland

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, Kevin
Brooks > writes
>Drewe Manton > wrote in message
>...
>> Hardly! It's a characteristic of soldiers the world over, and led one
>> British CO to say "if the men are moaning, things are okay, when they STOP
>> moaning I'll start worrying because something is seriously wrong"
>
>That would appear to be a restatement of an old maxim. True enough
>that troops the world over do grumble; my mistake for using the word
>"unique", as opposed to maybe "typical of". ISTR it was one of your
>officers who was somewhat amazed that US troops tended to have to be
>told the "why" of their orders, as opposed to the quaint "yes, sir,
>three bags full, sir" type of response to which he was accustomed...

Depends when it happened. We're seriously into "Commander's Intent" here
now and have been for some time; which means that subordinates need to
not only know the task but what it's supposed to achieve. (Of course, it
was not always thus...)

This allows them a chance to ask and answer "What would my CO want me to
do if he could see these altered circumstances?" more effectively than
dogmatically obeying the letter of their orders.


Also depends at what level the question is asked: you don't expect to
have to explain why "stand sentry over these arcs until relieved" is
necessary and where that action will fit into the Joint Campaign Plan
when a corporal tasks a soldier to do so. You _certainly_ don't want to
get into debate when you call for supporting fire...

Finally, depends on the unit. Some regiments _do_ seem to prefer "shut
up, salute, smile, obey" and reluctantly accept CI, while others
strongly encourage "make sure the purpose is understood".


--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

[Alan Minyard]

On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 06:10:58 -0400, Cub Driver >
wrote:

>
>>> I wasn't thinking the anger of the French people would be directed at the
>>> UK.
>>
>>Why ever not, it has been for the last thousand years or so.
>
>I've been watching the CBS Video History of WWII. Last night was
>Torch, the invasion of North Africa. The U.S. troops landed first
>because the Allies believed that the French would be less likely to
>fire on them than the British, because of the "hatred" (Walter
>Cronkite's word) they bore for the Brits.
>
>To be sure, the lower the rank, the less this attitude prevailed. And
>in the end, when the Allies moved east to Tunisia, French colonial
>forces joined them.
>
>
>all the best -- Dan Ford
>email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9
>
>see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
>and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

But not before firing on US and UK ships and troops. The French, in a
typically French action, changed sides as soon as they saw that they
were on the losing end.

France is an enemy country.

Al Minyard

[p r]

formed from prisoners in the USSR (following hitler's attack on it), thru
iran, iraq, palestine to egypt.

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 11:48:52 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
> > wrote:
>
> >To be fair some French colonial forces joined the British
> >fighting the Germans and Italians long before Torch.
>
> Yes, that was mentioned in the CBS video. I didn't realize that they'd
> come from North Africa--thought maybe they'd been sea-lifted from
> Dunkirk and then moved around the Horn to Egypt.
>
> The video also mentioned Free Polish troops in the 8th Army. How did
> they get to Egypt?
>
>
> all the best -- Dan Ford
> email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9
>
> see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
> and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Kevin Brooks]

Fred J. McCall > wrote in message >...
> (Kevin Brooks) wrote:
>
> :That would appear to be a restatement of an old maxim. True enough
> :that troops the world over do grumble; my mistake for using the word
> :"unique", as opposed to maybe "typical of". ISTR it was one of your
> :officers who was somewhat amazed that US troops tended to have to be
> :told the "why" of their orders, as opposed to the quaint "yes, sir,
> :three bags full, sir" type of response to which he was accustomed...
>
> US troops are trained to expect and get explanations of what they're
> doing and why. It's the only way they can intelligently fulfill their
> orders and know when initiative in the field is and is not
> appropriate.

"Are trained"? No, Fred, this tendancy was established long before the
more recent concentration on "auftragstactik" (or however the hell it
is spelled in the original German). Comments on this date back to at
least the First World War, and it was more a result of the US practice
of depending upon citizen soldiers, along with the rather independent
streak to be found in Americans who deplored the idea of being placed
below anyone on a social, or for that matter military, ladder. ISTR
reading that it is a trait shared with Aussie troops who frequently
displayed it to their British superiors.

Brooks

[Cub Driver]

Speaking of the Free Polish units fighting in North Africa:

>formed from prisoners in the USSR (following hitler's attack on it), thru
>iran, iraq, palestine to egypt.
>

Thanks for that. I once knew a Polish woman in England who had
traveled the same route as a girl: from Lvov to Siberia to Persia (I
think that's Iran) to Egypt, thence to England where she had
relatives.

The story she told was this: that President Roosevelt swapped M-1
rifles for Poles, one rifle = one Pole. This could of course have been
a wild tale based on her knowledge of Lend Lease, but it's interesting
that she believed it.

It never occurred to me that Stalin was in the business of swapping
perfectly good soldiers to the west, even if there was a rifle in it!

(Lvov I believe is now in Ukraine. Poland emerged from the war a bit
smaller and shifted to the westward. At the time it was called "The
Country on Rollerskates.")

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Fred J. McCall]

(Kevin Brooks) wrote:

:Fred J. McCall > wrote in message >...
:> (Kevin Brooks) wrote:
:>
:> :That would appear to be a restatement of an old maxim. True enough
:> :that troops the world over do grumble; my mistake for using the word
:> :"unique", as opposed to maybe "typical of". ISTR it was one of your
:> :officers who was somewhat amazed that US troops tended to have to be
:> :told the "why" of their orders, as opposed to the quaint "yes, sir,
:> :three bags full, sir" type of response to which he was accustomed...
:>
:> US troops are trained to expect and get explanations of what they're
:> doing and why. It's the only way they can intelligently fulfill their
:> orders and know when initiative in the field is and is not
:> appropriate.
:
:"Are trained"? No, Fred,

"Are trained". Yes, Brooks,

:this tendancy was established long before the
:more recent concentration on "auftragstactik" (or however the hell it
:is spelled in the original German). Comments on this date back to at
:least the First World War, and it was more a result of the US practice
:of depending upon citizen soldiers, along with the rather independent
:streak to be found in Americans who deplored the idea of being placed
:below anyone on a social, or for that matter military, ladder. ISTR
:reading that it is a trait shared with Aussie troops who frequently
:displayed it to their British superiors.

Well, things have changed here in the last century (and not
necessarily always for the better). A lot of effort has been spent
teaching people NOT to think over the last half-century or so, more's
the pity....

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

[Jack Linthicum]

"William Black" > wrote in message >...
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "William Black" > wrote in message
> > ...
>
> > > The price of champagne and decent cheese would drop even lower.
> >
> > French wine is all from California vines and we can't buy French cheese.
>
> And the Californian vines came from where originally?
>
> I've tried that stuff they sell as 'domestic champagne' in the USA,
> including the stuff made by Mumm, which chemical plant makes it?
>
> Not being able to buy French cheese is a cruel and unusual punishment...

Try the Korbel. This is one explanation of the phylloxeria/vine
question. I believe the vines mentioned under "Statehood and the Gold
Rush" in Amador and El Dorado counties are still the original
rootstock.

http://www.globalgourmet.com/food/wineday/annex/califhistory.html

STATEHOOD AND THE GOLD RUSH - 1848

California becomes a territory of the U.S.A. in 1848. The same year
John Agustus Sutter in the Sierra Foothills writes General Vallejo
that "I have made the discovery of a gold mine which, as far as we
have investigated, is extraordinarily rich." Hordes of miners arrived
in 1849, and wanted wine. The new Zinfandel was planted, along with
the Mission, and was very popular in Amador and El Dorado counties.

Wine C - 1995 Amador County Zinfandel by Sobon Estate; grapes are from
Fiddletown, named after those who entertained the miners. $15.


THE "Father of California Viticulture" ARRIVES

Hungarian-born "Count" Agoston Haraszthy plants the world's largest
vineyard at his Buena Vista winery, established in 1857. California
has been a state for seven years. He imports 100,000 vines of 300
varieties. His wines replace those of General Vallejo as California's
best.

Wine D - 1994 Buena Vista Cabernet Sauvignon from the Carneros
district, $16.


NAPA VALLEY'S FIRST COMMERCIAL VINTNER

German journalist Charles Krug learns winegrowing from Count Haraszthy
& marries a relative of General Vallejo. His bride's dowry includes
land near St. Helena, where he plants vines and in 1861 becomes the
Napa Valley's first commercial vintner.

Wine E - 1995 Charles Krug Merlot, Napa Vly., $15


THE SEVENTY-YEAR SLUMP - 1880 to 1950

1880 - The insect phylloxera devastates California vineyards. Charles
Krug pioneers the solution, grafting the vines onto resistant
rootstock from phylloxera's place of origin, New England.


http://www.globalgourmet.com/food/wineweek/2001/0501/051001.html

The next 40 years sealed the deal. The phylloxera insect ravaged the
vineyards. Then, Prohibition shut down the wineries. Yet, the vine
wouldn't go away. The 70,OOO acres of vines in 1919 fell to 21,000 by
1971. There were no fine red table wines labelled Zinfandel, Then, a
college English professor made some home Zin that started a
revolution. I interviewed him 11 years ago, and here's what he told
me.

As a graduate student at U.C. Berkeley in 1954, Charles Myers
(pictured) couldn't afford good table wines, so he started making his
own. In 1963 he obtained some old-vine Zinfandel grapes from the
Sierra Foothill's Deaver Ranch in Amador County. The resulting wine
was unlike any Zinfandel made previously. The word spread rapidly. The
potential of Zin to make fine reds was clear.

[captain!]

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
> Speaking of the Free Polish units fighting in North Africa:
>
> >formed from prisoners in the USSR (following hitler's attack on it), thru
> >iran, iraq, palestine to egypt.
> >
>
> Thanks for that. I once knew a Polish woman in England who had
> traveled the same route as a girl: from Lvov to Siberia to Persia (I
> think that's Iran) to Egypt, thence to England where she had
> relatives.
>
> The story she told was this: that President Roosevelt swapped M-1
> rifles for Poles, one rifle = one Pole. This could of course have been
> a wild tale based on her knowledge of Lend Lease, but it's interesting
> that she believed it.
>
> It never occurred to me that Stalin was in the business of swapping
> perfectly good soldiers to the west, even if there was a rifle in it!

i agree

>
> (Lvov I believe is now in Ukraine. Poland emerged from the war a bit
> smaller and shifted to the westward. At the time it was called "The
> Country on Rollerskates.")
>
> all the best -- Dan Ford
> email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9
>
> see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
> and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[El Bastardo]

On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 16:25:34 +0000 (UTC), "William Black"
> wrote:
>
>Not being able to buy French cheese is a cruel and unusual punishment...

I can see a future law:

ALL CHEESE PRODUCED IN THE US TERRITORY OF FRANCE MUST BE SOLD IN
SEALED PACKAGES CONTAINING INDIVIDUALLY WRAPPED SLICES.

[Kevin Brooks]

Fred J. McCall > wrote in message >...
> (Kevin Brooks) wrote:
>
> :Fred J. McCall > wrote in message >...
> :> (Kevin Brooks) wrote:
> :>
> :> :That would appear to be a restatement of an old maxim. True enough
> :> :that troops the world over do grumble; my mistake for using the word
> :> :"unique", as opposed to maybe "typical of". ISTR it was one of your
> :> :officers who was somewhat amazed that US troops tended to have to be
> :> :told the "why" of their orders, as opposed to the quaint "yes, sir,
> :> :three bags full, sir" type of response to which he was accustomed...
> :>
> :> US troops are trained to expect and get explanations of what they're
> :> doing and why. It's the only way they can intelligently fulfill their
> :> orders and know when initiative in the field is and is not
> :> appropriate.
> :
> :"Are trained"? No, Fred,
>
> "Are trained". Yes, Brooks,

Duh. Context is really beyond you, isn't it Fred?

>
> :this tendancy was established long before the
> :more recent concentration on "auftragstactik" (or however the hell it
> :is spelled in the original German). Comments on this date back to at
> :least the First World War, and it was more a result of the US practice
> :of depending upon citizen soldiers, along with the rather independent
> :streak to be found in Americans who deplored the idea of being placed
> :below anyone on a social, or for that matter military, ladder. ISTR
> :reading that it is a trait shared with Aussie troops who frequently
> :displayed it to their British superiors.
>
> Well, things have changed here in the last century (and not
> necessarily always for the better). A lot of effort has been spent
> teaching people NOT to think over the last half-century or so, more's
> the pity....

Finished your sermon yet? Now what does the manner in which we train
troops today have to do with a discussion of a historical factor like
the fact that US troops have demonstrated a tendency to want to know
the "why" (and not for the reasons that they do today)?

Brooks

[Fred J. McCall]

(Kevin Brooks) wrote:

:Fred J. McCall > wrote in message >...
:> (Kevin Brooks) wrote:
:>
:> :Fred J. McCall > wrote in message >...
:> :> (Kevin Brooks) wrote:
:> :>
:> :> :That would appear to be a restatement of an old maxim. True enough
:> :> :that troops the world over do grumble; my mistake for using the word
:> :> :"unique", as opposed to maybe "typical of". ISTR it was one of your
:> :> :officers who was somewhat amazed that US troops tended to have to be
:> :> :told the "why" of their orders, as opposed to the quaint "yes, sir,
:> :> :three bags full, sir" type of response to which he was accustomed...
:> :>
:> :> US troops are trained to expect and get explanations of what they're
:> :> doing and why. It's the only way they can intelligently fulfill their
:> :> orders and know when initiative in the field is and is not
:> :> appropriate.
:> :
:> :"Are trained"? No, Fred,
:>
:> "Are trained". Yes, Brooks,
:
:Duh. Context is really beyond you, isn't it Fred?

I don't know. Is context Fred?

Duh, Cognition is really beyond you, isn't it, Kevin?

[Note comma above, which changes meaning from the phrase "isn't it
Kevin".]

:> :this tendancy was established long before the
:> :more recent concentration on "auftragstactik" (or however the hell it
:> :is spelled in the original German). Comments on this date back to at
:> :least the First World War, and it was more a result of the US practice
:> :of depending upon citizen soldiers, along with the rather independent
:> :streak to be found in Americans who deplored the idea of being placed
:> :below anyone on a social, or for that matter military, ladder. ISTR
:> :reading that it is a trait shared with Aussie troops who frequently
:> :displayed it to their British superiors.
:>
:> Well, things have changed here in the last century (and not
:> necessarily always for the better). A lot of effort has been spent
:> teaching people NOT to think over the last half-century or so, more's
:> the pity....
:
:Finished your sermon yet? Now what does the manner in which we train
:troops today have to do with a discussion of a historical factor like
:the fact that US troops have demonstrated a tendency to want to know
:the "why" (and not for the reasons that they do today)?

Feel free to turn the question around and ask it the other way, too.
What does the fact that US troops have demonstrated a tendency in the
past have to do with how they are trained today?

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

[Christians for Cheeseburgers.]

"captain!" > wrote in message
.ca...
>
> "Cub Driver" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Speaking of the Free Polish units fighting in North Africa:
> >
> > >formed from prisoners in the USSR (following hitler's attack on it),
thru
> > >iran, iraq, palestine to egypt.
> > >
> >
> > Thanks for that. I once knew a Polish woman in England who had
> > traveled the same route as a girl: from Lvov to Siberia to Persia (I
> > think that's Iran) to Egypt, thence to England where she had
> > relatives.
> >
> > The story she told was this: that President Roosevelt swapped M-1
> > rifles for Poles, one rifle = one Pole. This could of course have been
> > a wild tale based on her knowledge of Lend Lease, but it's interesting
> > that she believed it.
> >
> > It never occurred to me that Stalin was in the business of swapping
> > perfectly good soldiers to the west, even if there was a rifle in it!
>

Lenin sold off priceless works of art for pennies.


> i agree
>
> >
> > (Lvov I believe is now in Ukraine. Poland emerged from the war a bit
> > smaller and shifted to the westward. At the time it was called "The
> > Country on Rollerskates.")
> >
> > all the best -- Dan Ford
> > email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9
> >
> > see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
> > and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com
>
>

[Paul H. Lemmen]

"El *******o" <El *******o@El *******o.com> wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 16:25:34 +0000 (UTC), "William Black"
> > wrote:
> >
> >Not being able to buy French cheese is a cruel and unusual punishment...
>
> I can see a future law:
>
> ALL CHEESE PRODUCED IN THE US TERRITORY OF FRANCE MUST BE SOLD IN
> SEALED PACKAGES CONTAINING INDIVIDUALLY WRAPPED SLICES.

You forgot to add: AND MUST BE COOKED ON A CHARCOAL GRILL WHILST WRAPPED.

:>

Slainte,
--
Paul H. Lemmen
Just because I choose to act civilised does not mean that I am.

[Rob van Riel]

Cub Driver > wrote in message >...
> It never occurred to me that Stalin was in the business of swapping
> perfectly good soldiers to the west, even if there was a rifle in it!

Two things: one Stalin didn't give a damn about small numbers of
soldiers, as he had more than enough human meat to work with, and two,
Stalin had himself invaded Poland and treated it as roughly as the
Germans did, so any Pole with a rifle would probably have emptied it
into the nearest Russian.
Getting rid of a Polish irritation in exchange for a rifle and good PR
makes sense.

Rob

[Rob van Riel]

"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message >...
> airspace. How did they manage that? Out of Algeria or Morocco? What was the
> Spanish reaction to such incursions? Did the RAF have a presence in Gibraltar

I don't think the Spanish would mind. The regime there was Franco's
fascists, who had come to power with military support from the German
Condor Legion a few years earlier in the Spanish civil war.

Rob

[Cub Driver]

>Stalin had himself invaded Poland and treated it as roughly as the
>Germans did, so any Pole with a rifle would probably have emptied it
>into the nearest Russian.
>Getting rid of a Polish irritation in exchange for a rifle and good PR
>makes sense.

It's not as though the Pole was wandering around at will, causing
trouble. He was in Siberia, in a slave labor camp.

You may recall that, at war's end, thousands of Russians in German
prison camps and in German uniform were pleading with the Americans
and British to let them remain in the west. Stalin insisted on having
them back, so he could kill them or send them to the camps. Some
killed themselves rather than board the trains to the east.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Keith Willshaw]

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>
> >Stalin had himself invaded Poland and treated it as roughly as the
> >Germans did, so any Pole with a rifle would probably have emptied it
> >into the nearest Russian.
> >Getting rid of a Polish irritation in exchange for a rifle and good PR
> >makes sense.
>
> It's not as though the Pole was wandering around at will, causing
> trouble. He was in Siberia, in a slave labor camp.
>
> You may recall that, at war's end, thousands of Russians in German
> prison camps and in German uniform were pleading with the Americans
> and British to let them remain in the west. Stalin insisted on having
> them back, so he could kill them or send them to the camps. Some
> killed themselves rather than board the trains to the east.
>

I doubt that the handful of British citizens in German
uniform were too happy to be sent home either, their
leader was hanged and they all received lengthy prison
sentences.

Keith

[George Z. Bush]

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>
> >Stalin had himself invaded Poland and treated it as roughly as the
> >Germans did, so any Pole with a rifle would probably have emptied it
> >into the nearest Russian.
> >Getting rid of a Polish irritation in exchange for a rifle and good PR
> >makes sense.
>
> It's not as though the Pole was wandering around at will, causing
> trouble. He was in Siberia, in a slave labor camp.
>
> You may recall that, at war's end, thousands of Russians in German
> prison camps and in German uniform were pleading with the Americans
> and British to let them remain in the west. Stalin insisted on having
> them back, so he could kill them or send them to the camps. Some
> killed themselves rather than board the trains to the east.

We flew some of them out of Italy up to Klagenfurt at war's end and turned them
over to the Russkies. They were not happy campers, as I recall.

George Z.
>
> all the best -- Dan Ford
> email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9
>
> see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
> and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj]

Keith Willshaw wrote:
> "Cub Driver" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>>Stalin had himself invaded Poland and treated it as roughly as the
>>>Germans did, so any Pole with a rifle would probably have emptied it
>>>into the nearest Russian.
>>>Getting rid of a Polish irritation in exchange for a rifle and good PR
>>>makes sense.
>>
>>It's not as though the Pole was wandering around at will, causing
>>trouble. He was in Siberia, in a slave labor camp.
>>
>>You may recall that, at war's end, thousands of Russians in German
>>prison camps and in German uniform were pleading with the Americans
>>and British to let them remain in the west. Stalin insisted on having
>>them back, so he could kill them or send them to the camps. Some
>>killed themselves rather than board the trains to the east.
>
> I doubt that the handful of British citizens in German
> uniform were too happy to be sent home either, their
> leader was hanged and they all received lengthy prison
> sentences.
>
> Keith

Oh sure. Of course.
But you do notice the difference of course, even though you
prefer to defend Stalin and the soviets.
1) Stalin demanded the repatriation of the thousands of
soviet subjects in German prison camps. These were NOT
persons who had put on the German uniform. Many of them
did not want to be shipped back to Stalins' tender mercy.
2) There were a handful of British citizens in German uniform
versus thousands of soviet subjects who chose to serve with
the Germans against the soviet Russian regime.
3) In addition the soviets rounded up (sometimes with allied
help) ex soviet refugees, from refugee camps and by roundups
and sweeps throughout Germany, and forcibly shipped them back
to the soviet union.

[Keith Willshaw]

"Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj" > wrote in message
...
> Keith Willshaw wrote:
> > "Cub Driver" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>>Stalin had himself invaded Poland and treated it as roughly as the
> >>>Germans did, so any Pole with a rifle would probably have emptied it
> >>>into the nearest Russian.
> >>>Getting rid of a Polish irritation in exchange for a rifle and good PR
> >>>makes sense.
> >>
> >>It's not as though the Pole was wandering around at will, causing
> >>trouble. He was in Siberia, in a slave labor camp.
> >>
> >>You may recall that, at war's end, thousands of Russians in German
> >>prison camps and in German uniform were pleading with the Americans
> >>and British to let them remain in the west. Stalin insisted on having
> >>them back, so he could kill them or send them to the camps. Some
> >>killed themselves rather than board the trains to the east.
> >
> > I doubt that the handful of British citizens in German
> > uniform were too happy to be sent home either, their
> > leader was hanged and they all received lengthy prison
> > sentences.
> >
> > Keith
>
> Oh sure. Of course.
> But you do notice the difference of course, even though you
> prefer to defend Stalin and the soviets.

At no point did I defend either Stalin or the Soviets

> 1) Stalin demanded the repatriation of the thousands of
> soviet subjects in German prison camps. These were NOT
> persons who had put on the German uniform. Many of them
> did not want to be shipped back to Stalins' tender mercy.

Re-read the message to which I replied, it specifies
Soviet Citizens in German unforms


> 2) There were a handful of British citizens in German uniform
> versus thousands of soviet subjects who chose to serve with
> the Germans against the soviet Russian regime.

Quite so

> 3) In addition the soviets rounded up (sometimes with allied
> help) ex soviet refugees, from refugee camps and by roundups
> and sweeps throughout Germany, and forcibly shipped them back
> to the soviet union.
>
Also true

Keith

[Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj]

Keith Willshaw wrote:

> "Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Keith Willshaw wrote:
>>
>>>"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Stalin had himself invaded Poland and treated it as roughly as the
>>>>>Germans did, so any Pole with a rifle would probably have emptied it
>>>>>into the nearest Russian.
>>>>>Getting rid of a Polish irritation in exchange for a rifle and good PR
>>>>>makes sense.
>>>>
>>>>It's not as though the Pole was wandering around at will, causing
>>>>trouble. He was in Siberia, in a slave labor camp.
>>>>
>>>>You may recall that, at war's end, thousands of Russians in German
>>>>prison camps and in German uniform were pleading with the Americans
>>>>and British to let them remain in the west. Stalin insisted on having
>>>>them back, so he could kill them or send them to the camps. Some
>>>>killed themselves rather than board the trains to the east.
>>>
>>>I doubt that the handful of British citizens in German
>>>uniform were too happy to be sent home either, their
>>>leader was hanged and they all received lengthy prison
>>>sentences.
>>>
>>>Keith
>>
>>Oh sure. Of course.
>>But you do notice the difference of course, even though you
>>prefer to defend Stalin and the soviets.
>
>
> At no point did I defend either Stalin or the Soviets
>
That's how I interpreted your sentiments in writing
" I doubt that the handful of British citizens in German
uniform were too happy to be sent home either, their
leader was hanged and they all received lengthy prison
sentences." since I am sure that you knew the historical
facts of what went on.

>
>>1) Stalin demanded the repatriation of the thousands of
>>soviet subjects in German prison camps. These were NOT
>>persons who had put on the German uniform. Many of them
>>did not want to be shipped back to Stalins' tender mercy.
>
>
> Re-read the message to which I replied, it specifies
> Soviet Citizens in German unforms
>
"at war's end, thousands of Russians in German
prison camps ..." certainly does not!
>
>
>>2) There were a handful of British citizens in German uniform
>>versus thousands of soviet subjects who chose to serve with
>>the Germans against the soviet Russian regime.
>
> Quite so
>
And you chose to disregard the implications as regards the
moral stand of the individuals in both groups.
>
>>3) In addition the soviets rounded up (sometimes with allied
>>help) ex soviet refugees, from refugee camps and by roundups
>>and sweeps throughout Germany, and forcibly shipped them back
>>to the soviet union.
>>
>
> Also true
>
> Keith
>
>

[William Black]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
...

> I doubt that the handful of British citizens in German
> uniform were too happy to be sent home either, their
> leader was hanged and they all received lengthy prison
> sentences.

I don't think Joyce was their leader, and I seem to remember reading that
at least one other was shot...

And we're talking about British servicemen joining the SS here, not Germans
going home to fight...

--
William Black
------------------
On time, on budget, or works;
Pick any two from three

[William Black]

"Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj" > wrote in message
...
> Keith Willshaw wrote:

> 2) There were a handful of British citizens in German uniform
> versus thousands of soviet subjects who chose to serve with
> the Germans against the soviet Russian regime.

I don't actually have a problem with this, a traitor is a traitor is a
traitor.

Or does committing crimes with large numbers of other people make it right?

There's no difference to me between a Don Cossack in a German uniform and a
British fascist in a German uniform, except that some of the Don Cossacks
shot at British troops, including possibly some of my family.

--
William Black
------------------
On time, on budget, or works;
Pick any two from three

[Brett]

"William Black" > wrote:
| "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
| ...
|
| > I doubt that the handful of British citizens in German
| > uniform were too happy to be sent home either, their
| > leader was hanged and they all received lengthy prison
| > sentences.
|
| I don't think Joyce was their leader, and I seem to remember reading
that
| at least one other was shot...

John Amery was hanged in 1945, after pleading guilty to multiple counts
of treason.

| And we're talking about British servicemen joining the SS here, not
Germans
| going home to fight...
|
| --
| William Black
| ------------------
| On time, on budget, or works;
| Pick any two from three
|
|

[John Mullen]

"William Black" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Keith Willshaw wrote:
>
> > 2) There were a handful of British citizens in German uniform
> > versus thousands of soviet subjects who chose to serve with
> > the Germans against the soviet Russian regime.
>
> I don't actually have a problem with this, a traitor is a traitor is a
> traitor.
>
> Or does committing crimes with large numbers of other people make it
right?
>
> There's no difference to me between a Don Cossack in a German uniform and
a
> British fascist in a German uniform, except that some of the Don Cossacks
> shot at British troops, including possibly some of my family.

Really? Where?

John

[Keith Willshaw]

"Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj" > wrote in message
...
> Keith Willshaw wrote:
>

> >
> > At no point did I defend either Stalin or the Soviets
> >
> That's how I interpreted your sentiments in writing
> " I doubt that the handful of British citizens in German
> uniform were too happy to be sent home either, their
> leader was hanged and they all received lengthy prison
> sentences." since I am sure that you knew the historical
> facts of what went on.
>

Your interpretation was in error, I was pointing out
that not only Soviets in German uniform were treated
harshly after the war but that soldiers of other nationalities
go short shrift too.

Stalin was a grade 'A' psycho running a corrupt vicious
regime but that said no country in history was ever going
to let people off with a caution when they had joined an enemy
in attacking them, especially when that enemy was intent on genocide.

Even in Denmark, as pacific and easy going a nation as you
will ever find, Danish citizens who had joined the Waffen SS
were tried and many executed after the war. The last of
the surviving prisoners of Danmark Freikorp were released in the 1950's

The treatment of returning Soviet POW's on the other
hand was truly barbaric and unprecedented.

> >
> >>1) Stalin demanded the repatriation of the thousands of
> >>soviet subjects in German prison camps. These were NOT
> >>persons who had put on the German uniform. Many of them
> >>did not want to be shipped back to Stalins' tender mercy.
> >
> >
> > Re-read the message to which I replied, it specifies
> > Soviet Citizens in German unforms
> >
> "at war's end, thousands of Russians in German
> prison camps ..." certainly does not!
> >
> >
> >>2) There were a handful of British citizens in German uniform
> >>versus thousands of soviet subjects who chose to serve with
> >>the Germans against the soviet Russian regime.
> >
> > Quite so
> >
> And you chose to disregard the implications as regards the
> moral stand of the individuals in both groups.

Not at all, I can quite see why some Ukranians and others initially
welcomed the Germans as liberators in 1941 BUT those
captured in 1945 must have been well aware of the nature
of the Nazi regime by the wars end and its a simple fact of life
that joining the enemy during wartime attracts retribution if they
lose. It always has and always will, as we can see in the case of
those US, UK and Australians captured in Afghanistan and
Iraq who are currently in detention. Treason is never treated
lightly.

Keith

[Keith Willshaw]

"William Black" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > I doubt that the handful of British citizens in German
> > uniform were too happy to be sent home either, their
> > leader was hanged and they all received lengthy prison
> > sentences.
>
> I don't think Joyce was their leader, and I seem to remember reading that
> at least one other was shot...
>

Joyce played no part in the affair beyond his propaganda broadcasts,
their leader was John Amery son of Leo Amery a minister in Churchill's
wartime government.

> And we're talking about British servicemen joining the SS here, not
Germans
> going home to fight...
>

And the Soviets were are discussing were those who had
joined the German armed forces too.

Keith

[Vince Brannigan]

Keith Willshaw wrote:

>
> Even in Denmark, as pacific and easy going a nation as you
> will ever find, Danish citizens who had joined the Waffen SS
> were tried and many executed after the war. The last of
> the surviving prisoners of Danmark Freikorp were released in the 1950's

I believe this is incorrect. The Freikorp was formed with the
permission of the wartime danish government. The law which the
volunteers were tried under was a postwar creation. The average sentence
was 2 years

http://www.dchf.dk/publications_dk/dk_holocaust/poulsen_mfl.pdf


vince

[Keith Willshaw]

"Vince Brannigan" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Keith Willshaw wrote:
>
> >
> > Even in Denmark, as pacific and easy going a nation as you
> > will ever find, Danish citizens who had joined the Waffen SS
> > were tried and many executed after the war. The last of
> > the surviving prisoners of Danmark Freikorp were released in the 1950's
>
> I believe this is incorrect. The Freikorp was formed with the
> permission of the wartime danish government.

The permission of a Nazi puppet regime is scarcely an excuse.


> The law which the
> volunteers were tried under was a postwar creation. The average sentence
> was 2 years
>
> http://www.dchf.dk/publications_dk/dk_holocaust/poulsen_mfl.pdf
>

Nothing in this article invalidates my point , having served in the
German armed forces was specifically made a punishable act.

Keith

[Peter McLelland]

"William Black" > wrote in message >...
> "Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Keith Willshaw wrote:
>
> > 2) There were a handful of British citizens in German uniform
> > versus thousands of soviet subjects who chose to serve with
> > the Germans against the soviet Russian regime.
>
> I don't actually have a problem with this, a traitor is a traitor is a
> traitor.
>
> Or does committing crimes with large numbers of other people make it right?
>
> There's no difference to me between a Don Cossack in a German uniform and a
> British fascist in a German uniform, except that some of the Don Cossacks
> shot at British troops, including possibly some of my family.

The real problem was that Stalin not only persecuted, with some
justification those who donned German uniforms but also those who were
POWs in German camps.

As Russian POWs were liberated by the advancing Red army they were
screened to weed out the most likely non conformists to the Soviet
philosophy, these went straight to the Gulag, the remainder went back
to the front, many to 'suicide battalians' which were used in the
front of wave attacks to absorb german bullets. At the end of
hostilities all suviving ex POWs in the Red army were rounded up and
sent to the Gulags for re-education. Ex POWs who had been liberated by
Allied Armies were considered very suspect, and received the worst
treatment of all, irrespective of their ethnic origin or political
allegiances. As far as Stalin was concerned suurender was a crime.

Peter

[Vince Brannigan]

Keith Willshaw wrote:
> "Vince Brannigan" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>
>>Keith Willshaw wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Even in Denmark, as pacific and easy going a nation as you
>>>will ever find, Danish citizens who had joined the Waffen SS
>>>were tried and many executed after the war. The last of
>>>the surviving prisoners of Danmark Freikorp were released in the 1950's
>>
>>I believe this is incorrect. The Freikorp was formed with the
>>permission of the wartime danish government.
>
>
> The permission of a Nazi puppet regime is scarcely an excuse.
>
>
>
>>The law which the
>>volunteers were tried under was a postwar creation. The average sentence
>>was 2 years
>>
>>http://www.dchf.dk/publications_dk/dk_holocaust/poulsen_mfl.pdf
>>
>
>
> Nothing in this article invalidates my point , having served in the
> German armed forces was specifically made a punishable act.

After they lost. Its no trick to make an act a crime after it occurs.
it is of course unconstituional in the USA (ex post facto) etc.

Vince

[Keith Willshaw]

"Vince Brannigan" > wrote in message
...
>
>

> > Nothing in this article invalidates my point , having served in the
> > German armed forces was specifically made a punishable act.
>
> After they lost. Its no trick to make an act a crime after it occurs.
> it is of course unconstituional in the USA (ex post facto) etc.
>

Only if you accept the war time Danish Government as a
legitmate one operating of its own free will, I do not.

Had a portion of the US been invaded and subject to
a puppet regime I rather doubt that US citizens whoi
joined the SS would have escaped punishment based
on a plea that the aforementioned regime had sanctioned
their acts.

Keith

[Vince Brannigan]

Keith Willshaw wrote:
> "Vince Brannigan" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>
>
>>>Nothing in this article invalidates my point , having served in the
>>>German armed forces was specifically made a punishable act.
>>
>>After they lost. Its no trick to make an act a crime after it occurs.
>>it is of course unconstituional in the USA (ex post facto) etc.
>>
>
>
> Only if you accept the war time Danish Government as a
> legitmate one operating of its own free will, I do not.
>

It surrendered. by definition no one surrenders "of their own free
will" its the result of force majure. But so what?

> Had a portion of the US been invaded and subject to
> a puppet regime I rather doubt that US citizens whoi
> joined the SS would have escaped punishment based
> on a plea that the aforementioned regime had sanctioned
> their acts.

Depends on who wins. If all you mean is that might makes right and
winners make the rules sure, but don't confuse it with law. e.g. As a
political decision the Union government gave amnesty to the Confederate
traitors.

Vince

[Keith Willshaw]

"Vince Brannigan" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Keith Willshaw wrote:
> > "Vince Brannigan" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>
> >
> >>>Nothing in this article invalidates my point , having served in the
> >>>German armed forces was specifically made a punishable act.
> >>
> >>After they lost. Its no trick to make an act a crime after it occurs.
> >>it is of course unconstituional in the USA (ex post facto) etc.
> >>
> >
> >
> > Only if you accept the war time Danish Government as a
> > legitmate one operating of its own free will, I do not.
> >
>
> It surrendered. by definition no one surrenders "of their own free
> will" its the result of force majure. But so what?
>

The citizens of a nation had better be careful about accepting
assurances of legality given by such a government
especially those regarding providing aid and comfort to
the occupying enemy forces.

This is only common sense when all is said and done.


> > Had a portion of the US been invaded and subject to
> > a puppet regime I rather doubt that US citizens whoi
> > joined the SS would have escaped punishment based
> > on a plea that the aforementioned regime had sanctioned
> > their acts.
>
> Depends on who wins. If all you mean is that might makes right and
> winners make the rules sure, but don't confuse it with law.

The rules by definition are the law, not justice perhaps
but the letter of the law is usually followed as it was in this case.


> e.g. As a
> political decision the Union government gave amnesty to the Confederate
> traitors.
>
Quite so, thus following the letter of the law, however those
loyalists who had sided with the British during the American revolution
tended to get rather less gentle treatment.

Keith

[Vince Brannigan]

Keith Willshaw wrote:
>
>>>
>
> The citizens of a nation had better be careful about accepting
> assurances of legality given by such a government
> especially those regarding providing aid and comfort to
> the occupying enemy forces.
>

YOu are referring to the Jananese under MacArther for example?


> This is only common sense when all is said and done.
>
>
>
>>>Had a portion of the US been invaded and subject to
>>>a puppet regime I rather doubt that US citizens whoi
>>>joined the SS would have escaped punishment based
>>>on a plea that the aforementioned regime had sanctioned
>>>their acts.
>>
>>Depends on who wins. If all you mean is that might makes right and
>>winners make the rules sure, but don't confuse it with law.
>
>
> The rules by definition are the law, not justice perhaps
> but the letter of the law is usually followed as it was in this case.
>
>
>
>>e.g. As a
>>political decision the Union government gave amnesty to the Confederate
>>traitors.
>>
>
> Quite so, thus following the letter of the law, however those
> loyalists who had sided with the British during the American revolution
> tended to get rather less gentle treatment.

but who clearly were on much mroe solid legal ground

Vince

[Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj]

Keith Willshaw wrote:
> "William Black" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>
>>>I doubt that the handful of British citizens in German
>>>uniform were too happy to be sent home either, their
>>>leader was hanged and they all received lengthy prison
>>>sentences.
>>
>>I don't think Joyce was their leader, and I seem to remember reading that
>>at least one other was shot...
>>
>
>
> Joyce played no part in the affair beyond his propaganda broadcasts,
> their leader was John Amery son of Leo Amery a minister in Churchill's
> wartime government.
>
>
>>And we're talking about British servicemen joining the SS here, not
>
> Germans
>
>>going home to fight...
>>
>
>
> And the Soviets were are discussing were those who had
> joined the German armed forces too.
>
> Keith
>
>
Subjects of the Soviet Russian empire, who joined the armies
of an opposing power (which unfortunately was just as morally
corrupt, but more significantly turned out to be the loser)
in order to fight against the occupiers of their land and
demonstrated enemy of their people.

There is a world of difference between these people and
the handfull of British traitors. I do not know the motivations
of the Britishers, but am guessing that they must have been
ideological and not something as crass as financial or the
hatred of ones father.
--
Rostyk

[Keith Willshaw]

"Vince Brannigan" > wrote in message
...
>

> > Quite so, thus following the letter of the law, however those
> > loyalists who had sided with the British during the American revolution
> > tended to get rather less gentle treatment.
>
> but who clearly were on much mroe solid legal ground
>

I am sure that was a great comfort to them as their land and
goods were seized and they were driven out of the country.

Keith

[Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj]

Keith Willshaw wrote:

> "Vince Brannigan" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>
>>Keith Willshaw wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Even in Denmark, as pacific and easy going a nation as you
>>>will ever find, Danish citizens who had joined the Waffen SS
>>>were tried and many executed after the war. The last of
>>>the surviving prisoners of Danmark Freikorp were released in the 1950's
>>
>>I believe this is incorrect. The Freikorp was formed with the
>>permission of the wartime danish government.
>
>
> The permission of a Nazi puppet regime is scarcely an excuse.
>
>
>
>>The law which the
>>volunteers were tried under was a postwar creation. The average sentence
>>was 2 years
>>
>>http://www.dchf.dk/publications_dk/dk_holocaust/poulsen_mfl.pdf
>>
>
>
> Nothing in this article invalidates my point , having served in the
> German armed forces was specifically made a punishable act.
>
> Keith
>
>
You are avoiding all consideration of the relationship of Denmark and
Germany and its peoples in historical terms of occupier-occupied
(empire-subject) and motives of the people who enlisted in the Freikorp.
What or whom did those persons betray?
What, if any, moral turpitude were they guilty of, in their reasons
for joining?

[Keith Willshaw]

"Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj" > wrote in message
...
> Keith Willshaw wrote:
>
> > "Vince Brannigan" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>
> >>Keith Willshaw wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Even in Denmark, as pacific and easy going a nation as you
> >>>will ever find, Danish citizens who had joined the Waffen SS
> >>>were tried and many executed after the war. The last of
> >>>the surviving prisoners of Danmark Freikorp were released in the 1950's
> >>
> >>I believe this is incorrect. The Freikorp was formed with the
> >>permission of the wartime danish government.
> >
> >
> > The permission of a Nazi puppet regime is scarcely an excuse.
> >
> >
> >
> >>The law which the
> >>volunteers were tried under was a postwar creation. The average sentence
> >>was 2 years
> >>
> >>http://www.dchf.dk/publications_dk/dk_holocaust/poulsen_mfl.pdf
> >>
> >
> >
> > Nothing in this article invalidates my point , having served in the
> > German armed forces was specifically made a punishable act.
> >
> > Keith
> >
> >

> You are avoiding all consideration of the relationship of Denmark and
> Germany and its peoples in historical terms of occupier-occupied
> (empire-subject) and motives of the people who enlisted in the Freikorp.
> What or whom did those persons betray?

The people and government of Denmark

> What, if any, moral turpitude were they guilty of, in their reasons
> for joining?
>

Support of the Nazi regime which was occupying their
country and subjugating its people.

Keith

[Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj]

Keith Willshaw wrote:

> "Vince Brannigan" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>
>
>>>Nothing in this article invalidates my point , having served in the
>>>German armed forces was specifically made a punishable act.
>>
>>After they lost. Its no trick to make an act a crime after it occurs.
>>it is of course unconstituional in the USA (ex post facto) etc.
>>
>
>
> Only if you accept the war time Danish Government as a
> legitmate one operating of its own free will, I do not.
>
> Had a portion of the US been invaded and subject to
> a puppet regime I rather doubt that US citizens whoi
> joined the SS would have escaped punishment based
> on a plea that the aforementioned regime had sanctioned
> their acts.
>
> Keith
>
>
You are of course free to doubt as you will,
seeing as you are proposing a hypothetical.
However let's look at what happenned in the US Civil war.
Were the citizens of states occupied by the Southern
Confederacy who joined the Confederate army, later
prosecuted and punished by the winning Northern states,
after they won the war, for having joined the
Confederate army?
The war which is still refered to by some southerners
as 'The war of northern aggression' :)
--
Rostyk

[Keith Willshaw]

"Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj" > wrote in message
...
> Keith Willshaw wrote:
>
> > "Vince Brannigan" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>
> >
> >>>Nothing in this article invalidates my point , having served in the
> >>>German armed forces was specifically made a punishable act.
> >>
> >>After they lost. Its no trick to make an act a crime after it occurs.
> >>it is of course unconstituional in the USA (ex post facto) etc.
> >>
> >
> >
> > Only if you accept the war time Danish Government as a
> > legitmate one operating of its own free will, I do not.
> >
> > Had a portion of the US been invaded and subject to
> > a puppet regime I rather doubt that US citizens whoi
> > joined the SS would have escaped punishment based
> > on a plea that the aforementioned regime had sanctioned
> > their acts.
> >
> > Keith
> >
> >
> You are of course free to doubt as you will,
> seeing as you are proposing a hypothetical.
> However let's look at what happenned in the US Civil war.
> Were the citizens of states occupied by the Southern
> Confederacy who joined the Confederate army, later
> prosecuted and punished by the winning Northern states,
> after they won the war, for having joined the
> Confederate army?

Nope and this is to the credit of those in the US Government.
Such an attitude is atypical, those who fight on the wrong side of
a civil war arent usually treated so well.

> The war which is still refered to by some southerners
> as 'The war of northern aggression' :)

You may wish to review what happened to those
who fought with the loyalists during the US war of independence.
They didnt do nearly as well as the rebels in 1865

You may also wish to review the treatment of those US
citizens suspected of having links with Al Qaeda or the
Taliban. John Walker Lindh got 20 years if I recall
correctly for offences commmitted outside the USA
and for belonging to an organisation which he joined before
it came into conflict with the USA.

Keith

[William Black]

"John Mullen" > wrote in message
...
> "William Black" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Keith Willshaw wrote:
> >
> > > 2) There were a handful of British citizens in German uniform
> > > versus thousands of soviet subjects who chose to serve with
> > > the Germans against the soviet Russian regime.
> >
> > I don't actually have a problem with this, a traitor is a traitor is a
> > traitor.
> >
> > Or does committing crimes with large numbers of other people make it
> right?
> >
> > There's no difference to me between a Don Cossack in a German uniform
and
> a
> > British fascist in a German uniform, except that some of the Don
Cossacks
> > shot at British troops, including possibly some of my family.
>
> Really? Where?

Some of the Cossacks were captured in German uniform behind Gold beach on
D-Day.

Several of my relatives went ashore with UK forces on D-Day.

--
William Black
------------------
On time, on budget, or works;
Pick any two from three

[William Black]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
...
>
> "William Black" > wrote in message
> ...

> > And we're talking about British servicemen joining the SS here, not
> Germans
> > going home to fight...
> >
>
> And the Soviets were are discussing were those who had
> joined the German armed forces too.

Exactly.

--
William Black
------------------
On time, on budget, or works;
Pick any two from three

[William Black]

"Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj" > wrote in message
...
> Keith Willshaw wrote:

> There is a world of difference between these people and
> the handfull of British traitors. I do not know the motivations
> of the Britishers, but am guessing that they must have been
> ideological and not something as crass as financial or the
> hatred of ones father.

I seem to remember that Vlasov and his men were actually part of the Red
Army when they changed sides.

That's treason, they got caught, they got shot.

So far I see nothing wrong here.

--
William Black
------------------
On time, on budget, or works;
Pick any two from three

[Brian Sharrock]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
...
>
snip

> Quite so, thus following the letter of the law, however those
> loyalists who had sided with the British during the American revolution
> tended to get rather less gentle treatment.
>

Slight semantic problem; the loyalists(sic) _were_ British.
They didn't 'side with' the British, they were British, remained
British and refused to follow the rebellious smugglers, slave-owners,
land-owner and lawyer clique into an armed French-funded
insurrection. History _does_ record that they were treated badly
by the revolting colonists.

--

Brian

[George Shirley]

Brian Sharrock wrote:

> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> snip
>
>
>> Quite so, thus following the letter of the law, however those
>>loyalists who had sided with the British during the American revolution
>>tended to get rather less gentle treatment.
>>
>
>
> Slight semantic problem; the loyalists(sic) _were_ British.
> They didn't 'side with' the British, they were British, remained
> British and refused to follow the rebellious smugglers, slave-owners,
> land-owner and lawyer clique into an armed French-funded
> insurrection. History _does_ record that they were treated badly
> by the revolting colonists.
>
> --
>
> Brian
>
>

And the reverse would have happened if the Brits had won. Basically put
a civil war is not based on kindness to an enemy and the victors, as in
all wars, get to do what they please with the defeated. Times have
changed but not a lot.

George

[Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj]

Keith Willshaw wrote:
> "Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Keith Willshaw wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Vince Brannigan" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Nothing in this article invalidates my point , having served in the
>>>>>German armed forces was specifically made a punishable act.
>>>>
>>>>After they lost. Its no trick to make an act a crime after it occurs.
>>>>it is of course unconstituional in the USA (ex post facto) etc.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Only if you accept the war time Danish Government as a
>>>legitmate one operating of its own free will, I do not.
>>>
>>>Had a portion of the US been invaded and subject to
>>>a puppet regime I rather doubt that US citizens whoi
>>>joined the SS would have escaped punishment based
>>>on a plea that the aforementioned regime had sanctioned
>>>their acts.
>>>
>>>Keith
>>>
>>>
>>
>>You are of course free to doubt as you will,
>>seeing as you are proposing a hypothetical.
>>However let's look at what happenned in the US Civil war.
>>Were the citizens of states occupied by the Southern
>>Confederacy who joined the Confederate army, later
>>prosecuted and punished by the winning Northern states,
>>after they won the war, for having joined the
>>Confederate army?
>
>
> Nope and this is to the credit of those in the US Government.
> Such an attitude is atypical, those who fight on the wrong side of
> a civil war arent usually treated so well.
>
>
>>The war which is still refered to by some southerners
>>as 'The war of northern aggression' :)
>
>
> You may wish to review what happened to those
> who fought with the loyalists during the US war of independence.
> They didnt do nearly as well as the rebels in 1865

Yeah. The United Empire loyalists. They were mentioned in our gr. 9
Canadian history class in highschool, in Ontario. :) But it was
only a passing mention, along with the French Acadians of the
Maritimes. I actually learned more about the injustices done
to those people after I moved to the USA :|

But so what! None of this has much bearing on your defence,
in spirit, of Stalins' Soviet Russian treatment of Soviet
Empite subjects of every type, after the second world war.
>
> You may also wish to review the treatment of those US
> citizens suspected of having links with Al Qaeda or the
> Taliban. John Walker Lindh got 20 years if I recall
> correctly for offences commmitted outside the USA
> and for belonging to an organisation which he joined before
> it came into conflict with the USA.
>
> Keith
>
>

[Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj]

William Black wrote:

> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>"William Black" > wrote in message
...
>
>
>>>And we're talking about British servicemen joining the SS here, not
>>
>>Germans
>>
>>>going home to fight...
>>>
>>
>>And the Soviets were are discussing were those who had
>>joined the German armed forces too.
>
>
> Exactly.
>
NOpe! That was not the content ot the posting to which
Keith made his comment.

[Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj]

William Black wrote:

> "Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Keith Willshaw wrote:
>
>
>>There is a world of difference between these people and
>>the handfull of British traitors. I do not know the motivations
>>of the Britishers, but am guessing that they must have been
>>ideological and not something as crass as financial or the
>>hatred of ones father.
>
>
> I seem to remember that Vlasov and his men were actually part of the Red
> Army when they changed sides.
>
> That's treason, they got caught, they got shot.
>
> So far I see nothing wrong here.
>
> --
> William Black

I was not thinking of, and don't know much about Vlasov.
or the French, Hungarian, of other western volunteers in the
armies of the 3'rd Reich (except for possibly the Balts and
Finns).

[Keith Willshaw]

"Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj" > wrote in message
...
> William Black wrote:
>
> > "Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>Keith Willshaw wrote:
> >
> >
> >>There is a world of difference between these people and
> >>the handfull of British traitors. I do not know the motivations
> >>of the Britishers, but am guessing that they must have been
> >>ideological and not something as crass as financial or the
> >>hatred of ones father.
> >
> >
> > I seem to remember that Vlasov and his men were actually part of the Red
> > Army when they changed sides.
> >
> > That's treason, they got caught, they got shot.
> >
> > So far I see nothing wrong here.
> >
> > --
> > William Black
>
> I was not thinking of, and don't know much about Vlasov.
> or the French, Hungarian, of other western volunteers in the
> armies of the 3'rd Reich (except for possibly the Balts and
> Finns).
>

None of whom, with the possible exception of some
of the Balts, were citizens of the USSR and they were
not repatriated to Russia after the war which is the
context of the discussion.

Keith

[Keith Willshaw]

"Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj" > wrote in message
...

> >
> > You may wish to review what happened to those
> > who fought with the loyalists during the US war of independence.
> > They didnt do nearly as well as the rebels in 1865
>
> Yeah. The United Empire loyalists. They were mentioned in our gr. 9
> Canadian history class in highschool, in Ontario. :) But it was
> only a passing mention, along with the French Acadians of the
> Maritimes. I actually learned more about the injustices done
> to those people after I moved to the USA :|
>
> But so what! None of this has much bearing on your defence,
> in spirit, of Stalins' Soviet Russian treatment of Soviet
> Empite subjects of every type, after the second world war.

Once more with feeling.

I have not , will not and do not ever intend to defend
Stalin or his regime. However I believe its fair to point
out that joining the forces of the enemy in wartime
has always been a very dangerous option. If that enemy loses
the results are dire and usually fatal for those concerned.

The USA no different and regards such acts as treason,
you may recall its definition.

"Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against
them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No
person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two
witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court."

By that definition those Soviet citizens who joined the German
forces were undoubtedly committing treason. You may care
to recall what happened to Julius and Ethel Rosenberg on their conviction.

Keith

[Vince Brannigan]

Keith Willshaw wrote:
>
> By that definition those Soviet citizens who joined the German
> forces were undoubtedly committing treason. You may care
> to recall what happened to Julius and Ethel Rosenberg on their conviction.
>

They were not convicted of treason, but of wartime espionage. Of course
the espionage was on behalf of a nominal ally, not an enemy, but that
was conveniently overlooked because by the time of the trial the cold
war had begun. Their guilt and the justice of the trial and sentence are
debated to today.

Vince

[Kevin Brooks]

Vince Brannigan > wrote in message >...
> Keith Willshaw wrote:
> >
> > By that definition those Soviet citizens who joined the German
> > forces were undoubtedly committing treason. You may care
> > to recall what happened to Julius and Ethel Rosenberg on their conviction.
> >
>
> They were not convicted of treason, but of wartime espionage. Of course
> the espionage was on behalf of a nominal ally, not an enemy, but that
> was conveniently overlooked because by the time of the trial the cold
> war had begun. Their guilt and the justice of the trial and sentence are
> debated to today.
>
> Vince

As to their guilt, you must have missed the more recent books that
verify their espionage activities, from both former KGB sources and
western sources (ISTR that one of the latest also identified A gent
named Greenglass as being intimately involved in their little spy
ring). And BTW, KGB files also verified that Alger Hiss was indeed a
Soviet agent (knowing how you never miss an opportunity to bash the
US).

Brooks

[Vince Brannigan]

Kevin Brooks wrote:
> Vince Brannigan > wrote in message >...
>
>>Keith Willshaw wrote:
>>
>>>By that definition those Soviet citizens who joined the German
>>>forces were undoubtedly committing treason. You may care
>>>to recall what happened to Julius and Ethel Rosenberg on their conviction.
>>>
>>
>>They were not convicted of treason, but of wartime espionage. Of course
>>the espionage was on behalf of a nominal ally, not an enemy, but that
>>was conveniently overlooked because by the time of the trial the cold
>>war had begun. Their guilt and the justice of the trial and sentence are
>>debated to today.
>>
>>Vince
>
>
> As to their guilt,

I said debated, not what I believed.

you must have missed the more recent books that
> verify their espionage activities, from both former KGB sources and
> western sources (ISTR that one of the latest also identified A gent
> named Greenglass as being intimately involved in their little spy
> ring). And BTW, KGB files also verified that Alger Hiss was indeed a
> Soviet agent (knowing how you never miss an opportunity to bash the
> US).
>
> Brooks

The evidence against Ethel Rosenberg is still a very mixed bag. That is
why they were only charged with conspiring to commit espionage, not with
passing information to a foreign power. I personally beieve taht Julius
Rosenberg was a an ineffective russian agent, that his wife was a nitwit
and the whole group was simply blown off by the russians

FWIW I always thought Alger Hiss was a spy.


Howver, the behavior of Judge Irving Kaufman is considered by many to be
a complte disgrace.

"To this latter end, an extract of the Gordon Dean diary reveals that
Assistant Attorney General McInerney spoke to the judge less than a
month prior to the time of the trial who in turn indicated that the
death sentence would be imposed "if the evidence warranted it ". During
the course of the trial the representative of the Department of Justice
advised the FBI that Judge Kaufman would impose the death sentence "if
he doesn't change his mind". (Document No. 894 dated March 16, 1951) The
record further reveals that on April 3, 1951, two days prior to
sentencing, Roy Cohn secretly spoke to Judge Kaufman, advising him he
personally favored sentencing Julius and Ethel Rosenberg to death with a
prison term for Morton Sobell. Cohn further advised the FBI that Judge
Frank opposed any death sentence, but that Judge Weinfeld favored the
death sentence to be imposed upon Julius Rosenberg, Ethel Rosenberg and
Morton Sobell. At Cohn's suggestion, Saypol, the U.S. Attorney, was to
go to Washington and confer with the Attorney General and J. Edgar
Hoover as to the proposed sentence. Hoover recommended that Julius
Rosenberg and Morton Sobell should be executed."

Saypol learned that there was division within the Department of Justice
as to whether or not a death sentence should be imposed and transmitted
that information secretly to Judge Kaufman who in turn asked him to
stand silent and to make no recommendation as to sentencing. FBI
documents further reveal that the trial judge interfered with the
appellate process on appeals from his decisions, denying habeas corpus
relief without hearing, by communicating secretly with members of the
prosecution staff, the FBI and through them, with the Department of
Justice. The record reveals that the last application of the Rosenbergs
to set aside their sentences was made in June, 1953. It came on to be
heard before Judge Kaufman and was summarily denied without affording
any evidentiary hearing. The record also reveals that prior to the time
the motion was even filed the subject matter of the motion was secretly
discussed at a meeting between Hoover and Judge Kaufman in May of 1953.

Washington, D.C. December 16, 1982
STATEMENT OF MARSHALL PERLIN
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE
OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY



vince

[Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj]

Keith Willshaw wrote:
> "Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>William Black wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Keith Willshaw wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>There is a world of difference between these people and
>>>>the handfull of British traitors. I do not know the motivations
>>>>of the Britishers, but am guessing that they must have been
>>>>ideological and not something as crass as financial or the
>>>>hatred of ones father.
>>>
>>>
>>>I seem to remember that Vlasov and his men were actually part of the Red
>>>Army when they changed sides.
>>>
>>>That's treason, they got caught, they got shot.
>>>
>>>So far I see nothing wrong here.
>>>
>>>--
>>>William Black
>>
>>I was not thinking of, and don't know much about Vlasov.
>>or the French, Hungarian, of other western volunteers in the
>>armies of the 3'rd Reich (except for possibly the Balts and
>>Finns).
>>
>
>
> None of whom, with the possible exception of some
> of the Balts, were citizens of the USSR and they were
> not repatriated to Russia after the war which is the
> context of the discussion.
>
> Keith
>
>
What happenned to any Balts or Finns whom the Russians
managed to get into their clutches?

[Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj]

Keith Willshaw wrote:

> "Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>
>>>You may wish to review what happened to those
>>>who fought with the loyalists during the US war of independence.
>>>They didnt do nearly as well as the rebels in 1865
>>
>>Yeah. The United Empire loyalists. They were mentioned in our gr. 9
>>Canadian history class in highschool, in Ontario. :) But it was
>>only a passing mention, along with the French Acadians of the
>>Maritimes. I actually learned more about the injustices done
>>to those people after I moved to the USA :|
>>
>>But so what! None of this has much bearing on your defence,
>>in spirit, of Stalins' Soviet Russian treatment of Soviet
>>Empite subjects of every type, after the second world war.
>
>
> Once more with feeling.
>
> I have not , will not and do not ever intend to defend
> Stalin or his regime. However I believe its fair to point
> out that joining the forces of the enemy in wartime
> has always been a very dangerous option. If that enemy loses
> the results are dire and usually fatal for those concerned.

Oh I fully agree that being in the armed services of the losing
side is dangerous and liable to have nasty consequences. More
so if the winner thought you should have been on his side.
>
> The USA no different and regards such acts as treason,
> you may recall its definition.
>
> "Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against
> them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No
> person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two
> witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court."
>
> By that definition those Soviet citizens who joined the German
> forces were undoubtedly committing treason. You may care
> to recall what happened to Julius and Ethel Rosenberg on their conviction.
>
> Keith
>
So how relevant are the Rosenbergs to the discussion of your
your comment
"I doubt that the handful of British citizens in German
uniform were too happy to be sent home either, their
leader was hanged and they all received lengthy prison
sentences. "

made in reference to
"You may recall that, at war's end, thousands of Russians in German
prison camps and in German uniform were pleading with the Americans
and British to let them remain in the west. Stalin insisted on having
them back, so he could kill them or send them to the camps. Some
killed themselves rather than board the trains to the east. "

A comment which I judged to be made as a defence of Soviet
action, but which you deny.
--
Rostyk

[Keith Willshaw]

"Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj" > wrote in message
...

> What happenned to any Balts or Finns whom the Russians
> managed to get into their clutches?
>

The Finns signed a separate peace treaty with the USSR so I imagine
that issue was handled in that context and I dare say those
Latvians, Lithuanians and Estonians who were captured
by the Soviets got short shrift. I dont believe many were
returned by the allies because quite a few ended up settling
in the UK as refugees.

Keith

[Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj]

Vince Brannigan wrote:

> Keith Willshaw wrote:
>
>> .... Julius and Ethel Rosenberg ...
>
> They were not convicted of treason, but of wartime espionage. Of course
> the espionage was on behalf of a nominal ally, not an enemy,

Yeah sort of like the recent spy on behalf of Israel

> but that was conveniently overlooked because by the time of the trial
> the cold war had begun.

Well it really is sort of irrelevant, since it was still espionage
for a foreign power.

> Their guilt and the justice of the trial and sentence are
> debated to today.

Well even with the newly unsealed evidence, and revelations from
soviet sources which support the guilt of the Rosenbergs as well as
implicating many others, debate will continue regardless of the facts.
As to debates of the justice of trying and punishing
them, well that depends of feelings and loyalties, for
which facts are irrelevant.
>
> Vince
>

[[email protected]]

In article >, William Black
> writes:
>
>"John Mullen" > wrote in message
...
>> "William Black" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > "Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> > > Keith Willshaw wrote:
>> >
>> > > 2) There were a handful of British citizens in German uniform
>> > > versus thousands of soviet subjects who chose to serve with
>> > > the Germans against the soviet Russian regime.
>> >
>> > I don't actually have a problem with this, a traitor is a traitor is a
>> > traitor.
>> >
>> > Or does committing crimes with large numbers of other people make it
>> right?
>> >
>> > There's no difference to me between a Don Cossack in a German uniform
>and
>> a
>> > British fascist in a German uniform, except that some of the Don
>Cossacks
>> > shot at British troops, including possibly some of my family.
>>
>> Really? Where?
>
>Some of the Cossacks were captured in German uniform behind Gold beach on
>D-Day.
>
>Several of my relatives went ashore with UK forces on D-Day.

The book Victims of Yalta tells of what happened to those Cossacks :-(


----- Posted via NewsOne.Net: Free (anonymous) Usenet News via the Web -----
http://newsone.net/ -- Free reading and anonymous posting to 60,000+ groups
NewsOne.Net prohibits users from posting spam. If this or other posts
made through NewsOne.Net violate posting guidelines, email

[Stephen Harding]

Brian Sharrock wrote:

> Slight semantic problem; the loyalists(sic) _were_ British.
> They didn't 'side with' the British, they were British, remained
> British and refused to follow the rebellious smugglers, slave-owners,
> land-owner and lawyer clique into an armed French-funded
> insurrection. History _does_ record that they were treated badly
> by the revolting colonists.

So is this the current Euro spin on the American Revolution?

Just a bunch of criminal, low life types, cajoled by the perfidious
French, into breaking away from "The Empire", where most wanted to
stay?

My, my how the politics of anti-Americanism spins its web.


SMH

[Vince Brannigan]

Stephen Harding wrote:
> Brian Sharrock wrote:
>
>
>>Slight semantic problem; the loyalists(sic) _were_ British.
>>They didn't 'side with' the British, they were British, remained
>>British and refused to follow the rebellious smugglers, slave-owners,
>>land-owner and lawyer clique into an armed French-funded
>>insurrection. History _does_ record that they were treated badly
>>by the revolting colonists.
>
>
> So is this the current Euro spin on the American Revolution?
>
> Just a bunch of criminal, low life types, cajoled by the perfidious
> French, into breaking away from "The Empire", where most wanted to
> stay?
> My, my how the politics of anti-Americanism spins its web.

It is the historical record, not current spin
See for example

http://www.uelac.org/loyalist.pdf

FWIW the only part of my family heritage that is not Irish traces back
through a Nova Scotia German family with Hessian connections from the
revolutionary war.

"The Romkey (Ramichen or Ramge) family came to Halifax, Nova Scotia in
1750 from the village on Nieder-Klingen in Odenwald region of the
Palatinate. The family has its origins in the neighbouring village of
Spachbrücken in the Landgraviate of Hessen-Darmstadt. Johann Wendel
Ramichen or Ramge, his wife Anna Margaretha Uhrig, and their children
spent three winters in Halifax before moving to Lunenburg in 1753. The
family eventually settled at Five Houses on the LaHave River where Anna
Margaretha's brother had his 30-acre farm lot."
http://kenneth.paulsen.home.comcast.net/NovaScotian_Fam.htm

Many loyalists and Hessian soldiers were settled in Nova Scotia after
the American revolution. See for example The Hessians of Nova Scotia:
The Personal Data Files of 225 Hessian Soldiers who Settled in Nova
Scotia by Johannes HelmutMerz. 1994

Vince

[Stephen Harding]

Vince Brannigan wrote:

> Stephen Harding wrote:
> > Brian Sharrock wrote:
> >
> >>Slight semantic problem; the loyalists(sic) _were_ British.
> >>They didn't 'side with' the British, they were British, remained
> >>British and refused to follow the rebellious smugglers, slave-owners,
> >>land-owner and lawyer clique into an armed French-funded
> >>insurrection. History _does_ record that they were treated badly
> >>by the revolting colonists.
> >
> > So is this the current Euro spin on the American Revolution?
> >
> > Just a bunch of criminal, low life types, cajoled by the perfidious
> > French, into breaking away from "The Empire", where most wanted to
> > stay?
> > My, my how the politics of anti-Americanism spins its web.
>
> It is the historical record, not current spin
> See for example
>
> http://www.uelac.org/loyalist.pdf

Nope. Largely revisionist spin.

Smuggling was indeed a common undertaking in port cities all along the
eastern seaboard. Some fairly prominent people benefited from the "trade"
as well.

Slave owners were by no means the majority, even in the south. Independence
from Britain would have had little effect on the American slave market, just
as it had little effect even when the US finally got around to banning the
import of slaves.

And of course, the French were originally content to watch from the sidelines
until there was actually some possibility of success. That didn't happen
until at least Saratoga. The French had nothing to do with starting the
American Revolution except in providing theory from philosophical types.

The position that the American Revolution was largely driven by a small group
of self-interested people (better money making possibilities with
independence) basically follows the political thinking of liberal or
downright Marxist thinking academics.

Under this paradigm of human political/economic/social action, no one does
anything without clear beneficial economic gain. Only the "socialist man"
is able to rise above this selfishness because the people own the means of
production, and workers can no longer be exploited. The bad things capitalism
does (and capitalist governments) is thus no longer possible.

The fact is the America of 1770 had probably the largest percentage of middle
class population of any place on earth, doesn't lend itself well to risky
propositions like treason against the most powerful country on earth. An
extremely high percentage of Americans were property owners.

Ben Franklin pretty much put the revolution supporters as 1/3rd of the population,
with about 1/3 loyalist, and 1/3 fence sitters. He ought to have some idea of
this since he was a very bright man, a reporter at heart, there at the time, and
even had a son who was the Royal Governor of New Jersey, who stayed loyal to the
crown, eventually leaving America to finish his life in Britain.

> Many loyalists and Hessian soldiers were settled in Nova Scotia after
> the American revolution. See for example The Hessians of Nova Scotia:
> The Personal Data Files of 225 Hessian Soldiers who Settled in Nova
> Scotia by Johannes HelmutMerz. 1994
>

Lots of Hessian POWs settled in this area (western MA) and upper NY state
after the war. Of course they also gravitated towards PA "Dutch" country as
well for obvious reasons.


SMH

[Stephen Harding]

Brian Sharrock wrote:

> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
>
> Quite so, thus following the letter of the law, however those
> loyalists who had sided with the British during the American revolution
> tended to get rather less gentle treatment.

I think the post war US government itself was not especially harsh
on loyalists. State governments tended to be more severe, but I
don't know if there was large scale, organized oppression of those
who remained loyal. The problem was more on the scale of conflicted
neighbors, making it clear to loyalists they had no future in America.

The real brutal treatment of loyalists during the war was at the hands
of local military or paramilitary groups, and bandit gangs selective
in who they preyed upon. Both loyalist and revolutionary communities
had their groups. Similar things happened on the eve of the American
Civil War; "Bleeding Kansas" being a good example of conflict between
pro and anti slave groups.

IIRC, Lousiana has its "French flavor" due to people kicked out of
Canada when the British took over Canada at the end of what we call
the "French and Indian War", and of course the direct and indirect
displacement of the Irish is well known.

Lose the fight and you lose your property seems to be pretty much the
way it goes, especially on local levels.


SMH

[Vince Brannigan]

Stephen Harding wrote:
> Vince Brannigan wrote:
>
>
>>Stephen Harding wrote:
>>
>>>Brian Sharrock wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Slight semantic problem; the loyalists(sic) _were_ British.
>>>>They didn't 'side with' the British, they were British, remained
>>>>British and refused to follow the rebellious smugglers, slave-owners,
>>>>land-owner and lawyer clique into an armed French-funded
>>>>insurrection. History _does_ record that they were treated badly
>>>>by the revolting colonists.
>>>
>>>So is this the current Euro spin on the American Revolution?
>>>
>>>Just a bunch of criminal, low life types, cajoled by the perfidious
>>>French, into breaking away from "The Empire", where most wanted to
>>>stay?
>>>My, my how the politics of anti-Americanism spins its web.
>>
>>It is the historical record, not current spin
>>See for example
>>
>>http://www.uelac.org/loyalist.pdf
>
>
> Nope. Largely revisionist spin.
>
> Smuggling was indeed a common undertaking in port cities all along the
> eastern seaboard. Some fairly prominent people benefited from the "trade"
> as well.
>

so smuggling is accepted as a description

> Slave owners were by no means the majority, even in the south. Independence
> from Britain would have had little effect on the American slave market, just
> as it had little effect even when the US finally got around to banning the
> import of slaves.
>

The issue of whether the owners were in the majority is meaningless.
rich americans are currently in the minority but control everything for
their benefit./

> And of course, the French were originally content to watch from the sidelines
> until there was actually some possibility of success. That didn't happen
> until at least Saratoga. The French had nothing to do with starting the
> American Revolution except in providing theory from philosophical types.

sure, but so what. they suppied material aid when it was useful

>
> The position that the American Revolution was largely driven by a small group
> of self-interested people (better money making possibilities with
> independence) basically follows the political thinking of liberal or
> downright Marxist thinking academics.

nonsense. it long predates marxism and the reality of loyalist elements
makes analysis critical.

>
> Under this paradigm of human political/economic/social action, no one does
> anything without clear beneficial economic gain. Only the "socialist man"
> is able to rise above this selfishness because the people own the means of
> production, and workers can no longer be exploited. The bad things capitalism
> does (and capitalist governments) is thus no longer possible.
>

Strawman crap. as one example Prize money drove the Royal navy officer
corps.

> The fact is the America of 1770 had probably the largest percentage of middle
> class population of any place on earth, doesn't lend itself well to risky
> propositions like treason against the most powerful country on earth. An
> extremely high percentage of Americans were property owners.

no they were not. Butr even if they were they were in itofr the money.

>
> Ben Franklin pretty much put the revolution supporters as 1/3rd of the population,
> with about 1/3 loyalist, and 1/3 fence sitters. He ought to have some idea of
> this since he was a very bright man, a reporter at heart, there at the time, and
> even had a son who was the Royal Governor of New Jersey, who stayed loyal to the
> crown, eventually leaving America to finish his life in Britain.

Fair enough.

Vince

[ZZBunker]

Stephen Harding > wrote in message >...
> Vince Brannigan wrote:
>
> > Stephen Harding wrote:
> > > Brian Sharrock wrote:
> > >

> Under this paradigm of human political/economic/social action, no one does
> anything without clear beneficial economic gain. Only the "socialist man"
> is able to rise above this selfishness because the people own the means of
> production, and workers can no longer be exploited. The bad things capitalism
> does (and capitalist governments) is thus no longer possible.
>
> The fact is the America of 1770 had probably the largest percentage of middle
> class population of any place on earth, doesn't lend itself well to risky
> propositions like treason against the most powerful country on earth. An
> extremely high percentage of Americans were property owners.

But, that fact is what started The American Revolution
and is what keeps it going. Since, there is an even higher percentage
of middle class in American today than there was in 1770.

And the powers that be are *still* New York British, French,
and German morons. Just like it was in 1770.

And it's also why we to keep telling the French that their
greeny anti-jet missles are obviously of no use when
faced with a well-tuned black-smoking 757.

[Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj]

I attempted to post thia at ~10:40 EDT
But the Bellsouth news server has been having
problems (issues, so called) here today.
Therefore I am submitting the article again.
My apologies if, in fact, this is a duplicate
--
Rostyk


Stephen Harding wrote:
> Brian Sharrock wrote:
>
>>Slight semantic problem; the loyalists(sic) _were_ British.
>>They didn't 'side with' the British, they were British, remained
>>British and refused to follow the rebellious smugglers, slave-owners,
>>land-owner and lawyer clique into an armed French-funded
>>insurrection. History _does_ record that they were treated badly
>>by the revolting colonists.
>
> So is this the current Euro spin on the American Revolution?
>
> Just a bunch of criminal, low life types, cajoled by the perfidious
> French, into breaking away from "The Empire", where most wanted to
> stay?
>
> My, my how the politics of anti-Americanism spins its web.
>
Perhaps slightly overstated, but there's a good amount of truth
in that. The residents of the British colonies: English colonists,
Britishers, et al, did have a number of grievances about their
treatment. But they weren't being particularly oppressed or
treated more harshly than the people living in the British Isles.
But the local gentry far from central control quite naturally
took the opportunity to avoid paying their taxes. Similarly
for the more common folk. And the revolutionary ideas from
the continent surely did have a sympathetic audience, whether
the French did any organized meddling or not.

[John Keeney]

"Stephen Harding" > wrote in message
...
> Brian Sharrock wrote:
>
> > Slight semantic problem; the loyalists(sic) _were_ British.
> > They didn't 'side with' the British, they were British, remained
> > British and refused to follow the rebellious smugglers, slave-owners,
> > land-owner and lawyer clique into an armed French-funded
> > insurrection. History _does_ record that they were treated badly
> > by the revolting colonists.

Mighty big "clique", especially when you add in the artistes,
farmers & others.

Say, what "class" would Franklin belong to any way?

> So is this the current Euro spin on the American Revolution?
>
> Just a bunch of criminal, low life types, cajoled by the perfidious
> French, into breaking away from "The Empire", where most wanted to
> stay?
>
> My, my how the politics of anti-Americanism spins its web.

While lawyers may qualify as "low life types", they don't
automatically go into the "criminal" class. Land-owners
simply do not go in either on that grounds alone.

[Brian Sharrock]

"Stephen Harding" > wrote in message
...
> Vince Brannigan wrote:
>
> > Stephen Harding wrote:
> > > Brian Sharrock wrote:
> > >
> > >>Slight semantic problem; the loyalists(sic) _were_ British.
> > >>They didn't 'side with' the British, they were British, remained
> > >>British and refused to follow the rebellious smugglers, slave-owners,
> > >>land-owner and lawyer clique into an armed French-funded
> > >>insurrection. History _does_ record that they were treated badly
> > >>by the revolting colonists.
> > >
> > > So is this the current Euro spin on the American Revolution?
> > >

From your side of the Atlantic, I suppose everybody over the
horizon seems to be 'Euro', but to me, a Briton, the idea that
there'' some kind of "Euro spin" over the rebellion of some British
colonists funded by the French Kingdom in the furtherance of a
republic is laughable. I know it's probalby hard to examine the
underlying myths and shillobeths that you've been taught since
Kindergarden but perhaps not everything you've be taught is true?
Most folks get older, I nearly said mature, on along the way towards
the grave cope, or adjust, to the reality of Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy
and other props ...


> > > Just a bunch of criminal, low life types, cajoled by the perfidious
> > > French, into breaking away from "The Empire", where most wanted to
> > > stay?
> > > My, my how the politics of anti-Americanism spins its web.
> >
> > It is the historical record, not current spin
> > See for example
> >
> > http://www.uelac.org/loyalist.pdf
>
snip
>
> And of course, the French were originally content to watch from the
sidelines
> until there was actually some possibility of success. That didn't happen
> until at least Saratoga. The French had nothing to do with starting the
> American Revolution except in providing theory from philosophical types.
>

I was somewhat startled to read in "Rebels & Redcoats", Hugh Bicheno,
Harper Collins, 2003;-

(Page 22);- Gage ... received a reply ... (Page 23)ordered him to arest
the members of the illegal Provincial Congress, which he knew from
several _well placed informers_ (emphasis mine) was meeting in Concord
.... Gage's spies had also told him aconsiderable supply of arms and
military stores was cahed at Concord including three 24 pounder cannon
whose significance has gone strangely unremarked by historians.
These were 5,600 pound monsters requiring eight to ten men to
serve themand a team of six horses to pull them ... they were seige guns ...
how they came to be uried in the courtyard of Concord jail is a mystery.
....
The cannon fitted the jigsaw in another way. The conspirators were
desperate to provoke some bloody event to plarize opinion, and the
French would have regarded a brace and a half of 24-ponders as seedcorn.
Pages 24-25 are maps
(Page 26) ... The existance of such powerful weapons at such a place
and time is one of those ugly facts so harmful to beautiful theories,
in this case the myth of peace-loving farmers spontaneously rising up
against unprovoked aggression. They also provide an explanation why
the cautious Gage was suddenly inspired to undertake a high-risk
operation deep into territory where he had many informers and
_must have known_ (my emphasis) the local Militia had been drilling
for just such an eventuality.

I'm sorry for the length of this extract from the book, but _I_ had
never been aware of this ordnance before; I could never really understand
the march route particularly when one considers the practise of line
infantry in those days, these guys could march up escarpments,
through swamps across dunes etc ... in step all the way. The forestation
that apparently presented no problem to their harassers should have
been as easy for them to traverse. Was there an overarching reason
to stay on the road/track?

Elsewhere, I'm sure the author says that 'the British' had _not_ shipped
this size of ordnance to the American landmass ... I might be wrong here ...
where did they originate?

Curiously the four-part accompanying documentary WGBH / BBC
presented by Richard Holmes elided over this ordnance, Richard Holmes
seemed to prefer riding on contemporary buses ... :(

I highly recommend the book, although it 'accompanies the TV series its
'slant' seems different.

Meanwhile, the French will deny the provenance of this ordnance, along
with the supply of commissioning expertise to the Fuerzas Argentinas
and any missiles that the Polish Army finds in Iraq ... plus ca change?

--

Brian

[Stephen Harding]

Vince Brannigan wrote:

> Stephen Harding wrote:
> >
> > Smuggling was indeed a common undertaking in port cities all along the
> > eastern seaboard. Some fairly prominent people benefited from the "trade"
> > as well.
> >
>
> so smuggling is accepted as a description

A description of some activities in the American colonies. Not a characterization
of the pro-Revolution crowd.

Smuggling was rampant and England as well at the same time. Prominent people
also benefited from it, as they did from piracy as well. Doesn't make England
an nation of pirates, or any opposition to the crown driven by it.

It's a lame, one dimensional characterization.

> > Slave owners were by no means the majority, even in the south. Independence
> > from Britain would have had little effect on the American slave market, just
> > as it had little effect even when the US finally got around to banning the
> > import of slaves.
>
> The issue of whether the owners were in the majority is meaningless.
> rich americans are currently in the minority but control everything for
> their benefit./

Fair enough. But if you're talking revolution, and a very risky one at that,
you'd better have more than the landed, propertied gentry involved. You need
some help from common people who think the activity is going to get them more
than just killed, imprisoned or financially destitute.

> > And of course, the French were originally content to watch from the sidelines
> > until there was actually some possibility of success. That didn't happen
> > until at least Saratoga. The French had nothing to do with starting the
> > American Revolution except in providing theory from philosophical types.
>
> sure, but so what. they suppied material aid when it was useful

The OP had stated the revolution was a "French funded insurrection". It was
not significantly funded by them until well into the event. If you're trying
to decide to be loyalist or rebel, French participation has little to do with
it.

> > The position that the American Revolution was largely driven by a small group
> > of self-interested people (better money making possibilities with
> > independence) basically follows the political thinking of liberal or
> > downright Marxist thinking academics.
>
> nonsense. it long predates marxism and the reality of loyalist elements
> makes analysis critical.

Presence of loyalist elements merely gives the conflict a "civil war" component.
You revolt against someone. In largely free, and reasonably prosperous colonial
society of 1770's, a significant number of people choosing to remain loyal would
not be unusual.

> > Under this paradigm of human political/economic/social action, no one does
> > anything without clear beneficial economic gain. Only the "socialist man"
> > is able to rise above this selfishness because the people own the means of
> > production, and workers can no longer be exploited. The bad things capitalism
> > does (and capitalist governments) is thus no longer possible.
>
> Strawman crap. as one example Prize money drove the Royal navy officer
> corps.

It's complete bunk! Not a strawman at all though. Just an observation on a
significant intellectual force driving the interpretation of American history
over the past 30 years.

> > The fact is the America of 1770 had probably the largest percentage of middle
> > class population of any place on earth, doesn't lend itself well to risky
> > propositions like treason against the most powerful country on earth. An
> > extremely high percentage of Americans were property owners.
>
> no they were not. Butr even if they were they were in itofr the money.

You're wrong. The American colonies had a very large middle class. A high
percentage of property owners, particularly farmers, but also tradesmen and
professionals. It's something very few societies have been able to accomplish.

This is very important in interpreting the motivation in favor of revolution.
American colonists by and large were not landless, propertyless, angry people
with nothing to lose by going against a powerful colonial establishment.


SMH

[Stephen Harding]

Brian Sharrock wrote:

> From your side of the Atlantic, I suppose everybody over the
> horizon seems to be 'Euro', but to me, a Briton, the idea that
> there'' some kind of "Euro spin" over the rebellion of some British
> colonists funded by the French Kingdom in the furtherance of a
> republic is laughable. I know it's probalby hard to examine the

I understand there are "Europeans" and there are "Britons". I've
become quite anti-European as I age and carelessly lumped the UK with
Europe. I think most Americans consider the Brits "different" from
the "Continentals" even though technically (I think), you're all Euros.

> underlying myths and shillobeths that you've been taught since
> Kindergarden but perhaps not everything you've be taught is true?
> Most folks get older, I nearly said mature, on along the way towards
> the grave cope, or adjust, to the reality of Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy
> and other props ...

Ahh yes, the characterization of those who disagree with you as ignorant or
naive, and certainly in need of true education.

Conservatives seem to trash political opponents as "immoral" while liberals
seem to go the "ignorant" route. You seem to be liberal.

> I'm sorry for the length of this extract from the book, but _I_ had
> never been aware of this ordnance before; I could never really understand
> the march route particularly when one considers the practise of line
> infantry in those days, these guys could march up escarpments,
> through swamps across dunes etc ... in step all the way. The forestation
> that apparently presented no problem to their harassers should have
> been as easy for them to traverse. Was there an overarching reason
> to stay on the road/track?

I've been down "battle road" between Lexington and Concord and I never
really understood why the British force stuck to the road. At the time,
the land would have been pretty much open, so there would have been no
need to hack through the forest that is currently there. I think they
were expecting to be met along the road by reinforcements, so that may
be a factor.

The British did eventually put out flankers on either side of the road
ahead of the column to flush out militia massing for another ambush. Still,
the casualty rate was huge.

> Meanwhile, the French will deny the provenance of this ordnance, along
> with the supply of commissioning expertise to the Fuerzas Argentinas
> and any missiles that the Polish Army finds in Iraq ... plus ca change?

Bien sur!


SMH

[Stephen Harding]

"Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj" wrote:

> Perhaps slightly overstated, but there's a good amount of truth
> in that. The residents of the British colonies: English colonists,
> Britishers, et al, did have a number of grievances about their
> treatment. But they weren't being particularly oppressed or
> treated more harshly than the people living in the British Isles.

Don't mean to simplify the American Revolution into solely some pure,
idealistic movement to better humankind. Such a "spin" on the event
was fairly common in history books up to the 60's.

With the rise of the liberal left, interpretations became more complex
(which is good), but IMHO, more political in nature, and overly harsh.
It's gone from American history seen as a golden light to one seen only
as darkness.

As far as "oppression" of the colonies goes, I think you are generally
correct. As seen from today's perspective, what is so wrong and oppresive
about asking colonists to chip in for their own defense (our "French and
Indian" war)? Seems not unlike what the US has done, or tried to do, in
both Iraqi adventures!

My thinking is that the American colonies were simply used to governing
themselves (largely left on their own by Britain up to the war) and would
no longer tolerate being governed from abroad. "Coming of age" I suppose.

> But the local gentry far from central control quite naturally
> took the opportunity to avoid paying their taxes. Similarly
> for the more common folk. And the revolutionary ideas from

Taxes have always been a sensitive subject with Americans!!! This sensitivity
continues to this day.

> the continent surely did have a sympathetic audience, whether
> the French did any organized meddling or not.

My understanding is that the French were prepared to keep the conflict going
without direct involvement for as long as possible. They really did not
expect a successful outcome, but would have been happy just to drain down
Britain in financial and military resources.


SMH

[Stephen Harding]

John Keeney wrote:

> Say, what "class" would Franklin belong to any way?

I think he was financially quite well off by the time of the revolution.
But it was all self-made money, so no one should be too harsh on him
for having coin in his pocket.

"Professional" class I suppose.


SMH

[Michael P. Reed]

"Brian Sharrock" > wrote in message news:<

> I was somewhat startled to read in "Rebels & Redcoats", Hugh Bicheno,
> Harper Collins, 2003;-

Which generally has not received very good reviews (mostly its the
same ol' stuff repackaged). I've only leafed through it, and was
unimpressed.

> (Page 22);- Gage ... received a reply ... (Page 23)ordered him to arest
> the members of the illegal Provincial Congress, which he knew from
> several _well placed informers_ (emphasis mine) was meeting in Concord
> ... Gage's spies had also told him aconsiderable supply of arms and
> military stores was cahed at Concord including three 24 pounder cannon
> whose significance has gone strangely unremarked by historians.

Er, this is because there were no 24 pounder cannon. The intel was
wrong.

> These were 5,600 pound monsters requiring eight to ten men to
> serve themand a team of six horses to pull them ... they were seige guns ...
> how they came to be uried in the courtyard of Concord jail is a mystery.
> ...
> The cannon fitted the jigsaw in another way. The conspirators were
> desperate to provoke some bloody event to plarize opinion, and the
> French would have regarded a brace and a half of 24-ponders as seedcorn.
> Pages 24-25 are maps
> (Page 26) ... The existance of such powerful weapons at such a place
> and time is one of those ugly facts so harmful to beautiful theories,
> in this case the myth of peace-loving farmers spontaneously rising up
> against unprovoked aggression.

Wow! Mr Bicheno seems to be really out of touch with American
historiagraphy.

> They also provide an explanation why
> the cautious Gage was suddenly inspired to undertake a high-risk
> operation deep into territory where he had many informers and
> _must have known_ (my emphasis) the local Militia had been drilling
> for just such an eventuality.

Of course he did. No news in that. Concord *was* a provincial
magazine, and there *was* ordnance there, but only amounted to a
couple of three pounders, a couple of casks of powder and ball, and
the odd provisions stores (flour etc).

> I'm sorry for the length of this extract from the book, but _I_ had
> never been aware of this ordnance before;
> I could never really understand
> the march route particularly when one considers the practise of line
> infantry in those days, these guys could march up escarpments,
> through swamps across dunes etc ... in step all the way. The forestation
> that apparently presented no problem to their harassers should have
> been as easy for them to traverse. Was there an overarching reason
> to stay on the road/track?

Smith wasn't one of the brightest cookies on the block, and was not
really given another important field command, but mainly served in
garrison duty for the remainder of his stay in America.

> Elsewhere, I'm sure the author says that 'the British' had _not_ shipped
> this size of ordnance to the American landmass ... I might be wrong here ...
> where did they originate?

Britain, perhaps captured from the French, forged in America. . . 24
pounders (presumably iron) did exist in some of the fortifications
that existed and were taken over by the provinicial governments.
None, however, were at Concord. New Hampshire, e.g., did offer some
24 and 32 pounders to the New England Army besieging Boston in June.

> Curiously the four-part accompanying documentary WGBH / BBC
> presented by Richard Holmes elided over this ordnance, Richard Holmes
> seemed to prefer riding on contemporary buses ... :(

The 24 pounders appear to only exist in Mr Bicheno's fervid
imagination. AFAIK, no where does Gage mention this as a reason for
going to Concord. In fact, his first intention was to destroy the
magazine at Worcester (fifty miles away), but this was ruled out as
too far to safely march. In his view, Concord was a much safer
objective in that it was much closer. Of course, the "Americans" all
knew it was his objective as well.

> I highly recommend the book, although it 'accompanies the TV series its
> 'slant' seems different.

> Meanwhile, the French will deny the provenance of this ordnance, along
> with the supply of commissioning expertise to the Fuerzas Argentinas
> and any missiles that the Polish Army finds in Iraq ... plus ca change?

Unless it was captured ordance from the French and Indian War, any
artillery ordnance was not otherwise French. The French government
did not make the decision to assist the "rebels" until the spring of
1776, and the first French ship to make port with artillery
(AMPHITRITE) did not arrive until the spring of 1777, some two years
after Lexington and Concord, and the French only supplied us with
light field guns beside. I.e. 4-pounders. I am not aware of a single
French siege gun arriving in America that was not part of the French
Army. American siege guns, including a couple of "light" 24 pounders
captured at Saratoga, were either captured from the British or
manufactured locally. There is no conspiricy here, sorry.

--
Regards,

Michael P. Reed

[Michael P. Reed]

In message >, Stephen Harding wrote:
> Brian Sharrock wrote:
>
> > Slight semantic problem; the loyalists(sic) _were_ British.
> > They didn't 'side with' the British, they were British, remained
> > British and refused to follow the rebellious smugglers, slave-owners,
> > land-owner and lawyer clique into an armed French-funded
> > insurrection. History _does_ record that they were treated badly
> > by the revolting colonists.
>
> So is this the current Euro spin on the American Revolution?

No. Pretty much the standard "British" one since the first ball flew
downrange at Lexington Green.

> Just a bunch of criminal, low life types, cajoled by the perfidious
> French, into breaking away from "The Empire", where most wanted to
> stay?

Standard Propaganda Mk 1. What Mr. Sharrock fails to point out is
that the British had their own large land owners [Penns, Allens,
Johnsons, Fairfaxes] slave owners [guess where "rebel contraband"
ended up in the South], "smugglers" [Shippens, Allens] and lawyer
[Galloway] cliques of their own. The "smuggler" tag is laid on all
those who desired not to trade with just British merchants.
Afterall, after the tea act, anyone who desired to purchase their tea
from any other house/trading company other than the East India Company
was a smuggler. Convenient that, no?

As for the loyalists, I would just point to the OP to have a look
around those regions that were occupied by British troops. I also
refer to my reply to Mr Willshaw.

<soc.culture.russian spared this tete-et-tete>

--
Regards,

Michael P. Reed

[Michael P. Reed]

In message >, "Keith Willshaw" wrote:

> Its hardly likely since Washington himself and so served however
> many so called loyalists who sided with the British during
> the war of Independence were indeed punished, in fact
> many fled to Canada

Captured loyalists were treated like any other prisoners of war
(captured deserters who subsequently enlisted in the British Army are
an entirely different matter-though the fact many did so under duress
certainly muddled matters). Few were punished. Of those that "fled"
after the war, they did so primarily because they considered
themselves British and not Americans so chose to live under British
rule rather than American governance. Few fled for their safety.
Some 80,000 (high end estimate) loyalists were deemed to have "fled,"
but another estimated 400,000 remained. Few were mistreated, and it
was quite common for Continental officers, e.g., to marry loyalists
or, at the very least, women from nominally loyalist families during
and after the war (B. Arnold was not all that exceptional in that
regard). Most of the really-bad-mistreatment of loyalists came in the
tit-for-tats in areas where governmental control had been lost; the
southern states and the Mohawk Valley etc. Even of the 80,000 or so
"refugees" only 3,000 or so submitted property loss claims to HMG and
of these, only about 2/3 were considered legit. While the treatment
of loyalists was less than spectacular in many instances, it was not
the wholesale persecution that British (and by inheritance, Canadian)
propoganda made it out to be then and ever since. In general,
Americans were treated much worse at the hands of the British (but
again not as bad as propaganda has made it out to be).

I understand your point vis a vis "turncoats," but your description of
the treatment of the loyalists is somewhat exaggerated.

--
Regards,

Michael P. Reed

[Michael P. Reed]

"Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj" > wrote in message >...
> I attempted to post thia at ~10:40 EDT
> But the Bellsouth news server has been having
> problems (issues, so called) here today.
> Therefore I am submitting the article again.
> My apologies if, in fact, this is a duplicate
> --
> Rostyk
>
>
> Stephen Harding wrote:
> > Brian Sharrock wrote:
> >
> >>Slight semantic problem; the loyalists(sic) _were_ British.
> >>They didn't 'side with' the British, they were British, remained
> >>British and refused to follow the rebellious smugglers, slave-owners,
> >>land-owner and lawyer clique into an armed French-funded
> >>insurrection. History _does_ record that they were treated badly
> >>by the revolting colonists.
> >
> > So is this the current Euro spin on the American Revolution?
> >
> > Just a bunch of criminal, low life types, cajoled by the perfidious
> > French, into breaking away from "The Empire", where most wanted to
> > stay?
> >
> > My, my how the politics of anti-Americanism spins its web.
> >
> Perhaps slightly overstated, but there's a good amount of truth
> in that. The residents of the British colonies: English colonists,
> Britishers, et al, did have a number of grievances about their
> treatment. But they weren't being particularly oppressed

Bostonians thought different. How many British cities were under
military occupation?

or
> treated more harshly than the people living in the British Isles.

Generally speaking, this is so. In fact, one might argue that people
in America had more freedom. It was when HMG began to restrict those
freedoms that the colonists began to resist.

> But the local gentry far from central control quite naturally
> took the opportunity to avoid paying their taxes.

Uh, no. "The local gentry" was paying quite a bit in tazes.
Especially of the local variety.

> Similarly
> for the more common folk.

Who were also paying quite a bit in tazes.

> And the revolutionary ideas from
> the continent surely did have a sympathetic audience, whether
> the French did any organized meddling or not.

Most of the "revolutionary ideas from the continent" [sic] originated
in Britain. John Locke etc. However, their influence was quite
minimal. It was excessive bungling and heavy handedness by HMG which
forced the plunge toward rebellion. The American colonies had been
relatively free of "homeland" governence, and so enjoyed a fairly
large degree of freedom. After the French and Indian War, the British
government took a more concerted interest in her colonies, and thus
began to clamp down on those freedoms. Inadvertantly for the most
part, including increased tazation. Now it was not that the colonists
did not desire to pay tazes (any more than anyone ever wants to pay),
but that such matters had largely always been authorized by the
provincial governments, and not in London. When London attempted to
place new tazes on the colonies, it was exercising powers that
hitherto the colonies had enjoyed with a fair degree of autonomy.
What the bungling British boffins in London did not understand was
that once freedoms are given, they are not easily revoked without
resistance. The event that specifically led to the war, the "Boston
Tea Party," though was not actually over the tax, which was quite
small, almost imperceptively so, but over the fact the the East India
Company, in order to bail it out of a poor fiscal situation, had been
given a monopoly of the tea trade, which meant that Colonial shippers
were no screwed. All in the name of perpetuating British (but not
extending to British colonials) mercantalism. The "Tea Party" itself
did little financial damage, but Parliament in a state of total
stupidity and desire to make a show of its power passed the
non-intercourse acts and occupied Boston. An incredibly moronic move
which scared the bejesus out of all the colonies and turned a local
dispute into a continental one. Very dumb. At that point, the
colonies began to take measures to arm themselves, and it became only
a matter of time before some spark set off violence. It is almost
incredible that it took a full year to do so.

--
Regards,

Michael P. Reed

[Rod Bray]

On 6 Oct 2003 10:20:45 -0700, (Michael P. Reed) wrote:
> In message >, "Keith Willshaw" wrote:
>
> > Its hardly likely since Washington himself and so served however
> > many so called loyalists who sided with the British during
> > the war of Independence were indeed punished, in fact
> > many fled to Canada
>
> Captured loyalists were treated like any other prisoners of war
> (captured deserters who subsequently enlisted in the British Army are
> an entirely different matter-though the fact many did so under duress
> certainly muddled matters). Few were punished. Of those that "fled"
> after the war, they did so primarily because they considered
> themselves British and not Americans so chose to live under British
> rule rather than American governance. Few fled for their safety.
> Some 80,000 (high end estimate) loyalists were deemed to have "fled,"
> but another estimated 400,000 remained. Few were mistreated, and it
> was quite common for Continental officers, e.g., to marry loyalists
> or, at the very least, women from nominally loyalist families during
> and after the war (B. Arnold was not all that exceptional in that
> regard). Most of the really-bad-mistreatment of loyalists came in the
> tit-for-tats in areas where governmental control had been lost; the
> southern states and the Mohawk Valley etc. Even of the 80,000 or so
> "refugees" only 3,000 or so submitted property loss claims to HMG and
> of these, only about 2/3 were considered legit. While the treatment
> of loyalists was less than spectacular in many instances, it was not
> the wholesale persecution that British (and by inheritance, Canadian)
> propoganda made it out to be then and ever since. In general,
> Americans were treated much worse at the hands of the British (but
> again not as bad as propaganda has made it out to be).
>
> I understand your point vis a vis "turncoats," but your description of
> the treatment of the loyalists is somewhat exaggerated.
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Michael P. Reed

For more propanganda but from the other side, see http://www.islandnet.com/~jveinot/cghl/loyalist.html
Perhaps an historical balance can be achieved.

Neither side treated the others well. The losers fled, subject to terrorism that did not end with the war, unlike the terrorism
suffered by the victors.

The individuals and families that benefited from the loyalists' siezed/auctioned/forfeited properties make interesting reading.
Much 'old wealth' is found or perhaps originates there.

Ooroo

Rod Bray

I have never let my schooling interfere with my education. -- Mark Twain

[ZZBunker]

Rod Bray > wrote in message >...
> On 6 Oct 2003 10:20:45 -0700, (Michael P. Reed) wrote:
> > In message >, "Keith Willshaw" wrote:
> >
> > > Its hardly likely since Washington himself and so served however
> > > many so called loyalists who sided with the British during
> > > the war of Independence were indeed punished, in fact
> > > many fled to Canada
> >
> > Captured loyalists were treated like any other prisoners of war
> > (captured deserters who subsequently enlisted in the British Army are
> > an entirely different matter-though the fact many did so under duress
> > certainly muddled matters). Few were punished. Of those that "fled"
> > after the war, they did so primarily because they considered
> > themselves British and not Americans so chose to live under British
> > rule rather than American governance. Few fled for their safety.
> > Some 80,000 (high end estimate) loyalists were deemed to have "fled,"
> > but another estimated 400,000 remained. Few were mistreated, and it
> > was quite common for Continental officers, e.g., to marry loyalists
> > or, at the very least, women from nominally loyalist families during
> > and after the war (B. Arnold was not all that exceptional in that
> > regard). Most of the really-bad-mistreatment of loyalists came in the
> > tit-for-tats in areas where governmental control had been lost; the
> > southern states and the Mohawk Valley etc. Even of the 80,000 or so
> > "refugees" only 3,000 or so submitted property loss claims to HMG and
> > of these, only about 2/3 were considered legit. While the treatment
> > of loyalists was less than spectacular in many instances, it was not
> > the wholesale persecution that British (and by inheritance, Canadian)
> > propoganda made it out to be then and ever since. In general,
> > Americans were treated much worse at the hands of the British (but
> > again not as bad as propaganda has made it out to be).
> >
> > I understand your point vis a vis "turncoats," but your description of
> > the treatment of the loyalists is somewhat exaggerated.
> >
> > --
> > Regards,
> >
> > Michael P. Reed
>
> For more propanganda but from the other side, see http://www.islandnet.com/~jveinot/cghl/loyalist.html
> Perhaps an historical balance can be achieved.
>
> Neither side treated the others well. The losers fled, subject to terrorism that did not end with the war, unlike the terrorism
> suffered by the victors.

Since there wasn't such as a POW facility, rather than a
work camp until this century, it's redundent to say that
the victors treated the loses badly throughout history.
The Roman empire is still the only empire that ever
treated prisoners fairly, since they actually
normal races, rather than marathons like the French do.

[Peter McLelland]

Stephen Harding > wrote in message >...
> Vince Brannigan wrote:
>
>
> A description of some activities in the American colonies. Not a characterization
> of the pro-Revolution crowd.
>
> Smuggling was rampant and England as well at the same time. Prominent people
> also benefited from it, as they did from piracy as well. Doesn't make England
> an nation of pirates, or any opposition to the crown driven by it.
>
> It's a lame, one dimensional characterization.

Whilst smuggling was common on both side of the Atlantic, in the UK it
was accepted that it was against the law, where as in the colonies the
attitude was that whether it was against the law or not it should be
allowed, smuggling was one of the new American freedoms
>
> >
> > The issue of whether the owners were in the majority is meaningless.
> > rich americans are currently in the minority but control everything for
> > their benefit./
>
> Fair enough. But if you're talking revolution, and a very risky one at that,
> you'd better have more than the landed, propertied gentry involved. You need
> some help from common people who think the activity is going to get them more
> than just killed, imprisoned or financially destitute.

Much of the 'political' agitation which helped lead up to the revolt
in the colonies was orchestrated by a few 'professional' agitators who
had skipped to the colonies after the UK had become to hot for them.
The story they promoted in America was much the same as they had tried
in the UK, but in the US they managed to get serious backing from a
number of the large landowner/business men in the colonies, who could
see that independance would be financialy beneficial for them and
their friends.
>
>
> The OP had stated the revolution was a "French funded insurrection". It was
> not significantly funded by them until well into the event. If you're trying
> to decide to be loyalist or rebel, French participation has little to do with
> it.

The French were slow to join in mainly because funding revolution in
the enemies back yard can and was in this case too, be a double edged
sword. The hope of ruining the financial succcess in the UK was to
much to give up though and eventually the French provided substantial
support both in funds men and material, and went to war with the UK as
well. Unfortunately for the French, although they engineered
independance for part of the American colonies, it cost them dear
financially, and the terms of the peace negotiated with the UK led
rapidly to financial ruin for France, and their own revolution.
>
> > > The position that the American Revolution was largely driven by a small group
> > > of self-interested people (better money making possibilities with
> > > independence) basically follows the political thinking of liberal or
> > > downright Marxist thinking academics.
> >
> > nonsense. it long predates marxism and the reality of loyalist elements
> > makes analysis critical.
>
> Presence of loyalist elements merely gives the conflict a "civil war" component.
> You revolt against someone. In largely free, and reasonably prosperous colonial
> society of 1770's, a significant number of people choosing to remain loyal would
> not be unusual.

The European/American world of the 18th and 19th centuries was very
much driven by capitalism and the generation of wealth, this was the
reason for the success of British Empire, the USA, and the short lived
German Empire. Some colonists saw this and the USA was born
>
>

> >
> > no they were not. Butr even if they were they were in itofr the money.
>
> You're wrong. The American colonies had a very large middle class. A high
> percentage of property owners, particularly farmers, but also tradesmen and
> professionals. It's something very few societies have been able to accomplish.
>
> This is very important in interpreting the motivation in favor of revolution.
> American colonists by and large were not landless, propertyless, angry people
> with nothing to lose by going against a powerful colonial establishment.
>
>
On the other hand many felt that they had every thing to gain from
achieving independance. It is interesting that the constitution they
adopted was merely an improved version of the UK one with and elected
second house and an elected king. Certainly history has shown that
their gamble paid off, and one wonders how much better some of the
other colonies may have done if they had been given independance
sooner. It is also interesting to observe that the loss of the
southern colonies did not really hold back the UK and in fact was the
dawning of a century of world domination through trade.

Peter

[Owe Jessen]

Am Mon, 06 Oct 2003 12:13:48 -0400, schrieb Stephen Harding
> :

>
>You're wrong. The American colonies had a very large middle class. A high
>percentage of property owners, particularly farmers, but also tradesmen and
>professionals. It's something very few societies have been able to accomplish.
>
>This is very important in interpreting the motivation in favor of revolution.
>American colonists by and large were not landless, propertyless, angry people
>with nothing to lose by going against a powerful colonial establishment.
>
>

Wasn't the french revolution primarily driven by the middle classes as
well? Historyically, as tought in the school, these revolutions (like
those of 1848) were a move of the people who had economic power to
gain political power as well.

Owe
--
My from-adress is valid and being read.
www.owejessen.de

[Vince Brannigan]

Peter McLelland wrote:
>

It is interesting that the constitution they
> adopted was merely an improved version of the UK one with and elected
> second house and an elected king.

Actually no. The US federal system was a complex balance of powoer on
both national and local levels that had no UK counterpart. States in
fact were much closer to the UK model than the Federal government.



Vince

[Andrew Chaplin]

Owe Jessen wrote:

> Wasn't the french revolution primarily driven by the middle classes as
> well? Historyically, as tought in the school, these revolutions (like
> those of 1848) were a move of the people who had economic power to
> gain political power as well.

That is consistent with Jenkins's resource mobilization theory, used
by sociologists to explain the success of movements as they bring
time, money, materiel, and human resources and talents to bear on
issues.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

[Stephen Harding]

Peter McLelland wrote:
>
> Stephen Harding > wrote in message >...
> > Vince Brannigan wrote:
> >
> >
> > A description of some activities in the American colonies. Not a characterization
> > of the pro-Revolution crowd.
> >
> > Smuggling was rampant and England as well at the same time. Prominent people
> > also benefited from it, as they did from piracy as well. Doesn't make England
> > an nation of pirates, or any opposition to the crown driven by it.
> >
> > It's a lame, one dimensional characterization.
>
> Whilst smuggling was common on both side of the Atlantic, in the UK it
> was accepted that it was against the law, where as in the colonies the
> attitude was that whether it was against the law or not it should be
> allowed, smuggling was one of the new American freedoms

"Smuggling" in America was often simply not selling, or more importantly,
not buying, goods from Britain as required of a good colony.

Remember, the concept of having a colony was to buy raw materials from
the colony at low cost, and then sell manufactured goods from those raw
materials at high cost.

> > > The issue of whether the owners were in the majority is meaningless.
> > > rich americans are currently in the minority but control everything for
> > > their benefit./
> >
> > Fair enough. But if you're talking revolution, and a very risky one at that,
> > you'd better have more than the landed, propertied gentry involved. You need
> > some help from common people who think the activity is going to get them more
> > than just killed, imprisoned or financially destitute.
>
> Much of the 'political' agitation which helped lead up to the revolt
> in the colonies was orchestrated by a few 'professional' agitators who
> had skipped to the colonies after the UK had become to hot for them.
> The story they promoted in America was much the same as they had tried
> in the UK, but in the US they managed to get serious backing from a
> number of the large landowner/business men in the colonies, who could
> see that independance would be financialy beneficial for them and
> their friends.

Ahhh yes, the evil corporate interests were doing their despicable deeds
even then! And they did it much as they do it today, with such skill and
subtlety, that the dumb public has no clue they've been manipulated.

I hear this all the time about todays politics, so it is interesting to
see this theme being retrofitted to past history.


SMH

[Stephen Harding]

Vince Brannigan wrote:
>
> Peter McLelland wrote:
> >
>
> It is interesting that the constitution they
> > adopted was merely an improved version of the UK one with and elected
> > second house and an elected king.
>
> Actually no. The US federal system was a complex balance of powoer on
> both national and local levels that had no UK counterpart. States in
> fact were much closer to the UK model than the Federal government.

I believe David McCulloch's book "John Adams" says that a committee was
formed to study various forms of democratic government through history,
in order to attempt to discover strengths and weaknesses of the various
forms. I think John Adams was a member of this committee because of an
earlier work he did on the subject.

The prime mover was of course James Madison, who certainly borrowed
ideas on democratic governance from others, but the form of the US
government, as defined by its Constitution, was pretty well original
in its sum.

Certainly not a rip off ["mere improvement"] of the British system.


SMH

[Peter McLelland]

Vince Brannigan > wrote in message >...
> Peter McLelland wrote:
> >
>
> It is interesting that the constitution they
> > adopted was merely an improved version of the UK one with and elected
> > second house and an elected king.
>
> Actually no. The US federal system was a complex balance of powoer on
> both national and local levels that had no UK counterpart. States in
> fact were much closer to the UK model than the Federal government.
>
>
I did say improved and I do mean that there are may aspects of the
original US constitution which were an improvement on that which had
gone before, but the powers of the President are very closely related
to the powers which were held by the monarchy at that time. Certainly
the US constitution was never as radical as some of the French
versions before Napoleon got his sticky hands on power.

Peter

[Peter McLelland]

Stephen Harding > wrote in message >...
> Vince Brannigan wrote:
> >
> > Peter McLelland wrote:
> > >
> >
> > It is interesting that the constitution they
> > > adopted was merely an improved version of the UK one with and elected
> > > second house and an elected king.
> >
> > Actually no. The US federal system was a complex balance of powoer on
> > both national and local levels that had no UK counterpart. States in
> > fact were much closer to the UK model than the Federal government.
>
> I believe David McCulloch's book "John Adams" says that a committee was
> formed to study various forms of democratic government through history,
> in order to attempt to discover strengths and weaknesses of the various
> forms. I think John Adams was a member of this committee because of an
> earlier work he did on the subject.
>
> The prime mover was of course James Madison, who certainly borrowed
> ideas on democratic governance from others, but the form of the US
> government, as defined by its Constitution, was pretty well original
> in its sum.
>
> Certainly not a rip off ["mere improvement"] of the British system.
>
From my view point, for what that is worth, I think the revolutionary
constitutin was an excellent piece of work but you cannot deny that
many aspects of it were very much driven by the UK model which was
before the US developed their republican model one of the most
democratic systems, with the possible exception of the Netherlands,
about at the time.

Peter

[Peter McLelland]

Stephen Harding > wrote in message >...
> Peter McLelland wrote:
> >
> > Stephen Harding > wrote in message >...
> > > Vince Brannigan wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > A description of some activities in the American colonies. Not a characterization
> > > of the pro-Revolution crowd.
> > >
> > > Smuggling was rampant and England as well at the same time. Prominent people
> > > also benefited from it, as they did from piracy as well. Doesn't make England
> > > an nation of pirates, or any opposition to the crown driven by it.
> > >
> > > It's a lame, one dimensional characterization.
> >
> > Whilst smuggling was common on both side of the Atlantic, in the UK it
> > was accepted that it was against the law, where as in the colonies the
> > attitude was that whether it was against the law or not it should be
> > allowed, smuggling was one of the new American freedoms
>
> "Smuggling" in America was often simply not selling, or more importantly,
> not buying, goods from Britain as required of a good colony.
>
> Remember, the concept of having a colony was to buy raw materials from
> the colony at low cost, and then sell manufactured goods from those raw
> materials at high cost.

Did I ever say this was not the case, most of the basis of the revolt
in America was economic.
>
> > > > The issue of whether the owners were in the majority is meaningless.
> > > > rich americans are currently in the minority but control everything for
> > > > their benefit./
> > >
> > > Fair enough. But if you're talking revolution, and a very risky one at that,
> > > you'd better have more than the landed, propertied gentry involved. You need
> > > some help from common people who think the activity is going to get them more
> > > than just killed, imprisoned or financially destitute.
> >
> > Much of the 'political' agitation which helped lead up to the revolt
> > in the colonies was orchestrated by a few 'professional' agitators who
> > had skipped to the colonies after the UK had become to hot for them.
> > The story they promoted in America was much the same as they had tried
> > in the UK, but in the US they managed to get serious backing from a
> > number of the large landowner/business men in the colonies, who could
> > see that independance would be financialy beneficial for them and
> > their friends.
>
> Ahhh yes, the evil corporate interests were doing their despicable deeds
> even then! And they did it much as they do it today, with such skill and
> subtlety, that the dumb public has no clue they've been manipulated.
>
> I hear this all the time about todays politics, so it is interesting to
> see this theme being retrofitted to past history.
>
Much of recent history has been greatly influenced by economic
considerations, dammit the whole British Empire was based on the
generation of wealth from the colonies. There is no real reason to
shay away from such things, it is what drove all our for fathers, and
what drioves us.

Peter

[Peter McLelland]

Owe Jessen > wrote in message >...
> Am Mon, 06 Oct 2003 12:13:48 -0400, schrieb Stephen Harding
> > :
>
> >
> >You're wrong. The American colonies had a very large middle class. A high
> >percentage of property owners, particularly farmers, but also tradesmen and
> >professionals. It's something very few societies have been able to accomplish.
> >
> >This is very important in interpreting the motivation in favor of revolution.
> >American colonists by and large were not landless, propertyless, angry people
> >with nothing to lose by going against a powerful colonial establishment.
> >
> >
>
> Wasn't the french revolution primarily driven by the middle classes as
> well? Historyically, as tought in the school, these revolutions (like
> those of 1848) were a move of the people who had economic power to
> gain political power as well.
>
Most political change has been driven by those who generate the
wealth, if for no other reason they can 'pay the npiper', and stand to
gain the most. Even the Russian revolution was driven by those who had
the fortune to be born into famillies that could affod education. The
poor are forever the foot soldiers.

Peter

[Peter McLelland]

Stephen Harding > wrote in message >...
> Brian Sharrock wrote:
>
> > From your side of the Atlantic, I suppose everybody over the
> > horizon seems to be 'Euro', but to me, a Briton, the idea that
> > there'' some kind of "Euro spin" over the rebellion of some British
> > colonists funded by the French Kingdom in the furtherance of a
> > republic is laughable. I know it's probalby hard to examine the
>
> I understand there are "Europeans" and there are "Britons". I've
> become quite anti-European as I age and carelessly lumped the UK with
> Europe. I think most Americans consider the Brits "different" from
> the "Continentals" even though technically (I think), you're all Euros.

That perhaps is the source of the American problem with Europe. Europe
is complex, it is dynamic, and it is often just as perverse as the
USA. We cannot all be lumped together in one pot, but our difference
are different to US internal differences, so you tend to ignore them,
a mistake I fear. Just as an example, I am British, but I am a Scot
also, I also hold and am proud to do so the Queens commision. My
allegances are complex, but we can cope with this, and it helps
sometimes when we are faced with situations like the Balkans, because
we understand that there are layers of what matters. Life is complex.

>
> > underlying myths and shillobeths that you've been taught since
> > Kindergarden but perhaps not everything you've be taught is true?
> > Most folks get older, I nearly said mature, on along the way towards
> > the grave cope, or adjust, to the reality of Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy
> > and other props ...
>
> Ahh yes, the characterization of those who disagree with you as ignorant or
> naive, and certainly in need of true education.

Not eally cultures differ, what is important to me, and makes me take
action may well be different to the things that make my neighbor get
going. I know I see things differently to many in the US, but I can
see that we do have many common values and that by working together we
can peerhaps solve some of the worlds problems.

That does not mean that I will ever be able to understand baseball,
although I think I see thepoint of US Football, which is in my opinion
a poor substitute for the mans game Rugby.
>
> Conservatives seem to trash political opponents as "immoral" while liberals
> seem to go the "ignorant" route. You seem to be liberal

As long as you keep lower case letters for liberal and conservative IK
dont actually see them as incompatible philosophies.

Peter

[ZZBunker]

(Peter McLelland) wrote in message >...
> Stephen Harding > wrote in message >...
> > Brian Sharrock wrote:
> >
> > > From your side of the Atlantic, I suppose everybody over the
> > > horizon seems to be 'Euro', but to me, a Briton, the idea that
> > > there'' some kind of "Euro spin" over the rebellion of some British
> > > colonists funded by the French Kingdom in the furtherance of a
> > > republic is laughable. I know it's probalby hard to examine the
> >
> > I understand there are "Europeans" and there are "Britons". I've
> > become quite anti-European as I age and carelessly lumped the UK with
> > Europe. I think most Americans consider the Brits "different" from
> > the "Continentals" even though technically (I think), you're all Euros.
>
> That perhaps is the source of the American problem with Europe. Europe
> is complex, it is dynamic, and it is often just as perverse as the
> USA. We cannot all be lumped together in one pot, but our difference
> are different to US internal differences, so you tend to ignore them,
> a mistake I fear. Just as an example, I am British, but I am a Scot
> also, I also hold and am proud to do so the Queens commision. My
> allegances are complex, but we can cope with this, and it helps
> sometimes when we are faced with situations like the Balkans, because
> we understand that there are layers of what matters. Life is complex.
>
> >
> > > underlying myths and shillobeths that you've been taught since
> > > Kindergarden but perhaps not everything you've be taught is true?
> > > Most folks get older, I nearly said mature, on along the way towards
> > > the grave cope, or adjust, to the reality of Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy
> > > and other props ...
> >
> > Ahh yes, the characterization of those who disagree with you as ignorant or
> > naive, and certainly in need of true education.
>
> Not eally cultures differ, what is important to me, and makes me take
> action may well be different to the things that make my neighbor get
> going. I know I see things differently to many in the US, but I can
> see that we do have many common values and that by working together we
> can peerhaps solve some of the worlds problems.
>
> That does not mean that I will ever be able to understand baseball,
> although I think I see thepoint of US Football, which is in my opinion
> a poor substitute for the mans game Rugby.

That is true. My grandfather played both pro rugby and US Football.
And insisted to his dying day that only a Scot would be stupid
enough to show up at a Football game dressed for rugby. Since even
the English have brains enough to bring pool sticks.

[ZZBunker]

Stephen Harding > wrote in message >...
> Brian Sharrock wrote:
>
> > From your side of the Atlantic, I suppose everybody over the
> > horizon seems to be 'Euro', but to me, a Briton, the idea that
> > there'' some kind of "Euro spin" over the rebellion of some British
> > colonists funded by the French Kingdom in the furtherance of a
> > republic is laughable. I know it's probalby hard to examine the

But, as fate would have it Briton has always found that laughable,
which is why they're about the only nation left on Earth
that even studies the American Revolution.

While if you ask most Americans what the US's big war was,
it would be the US Civil War, not the British Civil War.

[Brian Sharrock]

"ZZBunker" > wrote in message
om...
> Stephen Harding > wrote in message
>...
> > Brian Sharrock wrote:
> >
> > > From your side of the Atlantic, I suppose everybody over the
> > > horizon seems to be 'Euro', but to me, a Briton, the idea that
> > > there'' some kind of "Euro spin" over the rebellion of some British
> > > colonists funded by the French Kingdom in the furtherance of a
> > > republic is laughable. I know it's probalby hard to examine the
>
> But, as fate would have it Briton has always found that laughable,
> which is why they're about the only nation left on Earth
> that even studies the American Revolution.
>
Please tell your programmers that although they've
'got' the parsing part of whatever is driving you to
auto-respond;-
_Briton_ is not a nation but an adjectival word meaning
a person from Britain.

> While if you ask most Americans what the US's big war was,
> it would be the US Civil War, not the British Civil War.

Once again, although your words imply an acceptance of
the hypothesis that the regrettable conflict in the North American
colonies _was_ a civil war between essentially British participants -
until the overt involvement of French arms and funding - 'we'
do not normally refer to that rebellion in the colonies as a
British Civil War. [The 'British' civil war, that is a war involving
all of the nations comprising 'Britain , fought on the soil of Ireland
is considered to have reached an apex (or nadir) at the Battle of
the Boyne where a different bunch of Frenchies, and sundry Hollanders,
seemed to have been involved. I'm not sure of the attitude of the
contemporary colonists in North America to these ,presumably, far-off
events.
The colonists seemed to have gone with the flow and not exhibited
any desire to retain their presumed allegiances to the Stuart Monarchs
that had granted them charters]

--

Brian

[Stephen Harding]

Peter McLelland wrote:

> Stephen Harding > wrote in message >...
> >
> > Ahhh yes, the evil corporate interests were doing their despicable deeds
> > even then! And they did it much as they do it today, with such skill and
> > subtlety, that the dumb public has no clue they've been manipulated.
> >
> > I hear this all the time about todays politics, so it is interesting to
> > see this theme being retrofitted to past history.
> >
> Much of recent history has been greatly influenced by economic
> considerations, dammit the whole British Empire was based on the
> generation of wealth from the colonies. There is no real reason to
> shay away from such things, it is what drove all our for fathers, and
> what drioves us.

Certainly true. Don't mean to imply the revolution was purely some
idealistic crusade to put human rights above all other factors.

Economics always has, and always will be, a powerful motivating force
in the behavior of governments and individuals, and there is nothing
really wrong with that in basic concept.

What I argue against is the notion that the American Revolution (or
even American actions today) are driven solely by economic forces
(and usually portrayed as underhanded ones at that). The OP to this
sidetracked OT thread appeared to portray the revolution as motivated
by raw [and illegal] self serving low life that manipulated the
majority of Americans into revolt. That is simply not the case.

In fact, most all Americans at the time considered themselves British,
with British rights, and came around rather slowly to the concept of
independence from British rule.


SMH

[Stephen Harding]

Peter McLelland wrote:

> Stephen Harding > wrote in message >...
> > Brian Sharrock wrote:
> >
> > > From your side of the Atlantic, I suppose everybody over the
> > > horizon seems to be 'Euro', but to me, a Briton, the idea that
> > > there'' some kind of "Euro spin" over the rebellion of some British
> > > colonists funded by the French Kingdom in the furtherance of a
> > > republic is laughable. I know it's probalby hard to examine the
> >
> > I understand there are "Europeans" and there are "Britons". I've
> > become quite anti-European as I age and carelessly lumped the UK with
> > Europe. I think most Americans consider the Brits "different" from
> > the "Continentals" even though technically (I think), you're all Euros.
>
> That perhaps is the source of the American problem with Europe. Europe

No. The American problem with Europe is largely one of divergent interests.
Europeans don't understand, or simply don't care to consider American
interests, assuming the US is basically another European country across
a very wide channel.

At one time, that characterization was pretty much true. That is no longer
the case, and becomes less so each year.

> is complex, it is dynamic, and it is often just as perverse as the
> USA. We cannot all be lumped together in one pot, but our difference

Yes, the normal "perverse" USA. I think you'll find the USA just, if
not more dynamic and complex than Europe. Perhaps you have your own
characterizations and stereotypes to re-examine?

> are different to US internal differences, so you tend to ignore them,
> a mistake I fear. Just as an example, I am British, but I am a Scot
> also, I also hold and am proud to do so the Queens commision. My
> allegances are complex, but we can cope with this, and it helps
> sometimes when we are faced with situations like the Balkans, because
> we understand that there are layers of what matters. Life is complex.

Yet you seem to believe there is one "American" character. That is not
the situation. Any cultural, ethnic or religious division or "layer"
you want to point to in Europe will more than likely be easily matched
with one comparable in the US.


SMH

[Stephen Harding]

Brian Sharrock wrote:
>
> "ZZBunker" > wrote in message
> >
> > But, as fate would have it Briton has always found that laughable,
> > which is why they're about the only nation left on Earth
> > that even studies the American Revolution.
> >
> Please tell your programmers that although they've
> 'got' the parsing part of whatever is driving you to
> auto-respond;-
> _Briton_ is not a nation but an adjectival word meaning
> a person from Britain.

Since you mention it, does British English actually support the word
"adjectival"?

> > While if you ask most Americans what the US's big war was,
> > it would be the US Civil War, not the British Civil War.

[...]

> The colonists seemed to have gone with the flow and not exhibited
> any desire to retain their presumed allegiances to the Stuart Monarchs
> that had granted them charters]

Well ancestors on my fathers side of the family "went with the flow"
to Virginia after Charles lost his head.

Cromwell didn't seem too well disposed towards loyalists any more
than American revolutionaries it would seem.


SMH

[The Revolution Will Not Be Televised]

On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 08:27:03 -0400, Stephen Harding
> wrote:

>Economics always has, and always will be, a powerful motivating force
>in the behavior of governments and individuals, and there is nothing
>really wrong with that in basic concept.
>
>What I argue against is the notion that the American Revolution (or
>even American actions today) are driven solely by economic forces
>(and usually portrayed as underhanded ones at that). The OP to this
>sidetracked OT thread appeared to portray the revolution as motivated
>by raw [and illegal] self serving low life that manipulated the
>majority of Americans into revolt. That is simply not the case.

Indeed, but there was a confluence of several motivations behind the
personal actions of the revolutionaries. Some of them (e.g. Sam
Adams) were undoubtedly agitating in order to secure partisan and
personal self-interest, while others risked and endured enormous
financial sacrifices over what they genuinely considered to be an
ideological and patriotic struggle against tyranny.

>In fact, most all Americans at the time considered themselves British,
>with British rights, and came around rather slowly to the concept of
>independence from British rule.

True, but the nature of the war, and the successful embedding of
"patriot" propaganda in the shaping of the developing national
consciousness tends to obliterate the very real contemporary nuances
that existed historically.

Gavin Bailey

--

Another user rings. "I need more space" he says.
"Well, why not move to Texas?", I ask. - The ******* Operator From Hell

[Brian Sharrock]

"Stephen Harding" > wrote in message
...
snip
>
> Since you mention it, does British English actually support the word
> "adjectival"?
>
It seems so; we were forever 'analysing sentences into 'adjectival',
'adverbial' clauses and phrases et. seq. One day I'm sure the
exercises will prove to have been useful as the Teachers spent
so much time on the process.

--

Brian

[Brian Sharrock]

"Stephen Harding" > wrote in message
...

snip
..
>
> In fact, most all Americans at the time considered themselves British,
> with British rights, and came around rather slowly to the concept of
> independence from British rule.
>
Which was _precisely_ the point the "OP" (me) was making
in responding to a posting that claimed 'the Loyalists sided
with the British'. As you, quite rightly comment "most all
Americans at the time considered themselves British,with
British rights" and it was a _minority_ of rebels that started
an armed insurrection for their own purposes.
Of course they then got to write the history and control the
curriculum in all the schools of their colonies and subsequent
possessions ....
and eventually produce screen plays such as "The Patriot".

--

Brian

[ZZBunker]

"Brian Sharrock" > wrote in message >...
> "ZZBunker" > wrote in message
> om...
> > Stephen Harding > wrote in message
> >...
> > > Brian Sharrock wrote:
> > >
> > > > From your side of the Atlantic, I suppose everybody over the
> > > > horizon seems to be 'Euro', but to me, a Briton, the idea that
> > > > there'' some kind of "Euro spin" over the rebellion of some British
> > > > colonists funded by the French Kingdom in the furtherance of a
> > > > republic is laughable. I know it's probalby hard to examine the
> >
> > But, as fate would have it Briton has always found that laughable,
> > which is why they're about the only nation left on Earth
> > that even studies the American Revolution.
> >
> Please tell your programmers that although they've
> 'got' the parsing part of whatever is driving you to
> auto-respond;-
> _Briton_ is not a nation but an adjectival word meaning
> a person from Britain.

Well, I have to. Since the only thing I've ever refused
to do even more than have my local skyscrapers knocked
down by Middle Easters is to take spelling lessons from moron
Britons. If you get a chance you can relay the message
for me to King James via King Louis XIV, Henry VIII,
and Napolean that they were all more morons
than any of the King Georges.

[Peter McLelland]

Stephen Harding > wrote in message >...
> Peter McLelland wrote:
>
> > Stephen Harding > wrote in message >...
> > >
> > > Ahhh yes, the evil corporate interests were doing their despicable deeds
> > > even then! And they did it much as they do it today, with such skill and
> > > subtlety, that the dumb public has no clue they've been manipulated.
> > >
> > > I hear this all the time about todays politics, so it is interesting to
> > > see this theme being retrofitted to past history.
> > >
> > Much of recent history has been greatly influenced by economic
> > considerations, dammit the whole British Empire was based on the
> > generation of wealth from the colonies. There is no real reason to
> > shay away from such things, it is what drove all our for fathers, and
> > what drioves us.
>
> Certainly true. Don't mean to imply the revolution was purely some
> idealistic crusade to put human rights above all other factors.
>
> Economics always has, and always will be, a powerful motivating force
> in the behavior of governments and individuals, and there is nothing
> really wrong with that in basic concept.
>
> What I argue against is the notion that the American Revolution (or
> even American actions today) are driven solely by economic forces
> (and usually portrayed as underhanded ones at that). The OP to this
> sidetracked OT thread appeared to portray the revolution as motivated
> by raw [and illegal] self serving low life that manipulated the
> majority of Americans into revolt. That is simply not the case.
>
> In fact, most all Americans at the time considered themselves British,
> with British rights, and came around rather slowly to the concept of
> independence from British rule.
>
I certainly have never suggested that the revolutionary leaders were
'low life', but I am convinced that most of them, that is the
established american colonists, rather than the recently arrived
political agitators, which there were a few of, were as motivated by
the belief that an independant USA as it became would be a lot better
for their pockets than being a UK colony. The reality was that the
American colonists were pretty well unaffected by events in Europe,
taxation and in terferance was really minimal, but complete economic
freedom was even better, and worth the fight, especially with French
money. I don't think they were wrong, just feal that it was not just
all about basic freedoms, more about money, but after all most of life
is about money so why be shy about it.

Peter

[ZZBunker]

"Brian Sharrock" > wrote in message >...
> "ZZBunker" > wrote in message
> om...
> > Stephen Harding > wrote in message
> >...
> > > Brian Sharrock wrote:
> > >
> > > > From your side of the Atlantic, I suppose everybody over the
> > > > horizon seems to be 'Euro', but to me, a Briton, the idea that
> > > > there'' some kind of "Euro spin" over the rebellion of some British
> > > > colonists funded by the French Kingdom in the furtherance of a
> > > > republic is laughable. I know it's probalby hard to examine the
> >
> > But, as fate would have it Briton has always found that laughable,
> > which is why they're about the only nation left on Earth
> > that even studies the American Revolution.
> >
> Please tell your programmers that although they've
> 'got' the parsing part of whatever is driving you to
> auto-respond;-
> _Briton_ is not a nation but an adjectival word meaning
> a person from Britain.
>
> > While if you ask most Americans what the US's big war was,
> > it would be the US Civil War, not the British Civil War.
>
> Once again, although your words imply an acceptance of
> the hypothesis that the regrettable conflict in the North American
> colonies _was_ a civil war between essentially British participants -

Nobody ever said if was a conflict between British participants.
Since if you idiots didn't know, by that time the
U.S. Consitution was already in place. And we weren't waiting
around for something as stupid as a Euro-Commie-NAZI-constitution
to be written by idiots with an Einstein, a
few Swiss chocolate clocks, some Belgium courts,
German music, and Chinese medical supplies.

> until the overt involvement of French arms and funding - 'we'
> do not normally refer to that rebellion in the colonies as a
> British Civil War.

We know. Since the only thing Britian does call
a British Civil War has something to do with
a worn out institution called Parliament.


[The 'British' civil war, that is a war involving
> all of the nations comprising 'Britain , fought on the soil of Ireland
> is considered to have reached an apex (or nadir) at the Battle of
> the Boyne where a different bunch of Frenchies, and sundry Hollanders,
> seemed to have been involved. I'm not sure of the attitude of the
> contemporary colonists in North America to these ,presumably, far-off
> events.

That's quite impossible, since Ireland has never even had an army
to have a battle against.

[ZZBunker]

Vince Brannigan > wrote in message >...
> Peter McLelland wrote:
> >
>
> It is interesting that the constitution they
> > adopted was merely an improved version of the UK one with and elected
> > second house and an elected king.
>
> Actually no. The US federal system was a complex balance of powoer on
> both national and local levels that had no UK counterpart. States in
> fact were much closer to the UK model than the Federal government.

And that what's it still is. Still the UK doesn't
have a Federal Government. NASA is a wholey-owned
property of the US. The European counterpart
is France. The Asian counterpart is God Help Everybody.
Australia.

[Jim]

"Vince Brannigan" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Stephen Harding wrote:
> > Brian Sharrock wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Slight semantic problem; the loyalists(sic) _were_ British.
> >>They didn't 'side with' the British, they were British, remained
> >>British and refused to follow the rebellious smugglers, slave-owners,
> >>land-owner and lawyer clique into an armed French-funded
> >>insurrection. History _does_ record that they were treated badly
> >>by the revolting colonists.
> >
> >
> > So is this the current Euro spin on the American Revolution?
> >
> > Just a bunch of criminal, low life types, cajoled by the perfidious
> > French, into breaking away from "The Empire", where most wanted to
> > stay?
> > My, my how the politics of anti-Americanism spins its web.
>
> It is the historical record, not current spin
> See for example
>
> http://www.uelac.org/loyalist.pdf
>
> FWIW the only part of my family heritage that is not Irish traces back
> through a Nova Scotia German family with Hessian connections from the
> revolutionary war.
>
> "The Romkey (Ramichen or Ramge) family came to Halifax, Nova Scotia in
> 1750 from the village on Nieder-Klingen in Odenwald region of the
> Palatinate. The family has its origins in the neighbouring village of
> Spachbrücken in the Landgraviate of Hessen-Darmstadt. Johann Wendel
> Ramichen or Ramge, his wife Anna Margaretha Uhrig, and their children
> spent three winters in Halifax before moving to Lunenburg in 1753. The
> family eventually settled at Five Houses on the LaHave River where Anna
> Margaretha's brother had his 30-acre farm lot."
> http://kenneth.paulsen.home.comcast.net/NovaScotian_Fam.htm
>
> Many loyalists and Hessian soldiers were settled in Nova Scotia after
> the American revolution. See for example The Hessians of Nova Scotia:
> The Personal Data Files of 225 Hessian Soldiers who Settled in Nova
> Scotia by Johannes HelmutMerz. 1994
>
> Vince
>

Why am I not supprised......

Last I looked there is not barbed wire keeping folks inside the US.. People
are free to leave when ever they wish.

Jim

[Stephen Harding]

Brian Sharrock wrote:

> "Stephen Harding" > wrote in message
>
> snip
> >
> > In fact, most all Americans at the time considered themselves British,
> > with British rights, and came around rather slowly to the concept of
> > independence from British rule.
> >
> Which was _precisely_ the point the "OP" (me) was making
> in responding to a posting that claimed 'the Loyalists sided
> with the British'. As you, quite rightly comment "most all
> Americans at the time considered themselves British,with
> British rights" and it was a _minority_ of rebels that started
> an armed insurrection for their own purposes.

Most all the farmers in militias at the Lexington-Concord fight
regarded themselves as British. Just like both sides of the
English civil war never doubted they were British.

Just because you have two sides to a conflict doesn't mean one side
as declared itself a new nationality.

For a long time, American colonists made the assumptions that good
King George III would straighten out his ministers and policies once
the American colonial displeasure at their perceived loss of rights
was made known to him.

The fact that these policies did not change, and in fact grew more
dominating is what eventually led to the change in attitude about
being part of the British Empire. Not a small group of bandito
types manipulating the public for their own financial gain.

> Of course they then got to write the history and control the
> curriculum in all the schools of their colonies and subsequent
> possessions ....
> and eventually produce screen plays such as "The Patriot".

"The Patriot" was actually based on a lot of historical fact in the
fighting in the southern states during the later stages of the war.

Of course liberties were taken as is typical in Hollywood. Instead
of the British Army doing all the "war crimes" depicted in the movie,
it would actually have been loyalist bands doing the deeds.

But in fairness to the movie, it did show that British soldiers under
the ruthless antagonist didn't like his vicious orders, and the high
command didn't like it either. Thus the need to be given Ohio
territory after the war, since he could never return to Britain with
honor.


SMH

[Peter McLelland]

Stephen Harding > wrote in message >...
> Peter McLelland wrote:
> >
> > Stephen Harding > wrote in message >...
> > > Vince Brannigan wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > A description of some activities in the American colonies. Not a characterization
> > > of the pro-Revolution crowd.
> > >
> > > Smuggling was rampant and England as well at the same time. Prominent people
> > > also benefited from it, as they did from piracy as well. Doesn't make England
> > > an nation of pirates, or any opposition to the crown driven by it.
> > >
> > > It's a lame, one dimensional characterization.
> >
> > Whilst smuggling was common on both side of the Atlantic, in the UK it
> > was accepted that it was against the law, where as in the colonies the
> > attitude was that whether it was against the law or not it should be
> > allowed, smuggling was one of the new American freedoms
>
> "Smuggling" in America was often simply not selling, or more importantly,
> not buying, goods from Britain as required of a good colony.
>
> Remember, the concept of having a colony was to buy raw materials from
> the colony at low cost, and then sell manufactured goods from those raw
> materials at high cost.
>
> > > > The issue of whether the owners were in the majority is meaningless.
> > > > rich americans are currently in the minority but control everything for
> > > > their benefit./
> > >
> > > Fair enough. But if you're talking revolution, and a very risky one at that,
> > > you'd better have more than the landed, propertied gentry involved. You need
> > > some help from common people who think the activity is going to get them more
> > > than just killed, imprisoned or financially destitute.
> >
> > Much of the 'political' agitation which helped lead up to the revolt
> > in the colonies was orchestrated by a few 'professional' agitators who
> > had skipped to the colonies after the UK had become to hot for them.
> > The story they promoted in America was much the same as they had tried
> > in the UK, but in the US they managed to get serious backing from a
> > number of the large landowner/business men in the colonies, who could
> > see that independance would be financialy beneficial for them and
> > their friends.
>
> Ahhh yes, the evil corporate interests were doing their despicable deeds
> even then! And they did it much as they do it today, with such skill and
> subtlety, that the dumb public has no clue they've been manipulated.
>
> I hear this all the time about todays politics, so it is interesting to
> see this theme being retrofitted to past history.
>
To put a reasonable gloss on this it is fair to say that in particular
the Dutch and British Empires were the result of the same commercial
influences, so we at least in the UK should not really be surprised
that our American colonists learnt fast and followed our example.

Peter

[Peter McLelland]

Stephen Harding > wrote in message >...
> Peter McLelland wrote:
>
> > Stephen Harding > wrote in message >...
> > > Brian Sharrock wrote:
> > >
> > > > From your side of the Atlantic, I suppose everybody over the
> > > > horizon seems to be 'Euro', but to me, a Briton, the idea that
> > > > there'' some kind of "Euro spin" over the rebellion of some British
> > > > colonists funded by the French Kingdom in the furtherance of a
> > > > republic is laughable. I know it's probalby hard to examine the
> > >
> > > I understand there are "Europeans" and there are "Britons". I've
> > > become quite anti-European as I age and carelessly lumped the UK with
> > > Europe. I think most Americans consider the Brits "different" from
> > > the "Continentals" even though technically (I think), you're all Euros.
> >
> > That perhaps is the source of the American problem with Europe. Europe
>
> No. The American problem with Europe is largely one of divergent interests.
> Europeans don't understand, or simply don't care to consider American
> interests, assuming the US is basically another European country across
> a very wide channel.
>
> At one time, that characterization was pretty much true. That is no longer
> the case, and becomes less so each year.

I think this comment actually emp[hasised my point, I and many others
in the UK do not always agree or support hte views of others in
Europe, and often the reverse is true also, but in general we do try
to understand why these differences of opion exist and live with them
in a practical way. The world is not ablack and white place, but
exists in many colours and shades and there is aneed to interpret
these if one is to understand it.
>
> > is complex, it is dynamic, and it is often just as perverse as the
> > USA. We cannot all be lumped together in one pot, but our difference
>
> Yes, the normal "perverse" USA. I think you'll find the USA just, if
> not more dynamic and complex than Europe. Perhaps you have your own
> characterizations and stereotypes to re-examine?

I was not suggesting that the USA was in any way uniquely perverse,
rather bthat all countries have a perverse side to their nature and
culture, in the eyes of others. This is just a fact of life.
>
> > are different to US internal differences, so you tend to ignore them,
> > a mistake I fear. Just as an example, I am British, but I am a Scot
> > also, I also hold and am proud to do so the Queens commision. My
> > allegances are complex, but we can cope with this, and it helps
> > sometimes when we are faced with situations like the Balkans, because
> > we understand that there are layers of what matters. Life is complex.
>
> Yet you seem to believe there is one "American" character. That is not
> the situation. Any cultural, ethnic or religious division or "layer"
> you want to point to in Europe will more than likely be easily matched
> with one comparable in the US.
>
As some one who spends much of my working time on a UK/US project with
several UK and US companies and a number of different government
bodies on both sides I am reasonably aware of the diversity in both
countries. To this I can add the experience of workin g with most EU
countries and many oithers around the world, so I would suggest thta I
have reasonable experience of cultural differences in much of the
world.

Peter

[The Revolution Will Not Be Televised]

On Thu, 09 Oct 2003 16:24:23 -0400, Stephen Harding
> wrote:

>For a long time, American colonists made the assumptions that good
>King George III would straighten out his ministers and policies once
>the American colonial displeasure at their perceived loss of rights
>was made known to him.

When you talk about "American colonists", you're not talking about all
of them; not even a majority. The converse applies, by the post-facto
binary divisions are inaccurate. There was a wide spectrum of loyalty
to principle, greed, crown, parliament, country, colony and family on
display, and which is eliminated by the excessive simplification
involved in lumping all factions into two clear camps.

>The fact that these policies did not change, and in fact grew more
>dominating is what eventually led to the change in attitude about
>being part of the British Empire. Not a small group of bandito
>types manipulating the public for their own financial gain.

Who had the most to gain from ending vie-admiralty courts in Boston?
Face it, the vast majority of ordinary Bostonians were not ship or
cargo owners engaged in smuggling. Look at what happened after the
revolution at Worcester and in Shay's Rebellion: the things which had
antagonised local people and which they had rebelled against did not
end after British rule ended. In fact Sam Adams in power backed a
vigourous anti-sedition policy way beyond General Gage was prepared to
tolerate, at the same time as raising the property qualification for
the vote. There really was a sizeable amount of political cant and
hypocrisy involved in the guld between the revolutionaries claimed
ideals and how many of them behaved.

>> Of course they then got to write the history and control the
>> curriculum in all the schools of their colonies and subsequent
>> possessions ....
>> and eventually produce screen plays such as "The Patriot".
>
>"The Patriot" was actually based on a lot of historical fact in the
>fighting in the southern states during the later stages of the war.

"The Patriot" was an inaccurate load of xenophobic crap, and can only
be considered appropriate if Hollywood is required to make
propagandistic war movies for the home front more than two centuries
after that war actually ended. I strongly doubt any other historical
conflict in American history could be displayed with such prejudicial
demonology in any movie, but the British are a safe target.
Especially when regurgitating "Braveheart" with different costumes. I
doubt anybody could get away with such an offensively one-dimensional
and inaccurate portrayal of blacks or American indians in a
contemporary American movie: the howls of outrage from the domestic
pressure groups would, quite rightfully, hinder such a project.

No such problems when you want to peddle offensive myths and
distortions about the British, however. All Americans are familiar
with their satanic position as puppets in the pantomime they've known
as the war of independence since childhood.

>Of course liberties were taken as is typical in Hollywood.

But what is the sum of those "liberties": an All-American hero who
uniquely refuses to own slaves on a Carolinan estate*, British forces
performing atrocities like the Waffen SS under a leader modelled more
on Heydrich than Tarleton, the invincible American woodsman slaying
the redcoats with impunity, etc, etc.

What these "liberties" amount to is a distinct and discernable agenda,
and is just as ideologically driven as a Communist-controlled film
about revolts in the Imperial Russian Navy.

[* The slaves issue is a prime example. There is no way a
contemporary American film can offend the African-American audience as
cavalierly as it can the British, so the historical role of the hero
in regard to them and their role in the period is distorted so
blatantly as to make it comic. Nonetheless, compare his positioning
towards the blacks on his estate and their role and contrast it to the
British. So much for historical accuracy.]

>Instead
>of the British Army doing all the "war crimes" depicted in the movie,
>it would actually have been loyalist bands doing the deeds.

It would be a mixture of _all_ combatants committing war crimes,
including "patriot" guerilla bands and state and continental troops if
historical reality was actually a matter of concern. This immunity
from looting, rape and crime allocated according to uniform colour is
infantile.

>But in fairness to the movie, it did show that British soldiers under
>the ruthless antagonist didn't like his vicious orders, and the high
>command didn't like it either.

That's a transparent fig-leave of consideration in the torrent of
national prejudice being poured out in that movie.

>Thus the need to be given Ohio
>territory after the war, since he could never return to Britain with
>honor.

Given that this would contravene Royal Proclaimations on colonial
expansion, this is just another neo-feudalistic fantasy, impugning
feudal motives to senior aristorcratic and class-ridden British
officers. This has nothing to do with the historical reality and
everything to do with American self-image and national stereotyping.

There is a very good movie to be made on the reality of the experience
of the American revolution, from corrupt and hypocritical Boston
agitators, to loyal and selfless farmers suffering stoically at Valley
Forge, from colonial milita looting and destroying "traitors" property
on both sides, to colonial militia facing a regular army and beating
them face-to-face after severe fighting at Saratoga, to the mass of
ordinary people seeking to evade the worst consequences of a war being
fought in their locality regardless of their private sympathies.

But that kind of movie will never be made. It just doesn't hit the
right buttons in an audience that has been simply brainwashed on the
subject since their earliest history lessons in school.

Gavin Bailey


--

Another user rings. "I need more space" he says.
"Well, why not move to Texas?", I ask. - The ******* Operator From Hell

[Stephen Harding]

The Revolution Will Not Be Televised wrote:

> On Thu, 09 Oct 2003 16:24:23 -0400, Stephen Harding
>
> >The fact that these policies did not change, and in fact grew more
> >dominating is what eventually led to the change in attitude about
> >being part of the British Empire. Not a small group of bandito
> >types manipulating the public for their own financial gain.
>
> the vote. There really was a sizeable amount of political cant and
> hypocrisy involved in the guld between the revolutionaries claimed
> ideals and how many of them behaved.

We don't have a true to ideals, working democracy in this country yet
either. Doesn't mean everyone in government is hypocritical in their
promotion of democratic values. It just means imperfect people are
implementing a pure ideal.

> >"The Patriot" was actually based on a lot of historical fact in the
> >fighting in the southern states during the later stages of the war.
>
> "The Patriot" was an inaccurate load of xenophobic crap, and can only
> be considered appropriate if Hollywood is required to make
> propagandistic war movies for the home front more than two centuries
> after that war actually ended. I strongly doubt any other historical
> conflict in American history could be displayed with such prejudicial
> demonology in any movie, but the British are a safe target.
> Especially when regurgitating "Braveheart" with different costumes. I
> doubt anybody could get away with such an offensively one-dimensional
> and inaccurate portrayal of blacks or American indians in a
> contemporary American movie: the howls of outrage from the domestic
> pressure groups would, quite rightfully, hinder such a project.

It was a *movie* not a documentary.

> No such problems when you want to peddle offensive myths and
> distortions about the British, however. All Americans are familiar
> with their satanic position as puppets in the pantomime they've known
> as the war of independence since childhood.

It wasn't "offensive myths". It represented a composite character in a
war with a full range of good/bad elements.

It was a *MOVIE*!!!

> >Of course liberties were taken as is typical in Hollywood.
>
> But what is the sum of those "liberties": an All-American hero who
> uniquely refuses to own slaves on a Carolinan estate*, British forces

Not so unique, or even if it was, so what?

It was unique but not unheard of for Blacks to own slaves as well. Again,
so what? I suspect a movie about such individuals would not be well
received by the political Black community here, although I think it would
be an interesting study.

> performing atrocities like the Waffen SS under a leader modelled more
> on Heydrich than Tarleton, the invincible American woodsman slaying
> the redcoats with impunity, etc, etc.

IT WAS A MOVIE!!!

Road runners don't blow up coyotes. Police don't regularly flip and
flame automobiles in chases. Most cops don't even draw their guns on
the job through most of their entire careers, CIA agents largely don't
kill people, and even during the height of abuse by J. Edgar Hoover's
FBI, agents were not regularly breaking in to peoples homes or
politically harassing them, investigative reporters usually don't break
Presidents and corporate executives, etc., etc., etc.

Not so on TV or movies.

> What these "liberties" amount to is a distinct and discernable agenda,
> and is just as ideologically driven as a Communist-controlled film
> about revolts in the Imperial Russian Navy.

So I take it you're giving the movie a three thumbs down?

> [* The slaves issue is a prime example. There is no way a
> contemporary American film can offend the African-American audience as
> cavalierly as it can the British, so the historical role of the hero
> in regard to them and their role in the period is distorted so
> blatantly as to make it comic. Nonetheless, compare his positioning
> towards the blacks on his estate and their role and contrast it to the
> British. So much for historical accuracy.]

Contemporary films do their share of simplification of issues in the other
direction as well. Although there aren't many projects involving Indian
characters, is there any such thing as a "bad" Indian in a movie any more?

> >Instead
> >of the British Army doing all the "war crimes" depicted in the movie,
> >it would actually have been loyalist bands doing the deeds.
>
> It would be a mixture of _all_ combatants committing war crimes,
> including "patriot" guerilla bands and state and continental troops if
> historical reality was actually a matter of concern. This immunity
> from looting, rape and crime allocated according to uniform colour is
> infantile.

It was a *MOVIE*!!!

> >But in fairness to the movie, it did show that British soldiers under
> >the ruthless antagonist didn't like his vicious orders, and the high
> >command didn't like it either.
>
> That's a transparent fig-leave of consideration in the torrent of
> national prejudice being poured out in that movie.

You're not going to give it any points whatsoever are you.

> >Thus the need to be given Ohio
> >territory after the war, since he could never return to Britain with
> >honor.
>
> Given that this would contravene Royal Proclaimations on colonial
> expansion, this is just another neo-feudalistic fantasy, impugning
> feudal motives to senior aristorcratic and class-ridden British
> officers. This has nothing to do with the historical reality and
> everything to do with American self-image and national stereotyping.

Oh dear. Mel missed the Royal Proclamations against westward expansion
in the colonies. There goes any shred of believability anyone would have
had!

I'd have to wonder if you've ever found a military aviation movie to your
liking, given the vast majority of them are so blatantly wrong in the
technical depiction of the subject.

> There is a very good movie to be made on the reality of the experience
> of the American revolution, from corrupt and hypocritical Boston
> agitators, to loyal and selfless farmers suffering stoically at Valley
> Forge, from colonial milita looting and destroying "traitors" property
> on both sides, to colonial militia facing a regular army and beating
> them face-to-face after severe fighting at Saratoga, to the mass of
> ordinary people seeking to evade the worst consequences of a war being
> fought in their locality regardless of their private sympathies.
>
> But that kind of movie will never be made. It just doesn't hit the
> right buttons in an audience that has been simply brainwashed on the
> subject since their earliest history lessons in school.

There are lots of great subjects, with complex interactions, that
could be made into great movies, that aren't. Doesn't mean there is any
"guarding of myths" political agenda being carried out to suppress such
enterprises.

People go to the movies to be entertained, not educated. If you want
to brush up on the intricacies of Revolutionary War history, even Ken
Burns isn't going to do it fully right. You need to read a lot of books.

If you stay true to your demands on pure historical and technical
accuracy in movie making, you're probably not going to like *any*
movie that makes *any* reference to historical record.

The "Patriot" was simply a *movie*. It wasn't the gumint preparing for
war against the UK by initiating a brainwashing campaign on its citizens,
who will now riot if war is not declared.


SMH

[The Revolution Will Not Be Televised]

On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 05:27:32 -0400, Stephen Harding
> wrote:

["The Patriot" being a pack of xenophobic rubbish]

>It was a *movie* not a documentary.

So was "The Eternal Jew".

>It wasn't "offensive myths".

I'll be the judge of that, as my nationality was on the receiving end
of the mythology concerned. I'll let an American judge how offensive
or otherwise a Vietnamese movie portraying Americans as effette,
murderous war criminals might be. If you find the demonisation of
American which passes for popular analysis in Arab and European
culture to be offensive, I can tell you right now I wouldn't be
appearing to patronisingly lecture you about why you shouldn't feel
offended about the inaccuracies and lies this involves, in fact I
would be agreeing with you.

>> But what is the sum of those "liberties": an All-American hero who
>> uniquely refuses to own slaves on a Carolinan estate*, British forces
>
>Not so unique, or even if it was, so what?

So much for the historical factual background you attribute to it.
When the level of accurate representation involved means that the hero
happens to employ a sizeable percentage of the entire free black
population in the Carolinas at the time, you should question the
validity of the historical representation involved. And if the
validity of the historical representation doesn't matter, just give
them all automatic weapons and make the British invading Space Aliens
instead. Somehow, I suspect you'd agree in those cases that
historical accuracy can become significant.

>It was unique but not unheard of for Blacks to own slaves as well. Again,
>so what? I suspect a movie about such individuals would not be well
>received by the political Black community here, although I think it would
>be an interesting study.

It would indeed, and it would serve a more valid pupose than yet
another outing for the hackneyed Anglophobic rebels vesus effete
aristocratic British tyrants hero myth.

>Road runners don't blow up coyotes.

The road runner cartoons aren't specifically and deliberately located
in a particular historical framework. "The Patriot" was.

>> What these "liberties" amount to is a distinct and discernable agenda,
>> and is just as ideologically driven as a Communist-controlled film
>> about revolts in the Imperial Russian Navy.
>
>So I take it you're giving the movie a three thumbs down?

As I stated, it's a pile of ****, relying on the exploitation of
prejudice to entertain. Strangely enough, being on the sharp end of
that prejudice isn't particularly entertaining for some people.

>Contemporary films do their share of simplification of issues in the other
>direction as well.

All films simplify. The point is that the simplifications and
distortions in this case are specifically designed to demonise one
specific agency in an ahistorical manner.

>Although there aren't many projects involving Indian
>characters, is there any such thing as a "bad" Indian in a movie any more?

Indeed, precisely my point. For whatever reasons (political
opposition, political correctness, even genuine fatigue with the
cliches involved) Hollywood has moved, or been forced to move, from
the prejudicial portrayal of American Indians and blacks. No such
sensitivity or ability to cast aside historical prejudice exists when
it comes to staging a drama based on the American revolution. Even
the Germans in WW2 get a more diverse approach these days.

>It was a *MOVIE*!!!

So you keep saying. As I said, "The Eternal Jew" is also a movie. Do
you find *it* entertaining? Or are you aware of the prejudice and
antagonism that particular production exploits, and do you find it
subtracts from the entertainment value somewhat?

>> That's a transparent fig-leave of consideration in the torrent of
>> national prejudice being poured out in that movie.
>
>You're not going to give it any points whatsoever are you.

Not after "Braveheart", but then I actually have to live in the
country that Randall Wallace and Mel Gibson liked to inflame
nationalist prejudice in. I am aware of the consequences of it. They
can fly back to Hollywood.

>I'd have to wonder if you've ever found a military aviation movie to your
>liking, given the vast majority of them are so blatantly wrong in the
>technical depiction of the subject.

I've enjoyed several. I'll willing to suspend my disbelief if the
simplifications, generalisations and compromises inevitable in any
film production aren't grossly offensive. In "Angels One Five", for
example, there is plenty of stock cliche which was dictated by the
contemporary context, including a rather patronising portrayal of a
pilot from northern Scotland (i.e., where I come from) which relied on
blanket stereotyping. That could very easily have been gratuitously
offensive, but it was written and acted in a subtle and shaded enough
fashion to be believeable.

>> But that kind of movie will never be made. It just doesn't hit the
>> right buttons in an audience that has been simply brainwashed on the
>> subject since their earliest history lessons in school.
>
>There are lots of great subjects, with complex interactions, that
>could be made into great movies, that aren't.

Indeed, but "The Patriot", with a little less graphic violence could
have been made in 1956 or 1936 or written as a stage play in 1876.
Charles Laughton reprising his role as Captain Bligh as Tavington,
Clark Gable as Gibson's character, etc, etc. If it had been made then
I wouldn't have the same problems with it to any extent. It wasn't.

> Doesn't mean there is any
>"guarding of myths" political agenda being carried out to suppress such
>enterprises.

I don't believe anybody is suppressing such movies. I believe Randall
Wallace and Mel Gibson knew very well that a movie celebrating the
traditional cliches of the murderous, aristoctatic British and the
rough-hewn, down-home, heroic American guerillas would hit the right
requirements to capitalise on existing American prejudices.

>People go to the movies to be entertained, not educated.

It's not a question of education. There's no reason a film which
avoids such gratuitous stereotypes and ahistorical distortions has to
be worthy, dull and boring.

> If you want
>to brush up on the intricacies of Revolutionary War history, even Ken
>Burns isn't going to do it fully right. You need to read a lot of books.

It's not a question of the minutae, it's a question about the most
basic and fundamental approach taken. Why did Mel Gibson make a
propaganda movie about a conflict when ended two centuries ago?

>If you stay true to your demands on pure historical and technical
>accuracy in movie making, you're probably not going to like *any*
>movie that makes *any* reference to historical record.

It's not a question of moving to a ridiculous extreme to discredit any
attempt to make better movies. In the case of "The Patriot", it's a
question of moving it away from a ridiculous extreme that it inhabits
_already_.

>The "Patriot" was simply a *movie*. It wasn't the gumint preparing for
>war against the UK by initiating a brainwashing campaign on its citizens,
>who will now riot if war is not declared.

It was a movie which was designed to reinforce existing popular
historical mythology about the very origin and definition of the
American state, and what defines you as an American. I'm sick and
tired of that depending upon the demonisation of the other nationality
involved.

Gavin Bailey

--

Another user rings. "I need more space" he says.
"Well, why not move to Texas?", I ask. - The ******* Operator From Hell

[Fred J. McCall]

(The Revolution Will Not Be Televised) wrote:

:On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 05:27:32 -0400, Stephen Harding
> wrote:
:
:["The Patriot" being a pack of xenophobic rubbish]
:
:>It was a *movie* not a documentary.
:
:So was "The Eternal Jew".
:
:>It wasn't "offensive myths".
:
:I'll be the judge of that, as my nationality was on the receiving end
:of the mythology concerned.

No, you won't.

The world will judge, and that opinion has been reinforced by hundreds
of years of history which you would no doubt steadfastly deny.

Now start your little motor and troll away home....


--
"It's always different. It's always complex. But at some point,
somebody has to draw the line. And that somebody is always me....
I am the law."
-- Buffy, The Vampire Slayer

[Michael P. Reed]

"Brian Sharrock" > wrote in message >...
> "Stephen Harding" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> snip
> .
> >
> > In fact, most all Americans at the time considered themselves British,
> > with British rights, and came around rather slowly to the concept of
> > independence from British rule.
> >
> Which was _precisely_ the point the "OP" (me) was making
> in responding to a posting that claimed 'the Loyalists sided
> with the British'. As you, quite rightly comment "most all
> Americans at the time considered themselves British,with
> British rights"

For the most part, in the beginning, this was so. However,
simulataneous with that feeling, most felt themselves Americans as
well. I suppose much like the Welsh saw themselves as British and
still Welsh.

> and it was a _minority_ of rebels that started
> an armed insurrection for their own purposes.

This is egregiously wrong. The war started mostly by "accident" or
happenstance if you will. When Jonas Parker and seventy-six of his
neighbors stood on Lexington Green (well away from and not obstructing
the British line of march), he, and they, had no desire to start a
war. Parker was even in the process of dispersing his men when the
first British volley was fired. However, one may make the case that
the North Ministry had made the concious decision for the use of force
against the Massachusetts Bay Colony at least one to two months prior
to Lexington. It was his orders to Gage stating that the province was
already in a state of rebellion that finally prompted Gage to march on
Concord, though he knew that it very well may lead to fighting.

> Of course they then got to write the history and control the
> curriculum in all the schools of their colonies and subsequent
> possessions ....

A well worn myth. At best its true only for totalitarian regimes.
You have obviously not read much on the American Revolution, its
causes, or the occurrences of its outbreak. It is quite obvious that,
as I mentioned previously, you are merely parroting what the British
of the day thought and claimed where the "rebellion" "started" by a
small minority of influencial men, and that most "Americans" actually
thought themselves "British" and so were loyal. That was the single
greatest misconception made on the part of the British, and derived
most other British misconceptions. Such as the rebellion was centered
in New England, and so all one had to do was conquer New England and
the rebellion would be crushed. This was the thinking that drove
British strategic planning for the first half of the war. The never
understood it, and worse yet, never even thought of altering those
preceptions though all evidence pointed to the contrary. It could
never be that the loyalists were fewer than the British thought, but
just that they were simply unpatriotic and undesirous to sacrafice
themselves and their comfort. It permiates throughout British writings
of the war. That, more than any other cause, was the reason the
British lost the war, and that misguided thinking has persisted ever
since. Much easier (and more "respectible?") to over credit French
assistance, and blame loyalist indifference.

> and eventually produce screen plays such as "The Patriot".

Or Horatio Hornblower? The Sharpe series? Puh-lease, Mr Sharrock,
nobody but the producers claimed much in the way of historical
accuracy to that movie, which was a box office disappointment
(overall) in a large part because of the liberties (no pun intended)
taken with historical fact and the subsequent controversy with
(American) historians who panned it (and, in no small part its plot
being to obviously derived from "Braveheart"). That said, just what
do you think caused the South to become the center of post-war
American anglo-phobia? Because a few "rich and greedy" men proclaimed
it as such? Problem with much of your, and other posters from your
side of the Pond, is that it is not accurate. American resistance to
the British went through all layers of society for reasons that had
nothing to do with the obtaining of (more) wealth as I've already
previously explained.

--
Regards,

Michael P. Reed

[The Revolution Will Not Be Televised]

On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 13:28:43 GMT, Fred J. McCall
> wrote:

>:["The Patriot" being a pack of xenophobic rubbish]
>:
>:>It was a *movie* not a documentary.
>:
>:So was "The Eternal Jew".
>:
>:>It wasn't "offensive myths".
>:
>:I'll be the judge of that, as my nationality was on the receiving end
>:of the mythology concerned.
>
>No, you won't.

So good of you to dictate what I can and can't do, Fred. As it
happens, I can and I will.

>The world will judge, and that opinion has been reinforced by hundreds
>of years of history which you would no doubt steadfastly deny.

Shock news for you: "The Patriot" was fictional.

Gavin Bailey


--

Another user rings. "I need more space" he says.
"Well, why not move to Texas?", I ask. - The ******* Operator From Hell

[The Revolution Will Not Be Televised]

On 10 Oct 2003 08:47:32 -0700, (Michael P. Reed)
wrote:

>A well worn myth. At best its true only for totalitarian regimes.
>You have obviously not read much on the American Revolution, its
>causes, or the occurrences of its outbreak. It is quite obvious that,
>as I mentioned previously, you are merely parroting what the British
>of the day thought and claimed where the "rebellion" "started" by a
>small minority of influencial men, and that most "Americans" actually
>thought themselves "British" and so were loyal. That was the single
>greatest misconception made on the part of the British, and derived
>most other British misconceptions. Such as the rebellion was centered
>in New England, and so all one had to do was conquer New England and
>the rebellion would be crushed. This was the thinking that drove
>British strategic planning for the first half of the war.

Strange how after they evacuated Boston in March 1776 (less than a
year after Lexington & Concord) they never came back, and how Howe and
Burgoyne's operations thereafter concentrated on New York, then
Philadelphia. For one who likes to cast aspersions on the knowledge
of others, you don't seem too clued-up yourself.

[snip the usual Painesque cobblers]

Gavin Bailey
--

Another user rings. "I need more space" he says.
"Well, why not move to Texas?", I ask. - The ******* Operator From Hell

[Fred J. McCall]

(The Revolution Will Not Be Televised) wrote:

:On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 13:28:43 GMT, Fred J. McCall
> wrote:
:
:>:["The Patriot" being a pack of xenophobic rubbish]
:>:
:>:>It was a *movie* not a documentary.
:>:
:>:So was "The Eternal Jew".
:>:
:>:>It wasn't "offensive myths".
:>:
:>:I'll be the judge of that, as my nationality was on the receiving end
:>:of the mythology concerned.
:>
:>No, you won't.
:
:So good of you to dictate what I can and can't do, Fred. As it
:happens, I can and I will.

Well, no, you can't and you won't, no matter what you think, any more
than we get to be the judge of American actions. See below.

:>The world will judge, and that opinion has been reinforced by hundreds
:>of years of history which you would no doubt steadfastly deny.
:
:Shock news for you: "The Patriot" was fictional.

Hell, *I* knew that. From the way you're ranting on, though, I would
have thought that YOU didn't.

Of course, much of what you claim seems to be fantasy, as well, but,
by all means, troll on, Gavin.

Troll on.

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

[The Revolution Will Not Be Televised]

On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 01:13:49 GMT, Fred J. McCall
> wrote:

>:>:I'll be the judge of that, as my nationality was on the receiving end
>:>:of the mythology concerned.
>:>
>:>No, you won't.
>:
>:So good of you to dictate what I can and can't do, Fred. As it
>:happens, I can and I will.
>
>Well, no, you can't and you won't, no matter what you think,

Sorry Fred, I can, I will, and I in fact do, no matter how
objectionable you find that process.

>any more
>than we get to be the judge of American actions.

One of the outcomes of the American revolution (although not a
principle and immediate one, despite the propaganda) is that you have
the right to judge American actions and select your own government.
Fortunately most Americans don't share your flippant refusal to judge
actions at a national level, and actually apply a measure of judgement
to local, state and national governmental behaviour. I shall resist
any temptation to comment on the California recall to observe that, in
general, Americans exercise this judgement fairly responsibly.

>:>The world will judge, and that opinion has been reinforced by hundreds
>:>of years of history which you would no doubt steadfastly deny.
>:
>:Shock news for you: "The Patriot" was fictional.
>
>Hell, *I* knew that.

The argument was about the value of it's historical basis. If you can
contribute, go ahead. If not, stop wasting your own time by following
up this thread.

>Of course, much of what you claim seems to be fantasy, as well, but,
>by all means, troll on, Gavin.

If I am a troll (which in this instance I am not, although I'm
enjoying a heated response), why are you feeding me?

Gavin Bailey

--

Another user rings. "I need more space" he says.
"Well, why not move to Texas?", I ask. - The ******* Operator From Hell

[William Black]

"Stephen Harding" > wrote in message
...

> Just like both sides of the
> English civil war never doubted they were British.

I would doubt that any of them, with the possible exception of the king,
considered themselves anything but English, Scottish or Irish.

The idea of 'Britain' as a nation wasn't actually around to any extent then.

--
William Black
------------------
On time, on budget, or works;
Pick any two from three

[Michael P. Reed]

(The Revolution Will Not Be Televised) wrote in message >...

> Strange how after they evacuated Boston in March 1776 (less than a
> year after Lexington & Concord) they never came back,
>and how Howe and
> Burgoyne's operations thereafter concentrated on New York, then
> Philadelphia. For one who likes to cast aspersions on the knowledge
> of others, you don't seem too clued-up yourself.

Another poor ignorant soul in the need for elucidation I see. <g>
Apologies in advance for what is going to be a rather long post.

The origins of British strategy date back to the summer of 1775
(prior to that they did not have one), when Bill Legge, a.k.a. 2nd
Earl of Dartmouth and Secretary of American Affairs in the Colonial
Office had some discussions with some folks knowledgable (or more
correctly with folks who thought themselves knowledgeable) of affairs
in America. After which, he came up with his grand plan of campaign.
Writing to Thomas Gage about it in August, he suggested that two
armies ought to be assembled. One in Boston, which was to be
reinforced, and the other, and Main, to occupy New York City, which
was to be a piece of cake since it was loyal. The idea then would be
for an advance out of NYC into New England while the other advanced
out of Boston. However, Gage, quite to the reliefe of the North
ministry, then resigned allowing North's hand picked man, William
Howe, to take command. Unfortunately, this precipated a crisis in
command, because Howe was junior to then governor of Canada, General
Guy Carleton who the Cabinet felt (wrongly IMHO) was indespensible in
keeping Canada loyal to the Crown. Carleton would surely resign if
forced to serve under a junior. So the Solomaic decision was reached
to divide the command in North America with Carleton retaining
independent command in Canada, and Howe commanding everything else.
At the time, September of 1775, no trouble was foreseen, because
Canada was never meant to be an active theater.
Upon his confirmation as Commander in Chief in North America (less
Canada-for which read Quebec), Howe requested an alteration to the
strategy laid out by Dartmouth. Howe wanted nothing to do with any
advance out of Boston and the neccessary frontal assaults against what
by then would be a years worth of American fortifications. Note it
was he was on scene commander at Breed's Hill which was the bloodiest
battle of the war for the British in both real terms and in ratio (50
percent casualties). He also did not like the idea of two widely
seperated armies attempting to act in unison with such long external
lines of communication as to be virtually independent. Instead he
suggested removing the army from Boston and landing it in Rhode
Island. That would still serve as a diversion for the main landing at
New York (and thus dividing the American defense) while still being
near enough for each army to cover the other.
Alas, a serious wrinkle had begun even before the ink was ever put to
paper. Back in June, Congress had taken up the issue of "invading"
Canada. The primary purpose was to divert British troops from Boston
to its protection in order for the siege of the latter to be
accomplished more readily. Secondary to this was the "need" to
liberate Canada from British rule, and essentially drive the British
clear off the continent. However, there were qualms about making an
unwanted incursion into a fellow colony, and Congress mandated that
Canadian opinion first be ascertained. The results of these inquiries
were mixed, but generally considered favorable. Generally the reports
were accurate enough in that the bulk of the population of Canada did
wish to boot the British out (they were after all French who mostly
had no love of the Anglos), but the clergy was another matter, and
this made the commander of the New York Department (later Northern
Department), Philip Schuyler whose task it was to carry out the
invasion, a bit wary, but Congress was convinced the clergy would be
less an issue, and while it is (highly) debatable, in the end they may
have been more or less right. At any rate, after an inauspicious
beginning, Schuyler was relieved of the responsibility of commanding
the forces in Canada which was handed over to BG Richard Montgomery,
who with a great deal of energy and enthusiasm (and competance)
undertook the invasion and with one Col. Benedict Arnold commanding an
expedition through Maine, rather easily drove the British out of most
of the populated sections of Canada and besieged Quebec City proper,
and there it all began to go wrong for the British.
When news reached London of Canada's apparent imminent demise, there
was a lot of hand wringing and cursing of Carleton's name and his
incompetance for allowing the Americans so much success. To be fair
to GC, he did only have two very understrength regiments for the
defense of all of Canada, which were much inferior in numbers to the
American forces. It is noteworthy to mention also that few Canadians
rallied to the British cause complicating Carleton's defense. In
fact, a number were enlisting in the Colonial (it was not yet
American) army. Back in London, panic struck, the new Secretary of
American Affairs, Lord George Germain (nee Sackville of
busted-for-cowardice-and-disobedience-of-orders-at-Minden-infame and
who replaced the all-too-friendly-to-Americans Dartmouth in November)
began redirecting a considerable force from Howe to Canada. At the
same time, he diverted another, albight smaller, force from Howe for
the intended occupation of Charleston because of Southern governors'
screams for actions for protection. British officialdom missed the
boat twice. The first clue that the rebellion was not centered in New
England was the invasion of Canada. It being obvious that the army
which did so was not composed of New Englanders (other than a few from
New Hampshire). The second was the need for the diversion (roughly a
reinforced brigade) of troops to the South. The waning forturnes of
Lord Dunmore, now ex(iled) governor of Virginia, ought to have been a
third. However *in spite of* these very obvious and omminous signs,
Germain (a rather clueless lout-British condemnations tending to be
stronger) and even Howe (at that time) behaved as if they were
inconsequential bumps in the road and still believed, as did it near
everyone else (save Carleton who damned the Canadians up and down his
letters official or no). Oh, Howe was miffed to lose five or six
thousand men, and it vastly altered his campaign as now there were too
few troops to form a second army for Rhode Island, though the latter
still remained an objective.
As mentioned, Howe pulled out (precipitacely) in March of '76 after
Henry Knox had drug some former British heavy artillery from
Ticonderoga to the heights overlooking the RN's anchorages in Boston
Harbor. Howe was to have pulled out before the onset of winter, but
had decided, for reasons that are really not clear, to remain, and
I've a sneaking suspicion that he had intended on keeping a garrison
in Boston despite the plan not too. We'll never know, though. At any
rate, Howe went to Halifax for a while to await his reinforcements and
an improvement in his logistics. Meanwhile o'er in Canada, things
began to look up for British fortunes. An attempt to the take the
city by storm on New Years Eve was easily squashed, and most
importantly Montgomery was killed and Arnold wounded. The Canadian
Army, as the United Colonies army was stiled, began to disintegrate.
Namely because the 9 month enlistment period was up. Like Washington
before Boston, the "American" armies had to disband and be rerecruited
at the same time. Luckily, for Washington et all, the British were
too weak everywhere to do much about it. But the situation in Canada
went to the pot real quickly. Washington had a fine head for
organization, and more importantly literally sat on his logistical
base. Canada was now under the ineffectual command of David Wooster
who was little animated, not overly clever, was in a secondary theater
with secondary priorities in a poor province (not a single head of
beef existed anywhere in Canada), and far from his logistical base. A
two man committee sent to Canada to check on things by Congress
convinced Wooster to step aside, and MG John Thomas arrived at the
beginning of May to take his place. Thomas decided, in a council of
war, to abandon the siege and retreat further up Canada, but then the
first ships carrying a regiment detached from Howe at Halifax began
arriving, and Carleton sortied with a couple of companies of his
remaining regulars, and drove in the American pickets. So ended the
"Battle" of Quebec. It did serve, however, to panick Thomas who then
ordered a wholesale withdrawal to Trois Riviers (such a maneuver
would receive a new name during the Korean War). Once arrived,
Thomas said this place sucks too, and fell back on Sorrel. There he
met 3,000 new reinforcements from New England under BG John Thompson.
These fine fellows brought Smallpox with them, and so some of the
regimental commanders began innoculating their regiments thus
rendering them hors-de-combat for the next month or so. Thomas
promptly put a stop to that little bit of non-sense, and then just as
promptly caught smallpox himself and died. Meanwhile the
really-big-British-reinforcement under Gentleman Johnny Burgoyne began
to arrive about Quebec and moved further upstream to the Sorrel (or
Richelieu). Also arriving was John Sullivan with 5,000 fresh
"Continentals" which were cheered by the locals upon their arrival.
Sullivan and Thompson decided to retake Trois Riviers in order to turn
it around, but it went for nought, and the local militia that had been
on "our side" turned coat, now that they were certain the U.C. were
leaving Canada, and turned Thompson over to the British. Sullivan did
not panic though, and took his sweet time in withdrawing making
certain that all his stores, heavy equipment, and sick were safely
away before retiring. That took about a month. Carleton did not
interfere, and let Sullivan go unmolested though the latter was
severly out numbered. Though the "American" army nominally was the
same strength as the British (about 8~9,000 men) smallpox had crippled
it, and in the week after TR it numbered less than 1,500 fit for duty.
This led to new round of condemnations about Carleton in London. The
reason for his inactivity has never been made clear, but I suspect it
was to keep his men well away from Sullivan's pocky troops. Anyways,
I digress.
Coming back somewhat on topic, back at the end of March when that
Committee of Congress (i.e. Maryland delegate Samuel Chase and fellow
Marylander, but not yet delegate, Charles Carrol of Carrolton-who was
Catholic and why he was a member of the committee) recommended
Wooster's replacement, they also recommended that a flotilla of
warships be constructed on Lake Champlain (which is not, as Sen. Leahy
attempted to us convince, one of the Great Lakes). That mission fell
to B. Arnold of sulking-in-Montreal-
and-generally-hating-Wooster's-guts fame. Ooh, good move on Chase's
part, because now Carleton could not move south to crush to the now
renamed Northern Army (and now under the command of one Horatio
"Not-at-the-bridge-but-Granny" Gates-whose command was also
recommended by Chase) until he built himself some boats with guns, and
so away at it through the summer he went. [Meanwhile Chase returned
to Congress, voted for Independence, and damn near got into a fist
fight with one John Adams on said floor of said Congress over some
on-the-record comments Chase made about the sorry-excuse-for-soldiers
that were New Englanders. Sullivan went home, well to Philadelphia,
also screaming his head off at being replaced by a junior, for which
he was awarded a major generalship and command of a division in the
Main Army at New York, where he was promptly captured at the Battle of
Long Island. What happened to Wooster you ask? He went home to
Connecticut, and was killed at the Battle of Compo Hill where he and
Arnold (and a few recruits and some militia) badly molested a British
raiding force under former Gov of NY, George Tryon, who had just
torched Danbury CT.]
Ok, where were we in our story? Oh yes. Well, Howe finally had
gotten underway and landed on Staten Island in July of '76 just in
time to be greated with news of the Declaration of Independence. This
does not seem to have dampened his spirits much, after all, according
to him (and every other British journalist I have ever read) most of
the colonists, especially in New York, were still loyal! So, as peace
commissioner (his big bro Admiral Lord Richard "Black Dick" Howe was
boss commissioner] settled down snug as a bug in Lizzy Loring's. . .
er, on Staten Island, and attempted to negotiate a settlement, and to
await more reinforcements (another division of Hessians was due any
day now). Well, the Hessians finally arrived in August, and Howe was
pretty miffed that he did not get much of a response to his
negotiatin' so he landed his troops on Long Island, routed the
American (note no more quotes) covering forces on the Guanus Heights,
captured, according to him, 1,000 men and John Sullivan, and settled
in for another round of negotiatin'. This time sending Sullivan back
to Congress which august body then sent a mismatched Delegation of
John "we New Englanders is superior" Adams and Ben "Where be the
ladies" Franklin who both essentially told Howe to bugger off with his
schemes of reconcilliation. Howe then decided it was time for another
crack-o-the-whip, and landed on Manhattan at Kip's Bay (a "battle"
left unmentioned in American military annals especially by those who
thought the militia were so great), occupied NYC (then southern tip of
Manhattan) and decided to go over Congress' head, and appeal directly
to the people. What of Carleton? He was still playing at Samuel
Pepys at Isle aux Nois.
After a month of no response, Howe landed his forces on the mainland
of New York and after two week at "oops, we landed at the wrong
place" Throg's Neck, relanded at Pell's point, and allowed, mainly
through inaction, Washington to slip away at White Plains. But n'er
feer the colonists were still mostly loyal! By now, only Fort
Washington had to be dealt with in order to secure New York City,
which it was in short order. Howe then sent a now throughly
disgruntled second in command, i.e. Henry
"But-if-you-only-followed-MY-plan" Clinton to occupy Rhode Island as
required by "The Plan." Clinton did so easily and quite literrally.
He occupied Rhode *Island*, but he was supposed to capture the
mainland capitol of Providence, but. . .well, after Howe hinted at his
displeasure, Clinton went AWOL and returned to "Blighty" muttering
nasty utterances about Howe all the way across the 'Lantic.
Carleton, though, had finally put his ship together, and had stole
down into Lake Champlain, beat the snot out of Arnold and his
land-lubbing army sailors at Valcour Bay, then withdrew back into
Canada because it was too late in the season to capture Ticonderoga
and secure Canada from invasion. That sent the folks in London, led
by Germain, into a frenzy of Carleton damnations, and Lord George, who
you will remember refused a direct order to attack a realling and
routed French army at the Battle of Minden and thus insuring its
escape, made no secret of his displeasure in a nasty [for that era]
letter or two to Carleton, who good King George who did not desire to
lose Carleton, or suffer the embarrassment of his resignation, forced
to retract and apologize with a big fat kiss. Oh Clinton in
Charleston? Why further embarass our British friends with a
discussion of *that* debacle. [Though it would be very on topic for
SMN].
At this point, Washington f**ed the British Plan over again. He did
the unthinkable. Withdrew into New Jersey. Howe dispatched
Cornwallis after him, but halted the latter at Brunswick. Afterall,
it was not in the plan, and so there was no reason to go further.
Washington used the respite to scadaddle across the Delaware, which
despite Clinton's belief to the contrary, was not fordable. At the
same time, a bit of good luck, for the American cause, occurred. An
enterprising cavalry officer by name of Harcourt captured MG Charles
Lee in a inn where he had been a-fornicating away from his command
[Lee was exchanged for MG Richard Prescott who was captured on Rhode
Island in 1777 while a-fornicatin' away from his command].
Several things now more or less occur at once. Howe sends his first
plan of operations for 1777 with a request for 15,000 additional
troops. Shortly thereafter, an aide arrived back from England with
news that he was unlikely to be reinforced for the upcoming campaign.
About that time Howe, at the advice of Cornwallis, and under pressure
from all those loyal citizens, occupied all of New Jersey. At the
same time, Burgoyne was arriving in London having been sent home by
his boss, Carleton, with their own plan for 1777. Howe's original
plan called for the forming of *three* armies. The two "old" armies
of the previous strategy. That is one up the Hudson and east into New
England, the other at Rhode Island, and the third to be formed in New
Jersey to "Faint" against Philadelphia to keep Washington busy. In
addition, troops were needed to garrison New York. Apparently, Howe
had some notion of using the Canadian Army, and his aid apparently
floated this idea as as a trial balloon when he was in London in
October, but that idea was quickly popped. Burgoyne also suggested
(though he did not really mean it) to Germain to bring the army to
New York by sea, but was told that was not possible. Ostensibly
because the required shipping did not exist. That was not all the bad
news that Cuyler brought back with him from London. The reason for no
new reinforcements were simple. Britain was in the grip of a war
scare with regards to France (and to a lesser extant Spain as Portugal
was making noises to Spain about reperations over some late war in
South America), and everything was being concentrated on the Navy.
Early in 1776, several incidents had occurred in the Caribbean with
British warships halting and boarding French merchies in search of
"contraband." Needless to say, that irked the French, and it was
decided to ready a squadron of ships (about six ships of the line and
four frigates) to make a "show of force'" cruise in the Caribbean.
Well, British intelligence, which generally was quite good where
matters French were concerned, soon got wind of the French
preparations, but initially overestimated it (eighteen S-O-L vice
actually five preparing at Brest e.g.), and the First Lord of the
Admiralty, John Montagu Fourth Earl of Sandwich, p***ed his pants, and
began to dog and stalk Freddie North whereever he went badgering him
for an increase in naval funds and an increase in ships. Finally,
after a month and a half, North caved, and an expansion of the RN was
begun. Of course, the French intelligence services, which was every
bit as good as that of the British, soon found out, and after a bit of
head scratching to figure out what John Bull was up to concluded that
they were possibly preparing for war, so began to put their Navy into
shape. Which of course was picked up by British intel and Sandwich of
course s**t his pants, panicked, and seeing he could not budge North
any more stomped all over his head on the way to good King George, and
while at the same time denying in Parliament there was anything to
worry about, and began a general press of seamen all across Britain
(which led to cracked sculls, one RN LT visiting Davy Jones (seems the
sailors of ye olde East India Company did not like the idea of serving
in his majesty's navy), and the threat of imprisonment of Naval
personal by the Lord Mayor of London. North, now fully "converted"
to Sandwich's cause pushed through the next year's estimates granting
a 1 million pound increase in the RN's budget (from 3 to 4 million),
but which left less than a three hundred thousand increase (from 3.1
to 3.4 million) for the Army and the war in America. Howe's request
for 15,000 men alone would have run nearly half a million pounds.
FWIW, nobody in London, neither Germain nor Sandwich ever bothered to
inform the Howe's of the worsening (as they perceived it) relations
with France.
While Howe was dismayed over the least prospects of getting a
reinforcement he was not overly so. The occupation of New Jersey (or
more correctly northern and central) went without a hitch save for the
fact that Washington had all the boats on the delaware removed to the
Pennsylvania shore. As there was no way across until he built some,
and it was deep into December, Howe called off ops for the season.
But made plans, sans reinforcements, of taking Philly in the spring.
After all, look at all those loyalists which his loyalist pals
(primarily Joseph "I-could-never-not-tell-a-lie") told him that
existed. New Jersey was full of loyalists too. Just look at all
those good folk taking the oath of allegiance (and were awarded with
large scale looting and rapine by British forces who, of course,
blamed it all on the Germans). At any rate, Howe's new plan called
for the early crossing and taking of Philadelphia and then moving
North to meet the Canadian (British) Army no doubt that will be coming
south down the (mainly loyal) Hudson. Another campaign (i.e.1778)
would be required for the reduction of New England and the end of the
rebellion. Five days after he wrote that dispatch to Germain,
Washington crossed the Delaware, inflicted nearly 1,500 casualties and
prisoners on the British and maneuvered Howe/Cornwallis out off all of
New Jersey save for the Brunswick-Perth Amboy region. It was at that
point that Howe realized that any victory first required the defeat of
the Continental Main Army, and where Howe finally abandoned the
original New England First strategy once and for all. So he decided
upon Philadelphia as a ruse to lure Washington out in the open to be
crushed by Howe.
Burgoyne arrived with Carleton's modifications of the original
strategy (the modifications being the army based in Canada).
Basically, it called for one or two objectives. One, to pass the
lakes and head for Albany and from there co-operate with Howe against
New England, and the other, to pass the lakes but turn into New
England by way of the Connecticut River. Certainly the latter would
keep the army independent under Carleton. However, this was the end
of '76 and early '77, and feeligs were quite against Carleton and
there was no way Germain (or George III) were about to allow him to
command in the field again, so that was vetoed. Burgoyne picking up
on the anti-Carleton sentiments quickly angled himself the job, to the
point of convincing the "jury" that it was his plan when in reality it
was Carleton's. It also provided Germain with the ideal way of
getting the army from under Carleton's foot and to Howe's. So the
orders were drawn up, for all intents and purposes written by
Burgoyne, for Burgoyne to take the army in Canada (less detachements
left for Canada's defense) to Albany and there "place himself under
General Howe's command." St Leger was to act as a diversion on the
Mohawk, but otherwise go to Albany and put himself under Burgoyne.
Contrary to popular belief, Burgoyne's entire purpose was to transfer
the army from Carleton to Howe, and not as some preconceived notion of
capturing the line of the Hudson and cutting New England off from the
rest of the colonies. Nor was it about the conquering of New York,
because it was believed that the majority of New Yorkers were loyal
and thus would flock to the crown!
The orders were sealed on February 28th, 1777. Three days later,
Germain authorized Howe's offensive against Philadelphia. He did not
bother to inform Howe of anything with regards to Burgoyne, and never
would do so, though in June Howe did receive a copy of Burgoyne's
orders, though he did not understand what they meant.
To sum up. Burgoyne was sent to Albany in order to become part of
Howe's command for an eventual invasion of New England. Little risk
was seen in this move as it was universally believed that New York was
dominated by those loyal to the Crown. Howe went to Philadelphia in
order to defeat Washington and return the the loyalists, who were over
whelming there, to power and to recruit new provincial regiments for
garrisoning, and then to return to the northward for a final invasion
of New England. My point stands. British misconceptions as to the
mood of the populus of its North American colonies mislead its
preceptions of the war, and subsequently to its strategy upon which
British success turned.

Now, what was this about Paine? Never really studied him.

--
Your most obedient and humble servant,

Michael P. Reed

[Michael P. Reed]

(The Revolution Will Not Be Televised) wrote in message >...

> Strange how after they evacuated Boston in March 1776 (less than a
> year after Lexington & Concord) they never came back,
>and how Howe and
> Burgoyne's operations thereafter concentrated on New York, then
> Philadelphia. For one who likes to cast aspersions on the knowledge
> of others, you don't seem too clued-up yourself.

Another poor ignorant soul in the need for elucidation I see. <g>
Apologies in advance for what is going to be a rather long post.

The origins of British strategy date back to the summer of 1775
(prior to that they did not have one), when Bill Legge, a.k.a. 2nd
Earl of Dartmouth and Secretary of American Affairs in the Colonial
Office had some discussions with some folks knowledgable (or more
correctly with folks who thought themselves knowledgeable) of affairs
in America. After which, he came up with his grand plan of campaign.
Writing to Thomas Gage about it in August, he suggested that two
armies ought to be assembled. One in Boston, which was to be
reinforced, and the other, and Main, to occupy New York City, which
was to be a piece of cake since it was loyal. The idea then would be
for an advance out of NYC into New England while the other advanced
out of Boston. However, Gage, quite to the reliefe of the North
ministry, then resigned allowing North's hand picked man, William
Howe, to take command. Unfortunately, this precipated a crisis in
command, because Howe was junior to then governor of Canada, General
Guy Carleton who the Cabinet felt (wrongly IMHO) was indespensible in
keeping Canada loyal to the Crown. Carleton would surely resign if
forced to serve under a junior. So the Solomaic decision was reached
to divide the command in North America with Carleton retaining
independent command in Canada, and Howe commanding everything else.
At the time, September of 1775, no trouble was foreseen, because
Canada was never meant to be an active theater.
Upon his confirmation as Commander in Chief in North America (less
Canada-for which read Quebec), Howe requested an alteration to the
strategy laid out by Dartmouth. Howe wanted nothing to do with any
advance out of Boston and the neccessary frontal assaults against what
by then would be a years worth of American fortifications. Note it
was he was on scene commander at Breed's Hill which was the bloodiest
battle of the war for the British in both real terms and in ratio (50
percent casualties). He also did not like the idea of two widely
seperated armies attempting to act in unison with such long external
lines of communication as to be virtually independent. Instead he
suggested removing the army from Boston and landing it in Rhode
Island. That would still serve as a diversion for the main landing at
New York (and thus dividing the American defense) while still being
near enough for each army to cover the other.
Alas, a serious wrinkle had begun even before the ink was ever put to
paper. Back in June, Congress had taken up the issue of "invading"
Canada. The primary purpose was to divert British troops from Boston
to its protection in order for the siege of the latter to be
accomplished more readily. Secondary to this was the "need" to
liberate Canada from British rule, and essentially drive the British
clear off the continent. However, there were qualms about making an
unwanted incursion into a fellow colony, and Congress mandated that
Canadian opinion first be ascertained. The results of these inquiries
were mixed, but generally considered favorable. Generally the reports
were accurate enough in that the bulk of the population of Canada did
wish to boot the British out (they were after all French who mostly
had no love of the Anglos), but the clergy was another matter, and
this made the commander of the New York Department (later Northern
Department), Philip Schuyler whose task it was to carry out the
invasion, a bit wary, but Congress was convinced the clergy would be
less an issue, and while it is (highly) debatable, in the end they may
have been more or less right. At any rate, after an inauspicious
beginning, Schuyler was relieved of the responsibility of commanding
the forces in Canada which was handed over to BG Richard Montgomery,
who with a great deal of energy and enthusiasm (and competance)
undertook the invasion and with one Col. Benedict Arnold commanding an
expedition through Maine, rather easily drove the British out of most
of the populated sections of Canada and besieged Quebec City proper,
and there it all began to go wrong for the British.
When news reached London of Canada's apparent imminent demise, there
was a lot of hand wringing and cursing of Carleton's name and his
incompetance for allowing the Americans so much success. To be fair
to GC, he did only have two very understrength regiments for the
defense of all of Canada, which were much inferior in numbers to the
American forces. It is noteworthy to mention also that few Canadians
rallied to the British cause complicating Carleton's defense. In
fact, a number were enlisting in the Colonial (it was not yet
American) army. Back in London, panic struck, the new Secretary of
American Affairs, Lord George Germain (nee Sackville of
busted-for-cowardice-and-disobedience-of-orders-at-Minden-infame and
who replaced the all-too-friendly-to-Americans Dartmouth in November)
began redirecting a considerable force from Howe to Canada. At the
same time, he diverted another, albight smaller, force from Howe for
the intended occupation of Charleston because of Southern governors'
screams for actions for protection. British officialdom missed the
boat twice. The first clue that the rebellion was not centered in New
England was the invasion of Canada. It being obvious that the army
which did so was not composed of New Englanders (other than a few from
New Hampshire). The second was the need for the diversion (roughly a
reinforced brigade) of troops to the South. The waning forturnes of
Lord Dunmore, now ex(iled) governor of Virginia, ought to have been a
third. However *in spite of* these very obvious and omminous signs,
Germain (a rather clueless lout-British condemnations tending to be
stronger) and even Howe (at that time) behaved as if they were
inconsequential bumps in the road and still believed, as did it near
everyone else (save Carleton who damned the Canadians up and down his
letters official or no). Oh, Howe was miffed to lose five or six
thousand men, and it vastly altered his campaign as now there were too
few troops to form a second army for Rhode Island, though the latter
still remained an objective.
As mentioned, Howe pulled out (precipitacely) in March of '76 after
Henry Knox had drug some former British heavy artillery from
Ticonderoga to the heights overlooking the RN's anchorages in Boston
Harbor. Howe was to have pulled out before the onset of winter, but
had decided, for reasons that are really not clear, to remain, and
I've a sneaking suspicion that he had intended on keeping a garrison
in Boston despite the plan not too. We'll never know, though. At any
rate, Howe went to Halifax for a while to await his reinforcements and
an improvement in his logistics. Meanwhile o'er in Canada, things
began to look up for British fortunes. An attempt to the take the
city by storm on New Years Eve was easily squashed, and most
importantly Montgomery was killed and Arnold wounded. The Canadian
Army, as the United Colonies army was stiled, began to disintegrate.
Namely because the 9 month enlistment period was up. Like Washington
before Boston, the "American" armies had to disband and be rerecruited
at the same time. Luckily, for Washington et all, the British were
too weak everywhere to do much about it. But the situation in Canada
went to the pot real quickly. Washington had a fine head for
organization, and more importantly literally sat on his logistical
base. Canada was now under the ineffectual command of David Wooster
who was little animated, not overly clever, was in a secondary theater
with secondary priorities in a poor province (not a single head of
beef existed anywhere in Canada), and far from his logistical base. A
two man committee sent to Canada to check on things by Congress
convinced Wooster to step aside, and MG John Thomas arrived at the
beginning of May to take his place. Thomas decided, in a council of
war, to abandon the siege and retreat further up Canada, but then the
first ships carrying a regiment detached from Howe at Halifax began
arriving, and Carleton sortied with a couple of companies of his
remaining regulars, and drove in the American pickets. So ended the
"Battle" of Quebec. It did serve, however, to panick Thomas who then
ordered a wholesale withdrawal to Trois Riviers (such a maneuver
would receive a new name during the Korean War). Once arrived,
Thomas said this place sucks too, and fell back on Sorrel. There he
met 3,000 new reinforcements from New England under BG John Thompson.
These fine fellows brought Smallpox with them, and so some of the
regimental commanders began innoculating their regiments thus
rendering them hors-de-combat for the next month or so. Thomas
promptly put a stop to that little bit of non-sense, and then just as
promptly caught smallpox himself and died. Meanwhile the
really-big-British-reinforcement under Gentleman Johnny Burgoyne began
to arrive about Quebec and moved further upstream to the Sorrel (or
Richelieu). Also arriving was John Sullivan with 5,000 fresh
"Continentals" which were cheered by the locals upon their arrival.
Sullivan and Thompson decided to retake Trois Riviers in order to turn
it around, but it went for nought, and the local militia that had been
on "our side" turned coat, now that they were certain the U.C. were
leaving Canada, and turned Thompson over to the British. Sullivan did
not panic though, and took his sweet time in withdrawing making
certain that all his stores, heavy equipment, and sick were safely
away before retiring. That took about a month. Carleton did not
interfere, and let Sullivan go unmolested though the latter was
severly out numbered. Though the "American" army nominally was the
same strength as the British (about 8~9,000 men) smallpox had crippled
it, and in the week after TR it numbered less than 1,500 fit for duty.
This led to new round of condemnations about Carleton in London. The
reason for his inactivity has never been made clear, but I suspect it
was to keep his men well away from Sullivan's pocky troops. Anyways,
I digress.
Coming back somewhat on topic, back at the end of March when that
Committee of Congress (i.e. Maryland delegate Samuel Chase and fellow
Marylander, but not yet delegate, Charles Carrol of Carrolton-who was
Catholic and why he was a member of the committee) recommended
Wooster's replacement, they also recommended that a flotilla of
warships be constructed on Lake Champlain (which is not, as Sen. Leahy
attempted to us convince, one of the Great Lakes). That mission fell
to B. Arnold of sulking-in-Montreal-
and-generally-hating-Wooster's-guts fame. Ooh, good move on Chase's
part, because now Carleton could not move south to crush to the now
renamed Northern Army (and now under the command of one Horatio
"Not-at-the-bridge-but-Granny" Gates-whose command was also
recommended by Chase) until he built himself some boats with guns, and
so away at it through the summer he went. [Meanwhile Chase returned
to Congress, voted for Independence, and damn near got into a fist
fight with one John Adams on said floor of said Congress over some
on-the-record comments Chase made about the sorry-excuse-for-soldiers
that were New Englanders. Sullivan went home, well to Philadelphia,
also screaming his head off at being replaced by a junior, for which
he was awarded a major generalship and command of a division in the
Main Army at New York, where he was promptly captured at the Battle of
Long Island. What happened to Wooster you ask? He went home to
Connecticut, and was killed at the Battle of Compo Hill where he and
Arnold (and a few recruits and some militia) badly molested a British
raiding force under former Gov of NY, George Tryon, who had just
torched Danbury CT.]
Ok, where were we in our story? Oh yes. Well, Howe finally had
gotten underway and landed on Staten Island in July of '76 just in
time to be greated with news of the Declaration of Independence. This
does not seem to have dampened his spirits much, after all, according
to him (and every other British journalist I have ever read) most of
the colonists, especially in New York, were still loyal! So, as peace
commissioner (his big bro Admiral Lord Richard "Black Dick" Howe was
boss commissioner] settled down snug as a bug in Lizzy Loring's. . .
er, on Staten Island, and attempted to negotiate a settlement, and to
await more reinforcements (another division of Hessians was due any
day now). Well, the Hessians finally arrived in August, and Howe was
pretty miffed that he did not get much of a response to his
negotiatin' so he landed his troops on Long Island, routed the
American (note no more quotes) covering forces on the Guanus Heights,
captured, according to him, 1,000 men and John Sullivan, and settled
in for another round of negotiatin'. This time sending Sullivan back
to Congress which august body then sent a mismatched Delegation of
John "we New Englanders is superior" Adams and Ben "Where be the
ladies" Franklin who both essentially told Howe to bugger off with his
schemes of reconcilliation. Howe then decided it was time for another
crack-o-the-whip, and landed on Manhattan at Kip's Bay (a "battle"
left unmentioned in American military annals especially by those who
thought the militia were so great), occupied NYC (then southern tip of
Manhattan) and decided to go over Congress' head, and appeal directly
to the people. What of Carleton? He was still playing at Samuel
Pepys at Isle aux Nois.
After a month of no response, Howe landed his forces on the mainland
of New York and after two week at "oops, we landed at the wrong
place" Throg's Neck, relanded at Pell's point, and allowed, mainly
through inaction, Washington to slip away at White Plains. But n'er
feer the colonists were still mostly loyal! By now, only Fort
Washington had to be dealt with in order to secure New York City,
which it was in short order. Howe then sent a now throughly
disgruntled second in command, i.e. Henry
"But-if-you-only-followed-MY-plan" Clinton to occupy Rhode Island as
required by "The Plan." Clinton did so easily and quite literrally.
He occupied Rhode *Island*, but he was supposed to capture the
mainland capitol of Providence, but. . .well, after Howe hinted at his
displeasure, Clinton went AWOL and returned to "Blighty" muttering
nasty utterances about Howe all the way across the 'Lantic.
Carleton, though, had finally put his ship together, and had stole
down into Lake Champlain, beat the snot out of Arnold and his
land-lubbing army sailors at Valcour Bay, then withdrew back into
Canada because it was too late in the season to capture Ticonderoga
and secure Canada from invasion. That sent the folks in London, led
by Germain, into a frenzy of Carleton damnations, and Lord George, who
you will remember refused a direct order to attack a realling and
routed French army at the Battle of Minden and thus insuring its
escape, made no secret of his displeasure in a nasty [for that era]
letter or two to Carleton, who good King George who did not desire to
lose Carleton, or suffer the embarrassment of his resignation, forced
to retract and apologize with a big fat kiss. Oh Clinton in
Charleston? Why further embarass our British friends with a
discussion of *that* debacle. [Though it would be very on topic for
SMN].
At this point, Washington f**ed the British Plan over again. He did
the unthinkable. Withdrew into New Jersey. Howe dispatched
Cornwallis after him, but halted the latter at Brunswick. Afterall,
it was not in the plan, and so there was no reason to go further.
Washington used the respite to scadaddle across the Delaware, which
despite Clinton's belief to the contrary, was not fordable. At the
same time, a bit of good luck, for the American cause, occurred. An
enterprising cavalry officer by name of Harcourt captured MG Charles
Lee in a inn where he had been a-fornicating away from his command
[Lee was exchanged for MG Richard Prescott who was captured on Rhode
Island in 1777 while a-fornicatin' away from his command].
Several things now more or less occur at once. Howe sends his first
plan of operations for 1777 with a request for 15,000 additional
troops. Shortly thereafter, an aide arrived back from England with
news that he was unlikely to be reinforced for the upcoming campaign.
About that time Howe, at the advice of Cornwallis, and under pressure
from all those loyal citizens, occupied all of New Jersey. At the
same time, Burgoyne was arriving in London having been sent home by
his boss, Carleton, with their own plan for 1777. Howe's original
plan called for the forming of *three* armies. The two "old" armies
of the previous strategy. That is one up the Hudson and east into New
England, the other at Rhode Island, and the third to be formed in New
Jersey to "Faint" against Philadelphia to keep Washington busy. In
addition, troops were needed to garrison New York. Apparently, Howe
had some notion of using the Canadian Army, and his aid apparently
floated this idea as as a trial balloon when he was in London in
October, but that idea was quickly popped. Burgoyne also suggested
(though he did not really mean it) to Germain to bring the army to
New York by sea, but was told that was not possible. Ostensibly
because the required shipping did not exist. That was not all the bad
news that Cuyler brought back with him from London. The reason for no
new reinforcements were simple. Britain was in the grip of a war
scare with regards to France (and to a lesser extant Spain as Portugal
was making noises to Spain about reperations over some late war in
South America), and everything was being concentrated on the Navy.
Early in 1776, several incidents had occurred in the Caribbean with
British warships halting and boarding French merchies in search of
"contraband." Needless to say, that irked the French, and it was
decided to ready a squadron of ships (about six ships of the line and
four frigates) to make a "show of force'" cruise in the Caribbean.
Well, British intelligence, which generally was quite good where
matters French were concerned, soon got wind of the French
preparations, but initially overestimated it (eighteen S-O-L vice
actually five preparing at Brest e.g.), and the First Lord of the
Admiralty, John Montagu Fourth Earl of Sandwich, p***ed his pants, and
began to dog and stalk Freddie North whereever he went badgering him
for an increase in naval funds and an increase in ships. Finally,
after a month and a half, North caved, and an expansion of the RN was
begun. Of course, the French intelligence services, which was every
bit as good as that of the British, soon found out, and after a bit of
head scratching to figure out what John Bull was up to concluded that
they were possibly preparing for war, so began to put their Navy into
shape. Which of course was picked up by British intel and Sandwich of
course s**t his pants, panicked, and seeing he could not budge North
any more stomped all over his head on the way to good King George, and
while at the same time denying in Parliament there was anything to
worry about, and began a general press of seamen all across Britain
(which led to cracked sculls, one RN LT visiting Davy Jones (seems the
sailors of ye olde East India Company did not like the idea of serving
in his majesty's navy), and the threat of imprisonment of Naval
personal by the Lord Mayor of London. North, now fully "converted"
to Sandwich's cause pushed through the next year's estimates granting
a 1 million pound increase in the RN's budget (from 3 to 4 million),
but which left less than a three hundred thousand increase (from 3.1
to 3.4 million) for the Army and the war in America. Howe's request
for 15,000 men alone would have run nearly half a million pounds.
FWIW, nobody in London, neither Germain nor Sandwich ever bothered to
inform the Howe's of the worsening (as they perceived it) relations
with France.
While Howe was dismayed over the least prospects of getting a
reinforcement he was not overly so. The occupation of New Jersey (or
more correctly northern and central) went without a hitch save for the
fact that Washington had all the boats on the delaware removed to the
Pennsylvania shore. As there was no way across until he built some,
and it was deep into December, Howe called off ops for the season.
But made plans, sans reinforcements, of taking Philly in the spring.
After all, look at all those loyalists which his loyalist pals
(primarily Joseph "I-could-never-not-tell-a-lie") told him that
existed. New Jersey was full of loyalists too. Just look at all
those good folk taking the oath of allegiance (and were awarded with
large scale looting and rapine by British forces who, of course,
blamed it all on the Germans). At any rate, Howe's new plan called
for the early crossing and taking of Philadelphia and then moving
North to meet the Canadian (British) Army no doubt that will be coming
south down the (mainly loyal) Hudson. Another campaign (i.e.1778)
would be required for the reduction of New England and the end of the
rebellion. Five days after he wrote that dispatch to Germain,
Washington crossed the Delaware, inflicted nearly 1,500 casualties and
prisoners on the British and maneuvered Howe/Cornwallis out off all of
New Jersey save for the Brunswick-Perth Amboy region. It was at that
point that Howe realized that any victory first required the defeat of
the Continental Main Army, and where Howe finally abandoned the
original New England First strategy once and for all. So he decided
upon Philadelphia as a ruse to lure Washington out in the open to be
crushed by Howe.
Burgoyne arrived with Carleton's modifications of the original
strategy (the modifications being the army based in Canada).
Basically, it called for one or two objectives. One, to pass the
lakes and head for Albany and from there co-operate with Howe against
New England, and the other, to pass the lakes but turn into New
England by way of the Connecticut River. Certainly the latter would
keep the army independent under Carleton. However, this was the end
of '76 and early '77, and feeligs were quite against Carleton and
there was no way Germain (or George III) were about to allow him to
command in the field again, so that was vetoed. Burgoyne picking up
on the anti-Carleton sentiments quickly angled himself the job, to the
point of convincing the "jury" that it was his plan when in reality it
was Carleton's. It also provided Germain with the ideal way of
getting the army from under Carleton's foot and to Howe's. So the
orders were drawn up, for all intents and purposes written by
Burgoyne, for Burgoyne to take the army in Canada (less detachements
left for Canada's defense) to Albany and there "place himself under
General Howe's command." St Leger was to act as a diversion on the
Mohawk, but otherwise go to Albany and put himself under Burgoyne.
Contrary to popular belief, Burgoyne's entire purpose was to transfer
the army from Carleton to Howe, and not as some preconceived notion of
capturing the line of the Hudson and cutting New England off from the
rest of the colonies. Nor was it about the conquering of New York,
because it was believed that the majority of New Yorkers were loyal
and thus would flock to the crown!
The orders were sealed on February 28th, 1777. Three days later,
Germain authorized Howe's offensive against Philadelphia. He did not
bother to inform Howe of anything with regards to Burgoyne, and never
would do so, though in June Howe did receive a copy of Burgoyne's
orders, though he did not understand what they meant.
To sum up. Burgoyne was sent to Albany in order to become part of
Howe's command for an eventual invasion of New England. Little risk
was seen in this move as it was universally believed that New York was
dominated by those loyal to the Crown. Howe went to Philadelphia in
order to defeat Washington and return the the loyalists, who were over
whelming there, to power and to recruit new provincial regiments for
garrisoning, and then to return to the northward for a final invasion
of New England. My point stands. British misconceptions as to the
mood of the populus of its North American colonies mislead its
preceptions of the war, and subsequently to its strategy upon which
British success turned.

Now, what was this about Paine? Never really studied him.

--
Your most obedient and humble servant,

Michael P. Reed

[Olivers]

Michael P. Reed muttered....

(vast snippage of truly erudite commentary)

I can vaguely recall having once, four and a half decades ago, having spent
nearly a semester being less well briefed on the first few years of the
Revolution. Pour yourself a bumper of sack, carve off the tenderest slices
from the loin, disjoint a chicken or two and save your strength for a
rewarding knees up among the Loyalist damsels of rural Staten Island.
Other than a paucity of information concerning the inability of British
troops to "live off the land" to the extent envisioned by their masters in
Lun'non, and the necessity of pouring in both supllies and specie, it was a
hell of an effort on your part, at least a solid "A" under the harsh
grading standards that used to apply for such courses, before the modern
era's "dumbing down" and "all pass" doctrines were implelented.

TMO

[The Revolution Will Not Be Televised]

On 12 Oct 2003 11:34:00 -0700, (Michael P. Reed)
wrote:


>> Strange how after they evacuated Boston in March 1776 (less than a
>> year after Lexington & Concord) they never came back,
>>and how Howe and
>> Burgoyne's operations thereafter concentrated on New York, then
>> Philadelphia. For one who likes to cast aspersions on the knowledge
>> of others, you don't seem too clued-up yourself.
>
>Another poor ignorant soul in the need for elucidation I see. <g>
>Apologies in advance for what is going to be a rather long post.
>
> The origins of British strategy date back to the summer of 1775
>(prior to that they did not have one),

On the contrary, I suggest you actually aquaint yourself with Gage's
correspondance with the Northern Department in 1773-75, and the
increase in troop movements to Boston by the War Office which
resulted..

> when Bill Legge, a.k.a. 2nd
>Earl of Dartmouth and Secretary of American Affairs in the Colonial
>Office had some discussions with some folks knowledgable (or more
>correctly with folks who thought themselves knowledgeable) of affairs
>in America. After which, he came up with his grand plan of campaign.
>Writing to Thomas Gage about it in August, he suggested that two
>armies ought to be assembled. One in Boston, which was to be
>reinforced, and the other, and Main, to occupy New York City, which
>was to be a piece of cake since it was loyal.

And this plan was carried out to the point of Howe's force taking New
York while Boston was evacuated.... shurely shome mishtake if the plan
was to occupy Boston? The British made no attempt to return to Boston
after the spring of 1786. So much for it being a central aim of their
strategy.


>screams for actions for protection. British officialdom missed the
>boat twice. The first clue that the rebellion was not centered in New
>England was the invasion of Canada. It being obvious that the army
>which did so was not composed of New Englanders (other than a few from
>New Hampshire).

And more from Connecticut and New York. Guess where the first of
those states is. Yes, that's right, New England.

> As mentioned, Howe pulled out (precipitacely) in March of '76 after
>Henry Knox had drug some former British heavy artillery from
>Ticonderoga to the heights overlooking the RN's anchorages in Boston
>Harbor. Howe was to have pulled out before the onset of winter, but
>had decided, for reasons that are really not clear, to remain, and
>I've a sneaking suspicion that he had intended on keeping a garrison
>in Boston despite the plan not too. We'll never know, though.

But we do know what Howe was recommending to Germain, and we know what
he actually did, and neither of these involved any plan to continue to
occupy Boston. That you prefer to give scope to unfounded speculation
on this point rather than adhere to the evidence of the historical
record is instructive.

[snip long, patronising and turgid exposition]

I would not subject myself to this to begin with if I didn't have some
clue about using responsible primary and secondary sources to form my
opinion. I've no intention of persisting if you want to indulge
yourself by lecturing an imaginary class of five-year olds. You might
also want to diversify your reading of British strategy from sources
which make an effort to understand the context and internal logic
involved. Macksey wouldn't be a bad start, although he's not perfect.


>Now, what was this about Paine? Never really studied him.

Shame; you seem to have a good handle on prejudicial
characterisations of British strategy and policy which might be based
on his particular propaganda.

Gavin Bailey

--

Another user rings. "I need more space" he says.
"Well, why not move to Texas?", I ask. - The ******* Operator From Hell

[Brian Sharrock]

"Michael P. Reed" > wrote in message
om...
> "Brian Sharrock" > wrote in message
>...

Mike, a slight background ... although I enjoy the interchange
in this thread current circumstances surrounding my family
involving probate, hospitals, care faciliites etc. mean that I
can only read the newsgroup at five-or-six day intervals ...
after such a passage of time, others have commented on your
positions and the thread has moved on. Please forgive and
and permit me to restrict my -
<interrupt -high priority>
We interrupt the typing of this message to answer an incomming
call on the line the family uses to alert me to news of my father
in hospital 300 mile away - smn context - he was RN HO in WWII -
.....a bloody robot-marketing-droid-female 'Hi I'm Kim! Press #1
to find out about your holiday in Sunny Florida ..... see you in
Florida!
press #1!' sheesh!
</interrupt -high priority>
interjection to aspects
others have skipped.
snip

>
> > Of course they then got to write the history and control the
> > curriculum in all the schools of their colonies and subsequent
> > possessions ....
>
> A well worn myth. At best its true only for totalitarian regimes.
> You have obviously not read much on the American Revolution, its
> causes,

your _obviously_ is somewhat overstated, I've read IMHO
reasonably well and actually 'lived through' the 'Bicentennial
celebrations' in 1976 attending several re-enactments in the Carolinas,
visited many of the exhibitions staged during that year, visited the
Smithsonian - all running 'specials' in that year ... and distinctly
remember a long conversation on the Mall (DC) with a full-feathered
'Red Indian' hereinafter referred to as a Native American (NA);
a'standin' outside his dwelling place and bemusedly watching the
Ukranian-American Folk-Dancers (or was it the Hungarian-American
oompah band? - it's so hard to discern with the passage of years!)
Anyway! I addressed the son of the forest;- 'Hail chieftain of the five-
nations! What are you doing so far from the banks of the
Sussequahana (sp)?
'F****d if I know, palefaced Englishman!' sayeth he, 'We got really screwed
by this here lot' he pointed his fighting axe towards the Lincoln Memorial
and slowly swung his arm in a gesture encompassing the White House, the
Washington monument and the palace of congress'critters atop the Hill.
Amen to that, I responded.
We chatted away about places we both knew,
My next destination being upstate New York and he regaled me with
his tales of (RAF) Burtonwood where he'd served during WWII - second half,
after the interval.
'Is the 'Cat and Fiddle' still there? he asked .... I'm sure
you can picure the scene ... if memory serves me right, we couldn't
share a pipe of peace 'cos the Park Police had decalred the Mall a
no-smoking
zone ... 'for your pleasure and safety!' :)

>
> > and eventually produce screen plays such as "The Patriot".

>
> Or Horatio Hornblower? The Sharpe series? Puh-lease, Mr Sharrock,

OK, I take your point but let's examine the two subjects you raised;-
'Horatio Hornblower' series is somewhat heroic rather than historic
.... but it's reasonably based on the record of the era. Many years ago
1978-ish,
I read a book of CS Forrester entitled something like 'How I came to write
the Hornblower series'. I'd borrowed the book from the library so it's not
on my shelves norin the loft.
IIRC, Forrester mentions the glaring 'gap' in the life story
of his hero; he never engages the rebelling colonists in North
America - apparently his publishers said to have included any
such novel in the canon would have killed his sales in USA ...
The Sharpe series ... I enjoy them all and avidly buy them as
they hit the bookshops. The average Sharpe novel has
the hero with a full purse which he loses, then engages the enemy
in a fire-fight which he loses, but wins a woman then engages the
enemy in a bigger fire-fight which he wins, regains a purse but
loses the woman. Repeat with bigger fire-fights in a credible
sequence.
Bernard Cornwell never invents a 'Patriot -style'
incident.
All of the incidents that Sharpe participates in are stated
to have occurred -with the proviso that Sharpe, Harper, et al
are non-historic.
'Sharpe's Havoc' fr'instance is a novel whose narrative finishes
on page 374 -there then follows five and a half
pages of 'Historical Notes' ... 'Sharpe is once again guilty of stealing
another man's thunder ... the tale of ... is true ... The British lost
seventy-seven men ... in the fight at ... Major Dulong of the 31st Leger
....
,,, is true ... the fictional village of .... [names of fire-fights
ommitted
in case folks haven't read the novel yet]
So Sharpe and Harper will march again"

I imagine that a book about 'The Patriot' would finish on Page 6,
then have three-hundred -and seventy pages of Historic Corrections"

Hornblower and Sharpe (novels) are poles apart from the idiocy
and pure propagandising of 'The Patriot'.

Regards
--

Brian Sharrock

[Olivers]

Brian Sharrock muttered....


> I imagine that a book about 'The Patriot' would finish on Page 6,
> then have three-hundred -and seventy pages of Historic Corrections"

Two of the historical figures from whom Mel Gibson's part was drawn were
grandsires (multi-great) of mine. One was a man apparently acutely harsh
to the puir Native Americans, while the other weighed in at a solid 300
pounds, disenabling him in an attempt to walk to a major engagement.
Happily, a substantial mule was available. Nothing of either (aside from
commitment and courage/fool-hardy rashness) is apparent in the screenplay
or the Gibsonian interpretation thereof.
>
> Hornblower and Sharpe (novels) are poles apart from the idiocy
> and pure propagandising of 'The Patriot'.
>
Let me commend to your reading the novels of Kenneth Roberts covering the
American expereience 1755-1800 or so. While hardly bodice rippers,
actually demure by modern lubricious standards, they are well done, if not
a little slanted toward the "American" perspective. _Rabble in Arms_,
first read when I was eight or so, struggling with a real adult novel,
remains quite readable to day, and his descriptions of the travails of
Rogers and his Rangers provide a new and unusual view of the French &
Indian Conflict.

On the Boston issue....Could one interpret Britsh policy toward continued
or re occupation as based upon the concept that Boston unoccupied was no
threat, easily - and cheaply in men and money - guarded/blockaded from the
sea, and likely should other strategies succeed to fall gently into British
hands, the cold harsh mercantilism of the upper classes swallowing up all
those radical revolutionaries?

TMO

[Tarver Engineering]

"The Revolution Will Not Be Televised" > wrote in
message ...
> On 12 Oct 2003 11:34:00 -0700, (Michael P. Reed)
> wrote:
>
>
> >> Strange how after they evacuated Boston in March 1776 (less than a
> >> year after Lexington & Concord) they never came back,
> >>and how Howe and
> >> Burgoyne's operations thereafter concentrated on New York, then
> >> Philadelphia. For one who likes to cast aspersions on the knowledge
> >> of others, you don't seem too clued-up yourself.
> >
> >Another poor ignorant soul in the need for elucidation I see. <g>
> >Apologies in advance for what is going to be a rather long post.
> >
> > The origins of British strategy date back to the summer of 1775
> >(prior to that they did not have one),
>
> On the contrary, I suggest you actually aquaint yourself with Gage's
> correspondance with the Northern Department in 1773-75, and the
> increase in troop movements to Boston by the War Office which
> resulted..

Which led directly to the fresh water system in Boston collapsing and much
dysentary.

> > when Bill Legge, a.k.a. 2nd
> >Earl of Dartmouth and Secretary of American Affairs in the Colonial
> >Office had some discussions with some folks knowledgable (or more
> >correctly with folks who thought themselves knowledgeable) of affairs
> >in America. After which, he came up with his grand plan of campaign.
> >Writing to Thomas Gage about it in August, he suggested that two
> >armies ought to be assembled. One in Boston, which was to be
> >reinforced, and the other, and Main, to occupy New York City, which
> >was to be a piece of cake since it was loyal.
>
> And this plan was carried out to the point of Howe's force taking New
> York while Boston was evacuated.... shurely shome mishtake if the plan
> was to occupy Boston? The British made no attempt to return to Boston
> after the spring of 1786. So much for it being a central aim of their
> strategy.

The Brits had had enough of Boston's bloody fluxes.

> >screams for actions for protection. British officialdom missed the
> >boat twice. The first clue that the rebellion was not centered in New
> >England was the invasion of Canada. It being obvious that the army
> >which did so was not composed of New Englanders (other than a few from
> >New Hampshire).
>
> And more from Connecticut and New York. Guess where the first of
> those states is. Yes, that's right, New England.

Connecticut was also very heavily populated compared to the rest of the
Colonies and much more substancial politically than we perceive today.

[Stephen Harding]

The Revolution Will Not Be Televised wrote:

> On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 05:27:32 -0400, Stephen Harding
> >
> >It wasn't "offensive myths".
>
> I'll be the judge of that, as my nationality was on the receiving end
> of the mythology concerned. I'll let an American judge how offensive
> or otherwise a Vietnamese movie portraying Americans as effette,
> murderous war criminals might be. If you find the demonisation of
> American which passes for popular analysis in Arab and European
> culture to be offensive, I can tell you right now I wouldn't be
> appearing to patronisingly lecture you about why you shouldn't feel
> offended about the inaccuracies and lies this involves, in fact I
> would be agreeing with you.

I don't deem anti-Americanism as offensive. I doubt many Americans do.
Disappointing to be certain coming from some sectors, but hardly offensive.

Wonder if anyone was offended by "Dances with Wolves" where every American
except Kev Kostner was a pretty bad fellow doing pretty bad things to
perfectly harmless Indians. Does one go off in a fit of rage because
the Iranians call us "The Great Satan" or NKs "Imperialist Dogs", etc.,etc?

Anyone can be offended if they choose to. In fact, it's now quite popular
to be offended these days. Part of the culture of victimology in general.

There are times to be offended and times to simply not like something and
brush it off as inaccuracies or propaganda or whatever. Getting all bent
out of shape on the content of a Hollywood movie seems a waste of emotion
to me.

But as you say, it's your emotion, so expend it as you see fit.

> As I stated, it's a pile of ****, relying on the exploitation of
> prejudice to entertain. Strangely enough, being on the sharp end of
> that prejudice isn't particularly entertaining for some people.

Oh please! If the Patriot represents the "sharp end" of prejudice against
UK, then consider yourself fortunate you didn't live in the 18/19th centuries
when it more closely matched current anti-American sentiments.

> >You're not going to give it any points whatsoever are you.
>
> Not after "Braveheart", but then I actually have to live in the
> country that Randall Wallace and Mel Gibson liked to inflame
> nationalist prejudice in. I am aware of the consequences of it. They
> can fly back to Hollywood.

Robin Hood must be a very conflicted movie watching experience for you.
Who to side with? Robin Hood easily makes fools of the English noble
establishment. I suppose having Good King Richard come home to make
things right would be a nice touch, but then, wouldn't that be promotion
of a myth?

Another movie gets the three thumbs down score!

> >People go to the movies to be entertained, not educated.
>
> It's not a question of education. There's no reason a film which
> avoids such gratuitous stereotypes and ahistorical distortions has to
> be worthy, dull and boring.

Current Hollywood thinking seems to dictate otherwise. And given Hollywood
is driven by the box office, a lot of movie goers seem to have no real
problem with it.

I see the Patriot as by and large, an action hero type of movie, set in
Revolutionary War times, with a composite character based on some historical
fact, and events [selectively] also out of history. Nothing more. No UK
bashing (surveys have shown consistently over quite a long period of time
that Americans like the British in fact more than the British like Americans).

Don't know Mel Gibson's politics, but I think it would be a rare American
who has absolutely no time or interest or generally good feelings toward
the British (Irish Americans probably excepted for obvious reasons).

> > If you want
> >to brush up on the intricacies of Revolutionary War history, even Ken
> >Burns isn't going to do it fully right. You need to read a lot of books.
>
> It's not a question of the minutae, it's a question about the most
> basic and fundamental approach taken. Why did Mel Gibson make a
> propaganda movie about a conflict when ended two centuries ago?

As stated above. It wasn't an anti-British "propaganda" movie. It was
an action-hero genre movie set in revolutionary times, requiring no more
believability than "The Terminator" or other films of the genre.

> >The "Patriot" was simply a *movie*. It wasn't the gumint preparing for
> >war against the UK by initiating a brainwashing campaign on its citizens,
> >who will now riot if war is not declared.
>
> It was a movie which was designed to reinforce existing popular
> historical mythology about the very origin and definition of the
> American state, and what defines you as an American. I'm sick and
> tired of that depending upon the demonisation of the other nationality
> involved.

Then the action hero genre of film simply isn't for you.


SMH

[Stephen Harding]

William Black wrote:

> "Stephen Harding" > wrote in message
>
> > Just like both sides of the
> > English civil war never doubted they were British.
>
> I would doubt that any of them, with the possible exception of the king,
> considered themselves anything but English, Scottish or Irish.
>
> The idea of 'Britain' as a nation wasn't actually around to any extent then.

Yes of course you are correct.

I'm displaying my lack of conciseness in reference to a blur of references
available to people who live in "The British Isles" and Britain in particular.

So many terms to choose from, yet so many mistakes to be made in historical
and geographic context.


SMH

[Vince Brannigan]

Stephen Harding wrote:
> William Black wrote:
>
>
>>"Stephen Harding" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>> Just like both sides of the
>>>English civil war never doubted they were British.
>>
>>I would doubt that any of them, with the possible exception of the king,
>>considered themselves anything but English, Scottish or Irish.
>>
>>The idea of 'Britain' as a nation wasn't actually around to any extent then.
>
>
> Yes of course you are correct.
>
> I'm displaying my lack of conciseness in reference to a blur of references
> available to people who live in "The British Isles" and Britain in particular.
>
> So many terms to choose from, yet so many mistakes to be made in historical
> and geographic context.
>


This is actually a matter of quite some debate among scholars.

"Whereas originally the name Cymry seems to have shared the same
British'/`Welsh' ambiguity of Britannia, Britones and so forth, by the
late eleventh century it is likely that Cymry was used solely to denote
the Welsh' and `Wales', being distinguished more clearly from the qually
long-established terms Brython and Prydain, which denoted `Britons' and
"Britain' respectively.(108) One could perhaps go further and argue that
the change in Latin terminology both reflected and helped to reinforce
an increasing assumption on the part of Welsh literati of a need to
distinguish more sharply between the twin elements in national identity,
namely, between a British dimension which defined the Welsh in relation
to the past and the future and, on the other hand, a Welsh dimension
which linked them to a specific territorial space in the present.(109)

British or Welsh? National Identity in Twelfth-Century Wales(*).

Author/s: Huw Pryce
Issue: Sept, 2001

http://www.findarticles.com/cf_0/m0293/468_116/79334666/p11/article.jhtml?term=medieval

Vince

[The Revolution Will Not Be Televised]

On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 07:45:30 -0400, Stephen Harding
> wrote:

>I don't deem anti-Americanism as offensive. I doubt many Americans do.
>Disappointing to be certain coming from some sectors, but hardly offensive.

That's fine: you are free to draw the line wherever you want. If you
feel no emotional response to hostile and antagonistic prejudices
being expressed towards your nationality, that's fine. For you.

Meanwhile it's not up to you to define whether or not I should find
the same being expressed towards my nationality or culture offensive.
When it comes to it, I would personally listen to an American when it
came to defining or discerning what was offensive to an American - I
wouldn't just airily assert that it wasn't a problem in my own opinion
as if that closed the issue.

>Anyone can be offended if they choose to. In fact, it's now quite popular
>to be offended these days. Part of the culture of victimology in general.

I note your snippage of another such example of "victimology".

>There are times to be offended and times to simply not like something and
>brush it off as inaccuracies or propaganda or whatever.

When those inaccuracies are systematic, repeated and prevalent I feel
that that the basis for those inaccuracies and their acceptability
should be questioned.

>Getting all bent
>out of shape on the content of a Hollywood movie seems a waste of emotion
>to me.
>
>But as you say, it's your emotion, so expend it as you see fit.

Indeed I shall.

>> As I stated, it's a pile of ****, relying on the exploitation of
>> prejudice to entertain. Strangely enough, being on the sharp end of
>> that prejudice isn't particularly entertaining for some people.
>
>Oh please! If the Patriot represents the "sharp end" of prejudice against
>UK, then consider yourself fortunate you didn't live in the 18/19th centuries
>when it more closely matched current anti-American sentiments.

Actually, the closest parallel would be in Northern Ireland, where
entrenched prejudice drives similar Manichean historical
interpretations centering one matters of national identity, colonial
occupation and suchforth. That's an extreme, but it indicates the
dangers that can follow the unthinking perpetration of such ancieint
prejudices in modern culture.

Meanwhile, we're all fortunate we don't live in the 18th/19th
centuries for a veriety of practical reasons, not least that childhood
mortality would see most of the contributors to this group dead or
burned at the stake for heresy and so on ad infinitum. Pulling the
frame of reference back to any historical period might well discount
many contemporary things by comparison, but that doesn't do much to
explain why a plot treatment that would be acceptable or laudable two
centuries ago is regarded as acceptable or laudable in a movie _now_.

>> >You're not going to give it any points whatsoever are you.
>>
>> Not after "Braveheart", but then I actually have to live in the
>> country that Randall Wallace and Mel Gibson liked to inflame
>> nationalist prejudice in. I am aware of the consequences of it. They
>> can fly back to Hollywood.
>
>Robin Hood must be a very conflicted movie watching experience for you.
>Who to side with?

Easy answer: nobody. Maybe you should move away from this automatic
emotional need to identify with one agency in an adversarial conflict.

>Robin Hood easily makes fools of the English noble
>establishment.

Depends if the version of the myth being peddled has Robin as ye true
heir of Loxley or whatever, and thus places him as a righteous aristo.
Even if you want to pursue the Anglophobic angle, there isn't much
mileage in that from the Walter Scott-inspired approach where Robin is
an expressly English hero. Still, there might be something in there
in regard to the misunderstood popular antagonisim towards the
altruistic policies of an Anglo-Norman Francophone aristocratic elite.

> I suppose having Good King Richard come home to make
>things right would be a nice touch, but then, wouldn't that be promotion
>of a myth?

Yep. Actually, on this theme there have been some more diverse
perspectives beyond the traditional Errol Flynn versus darstardly
Basil Rathbone (oh, those authentic English baddies!) - see "Robin and
Marian" with Sean Connery and Robert Shaw for an example.

The key issue for any of these hinges upon the representational
importance. The further back, generally the more these things become
straightforward myth with less political significance. For example,
the history I learned at school didn't even mention Richard I. The
Robin Hood myths were literature, not a historical narrative about the
formation of national identity (although that's where "Braveheart"
comes in with all the same problems as "The Patriot"). The myths of
the American revolution, however, are fundamental to American
self-image and the definition of American culture and society in a
manner that nobody can claim for Robin Hood in the UK.

>> >People go to the movies to be entertained, not educated.
>>
>> It's not a question of education. There's no reason a film which
>> avoids such gratuitous stereotypes and ahistorical distortions has to
>> be worthy, dull and boring.
>
>Current Hollywood thinking seems to dictate otherwise.

Current Hollywood thinking is the problem.

>And given Hollywood
>is driven by the box office, a lot of movie goers seem to have no real
>problem with it.

Hollywood is constrained by political censorship (e.g. the moral code
of the studio era, the tapdancing around or straightforward evasion of
inter-racial relationships in the current context) almost as much as
it is driven by the profit motive. Mel Gibson movies have enjoyed
plenty of success without Anglophobic posturing and antagonistic
historical distortion (actually, I rate "Force Z" as pretty good,
personally).

>I see the Patriot as by and large, an action hero type of movie, set in
>Revolutionary War times, with a composite character based on some historical
>fact, and events [selectively] also out of history. Nothing more. No UK
>bashing (surveys have shown consistently over quite a long period of time
>that Americans like the British in fact more than the British like Americans).

You may not see the UK-bashing, indeed the studio scriptwriters and
producer's probably don't see it as an issue because they don't
discern it. But your lack of sensitiveity towards it doesn't mean
that it doesn't exist. The same dynamics apply towards the treatment
of Indians and blacks that I have previously referred to: these have
been modified over time, for whatever reason, but they weren't
initially perpetrated as a specific, deliberate agenda. The prejudice
involved is one of ignorance and habitual stereotyping, a passive
preconditioning and generally not one of active agency. I'll bet
nobody even raised the question of which side Marion (or whatever
Gibson's character was actually called in the movie) was on in the
production discussions. I'd be prepared to bet money that the de
facto assumption that he was never going to be a loyalist guerilla
never even needed to be articulated. It would all have been
unquestioned.

>Don't know Mel Gibson's politics, but I think it would be a rare American
>who has absolutely no time or interest or generally good feelings toward
>the British (Irish Americans probably excepted for obvious reasons).

I'm not concerned with what he does away from the screen,
particularly, merely that he and Randall Wallace in two of their most
recent and most successful productions, have distorted history in
accordance with Anglophobic prejudice.

>> > If you want
>> >to brush up on the intricacies of Revolutionary War history, even Ken
>> >Burns isn't going to do it fully right. You need to read a lot of books.
>>
>> It's not a question of the minutae, it's a question about the most
>> basic and fundamental approach taken. Why did Mel Gibson make a
>> propaganda movie about a conflict when ended two centuries ago?
>
>As stated above. It wasn't an anti-British "propaganda" movie.

It most certainly was. It wasn't about a loyalist patriot, was it?
It was about a guerilla hero in a stuggle of national liberation
against British tyranny. All of that requires some very specific
positioning or taking of sides.

It was
>an action-hero genre movie set in revolutionary times, requiring no more
>believability than "The Terminator" or other films of the genre.

It assumed a specific historical background, and exploited and
refflected popular historical understanding of that historical
background. "The Terminator" was a science-ficiton movie, with no
pretence at a real-life historical locus. Thus I'm not berating
sci-fi movies for this tendency, but am in fact criticising a movie
which does claim a historical basis.

>> >The "Patriot" was simply a *movie*. It wasn't the gumint preparing for
>> >war against the UK by initiating a brainwashing campaign on its citizens,
>> >who will now riot if war is not declared.
>>
>> It was a movie which was designed to reinforce existing popular
>> historical mythology about the very origin and definition of the
>> American state, and what defines you as an American. I'm sick and
>> tired of that depending upon the demonisation of the other nationality
>> involved.
>
>Then the action hero genre of film simply isn't for you.

Not all action hero films exploit the same prejudices, and thus I'm
not complaining about them at all as an entire class, am I? I note
your lack of response to my points in my previous post about the
extent to which I will tolerate stereotyping in such a movie, and
examples where I doubt anybody can claim such stereotyping is
distorted beyond any rational tolerance. Now, if you want to inhabit
the binary extremes to the exclusion of all else, I can apply the
straw man you've just thrown at me right back at you:

I assume your lack of public response means that you find "The Eternal
Jew" a good example of an entertaining movie with no problems of
distortion or prejudice to worry about?

Gavin Bailey

--

"Will Boogie Down For Food".- Sign held by Disco Stu outside the unemployment office.

[Vince Brannigan]

The Revolution Will Not Be Televised wrote:
> The myths of the American revolution, however, are fundamental to American
> self-image and the definition of American culture and society in a
> manner that nobody can claim for Robin Hood in the UK.


I'm not so sure. (although, I agree about Robin Hood). I'm just back
from Glasgow. I stood in a crowded pub in Shawlands for the Scotland
Lithuania match and then the England Turkey match. Yes I know they are
drunken footy fans, but the invocation of anti-english mythology was
fascinating. When the Scots started suggesting that the Turks break
English necks I inquired as to the basis of the hostility. They were
mildly surprised that a Yank wouldn't "hate the buggers as much as we
do". When I mildly suggested compound fractures of the English legs
would be sufficient and that permanent paralysis was unnecessary, it was
simlply accepted that I didn't understand just how deep Scotland's
grievances ran. The mythology of Culloden was invoked, as well as more
recent events dealing tieh sporitng contests that I was not aware of.
IIRC Further discussion followed after bioremediation of flammable
ethanol, but I'm not sure we advanced the ball any further.

Vince

[Keith Willshaw]

"Vince Brannigan" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> The Revolution Will Not Be Televised wrote:
> > The myths of the American revolution, however, are fundamental to
American
> > self-image and the definition of American culture and society in a
> > manner that nobody can claim for Robin Hood in the UK.
>
>
> I'm not so sure. (although, I agree about Robin Hood). I'm just back
> from Glasgow. I stood in a crowded pub in Shawlands for the Scotland
> Lithuania match and then the England Turkey match. Yes I know they are
> drunken footy fans, but the invocation of anti-english mythology was
> fascinating. When the Scots started suggesting that the Turks break
> English necks I inquired as to the basis of the hostility. They were
> mildly surprised that a Yank wouldn't "hate the buggers as much as we
> do". When I mildly suggested compound fractures of the English legs
> would be sufficient and that permanent paralysis was unnecessary, it was
> simlply accepted that I didn't understand just how deep Scotland's
> grievances ran. The mythology of Culloden was invoked, as well as more
> recent events dealing tieh sporitng contests that I was not aware of.
> IIRC Further discussion followed after bioremediation of flammable
> ethanol, but I'm not sure we advanced the ball any further.
>
> Vince
>

The irony is the majority of the soldiers in the government army
at Culloden were lowland scots who hated the highlanders far
more than the English. It was they who committed most of the
atrocities after the battle.

Keith

[The Revolution Will Not Be Televised]

On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 14:08:58 GMT, Vince Brannigan
> wrote:

>The Revolution Will Not Be Televised wrote:
>> The myths of the American revolution, however, are fundamental to American
>> self-image and the definition of American culture and society in a
>> manner that nobody can claim for Robin Hood in the UK.
>
>I'm not so sure. (although, I agree about Robin Hood). I'm just back
>from Glasgow. I stood in a crowded pub in Shawlands for the Scotland
>Lithuania match

And for once we defeated the mighty Lithuanians.... [cough, choke]

All we have to do now is beat the Faroes again*. I'm scaling back my
delirium and I'm not even going to bother with fantasies about beating
the Dutch.

[* It has happened. Honest.]

>and then the England Turkey match. Yes I know they are
>drunken footy fans, but the invocation of anti-english mythology was
>fascinating. When the Scots started suggesting that the Turks break
>English necks I inquired as to the basis of the hostility. They were
>mildly surprised that a Yank wouldn't "hate the buggers as much as we
>do". When I mildly suggested compound fractures of the English legs
>would be sufficient and that permanent paralysis was unnecessary, it was
>simlply accepted that I didn't understand just how deep Scotland's
>grievances ran. The mythology of Culloden was invoked, as well as more
>recent events dealing tieh sporitng contests that I was not aware of.
>IIRC Further discussion followed after bioremediation of flammable
>ethanol, but I'm not sure we advanced the ball any further.

I'm entirely familiar with this, and it's one reason I find
"Braveheart" so objectionable (as I stated in the post you're
following up here). There's enough bigotry abroad in Scotland
already. Making propaganda movies that feed and inflame these
prejudices is _not_ a good idea. Robin Hood doesn't inhabit the same
nationalist narrative position in England as Wallace/Bruce do in
Scotland.

Having said that, I'd be the first to celebrate if the bigotry could
be directed in a more discriminating and proportionate fashion to
achieve a more popularly-acceptable result.

Like beheading David Beckham.

Gavin Bailey

--

"Will Boogie Down For Food".- Sign held by Disco Stu outside the unemployment office.

[Stephen Harding]

The Revolution Will Not Be Televised wrote:

> >Anyone can be offended if they choose to. In fact, it's now quite popular
> >to be offended these days. Part of the culture of victimology in general.
>
> I note your snippage of another such example of "victimology".

Again, you're reading too much into snippage. A long, way off topic diversion
in a long, off topic thread just means snippage is warranted.

If this means I've been anti-British, or ignoring some points you feel you've
scored, so be it.

I see clearly where you're coming from, simply don't agree with your
interpretation. You disagree with mine.

The fact that we haven't re-enacted the battle of Lexington is about as
good as can come of it. There's simply nothing more to be said, so I'll
just snip this thread altogether now.

> I assume your lack of public response means that you find "The Eternal
> Jew" a good example of an entertaining movie with no problems of
> distortion or prejudice to worry about?

I'm not familiar with the movie, that's why I made no response concerning
it.

I *presume* this was some sort of anti-Jewish propaganda movie put out by
the Nazis pre-WWII?

If so, I don't think I could even be offended by that. It's so pure and
simple propaganda as to be humorous. I'm not Jewish, so perhaps once
again I'm simply displaying my insensitive nature. German, Japanese (WWII)
and even some clips of Communist Korean and Vietnam war movies I find
humorous rather than offensive.

I had a tough time growing up as a kid due to a physical handicap. I
was pretty ruthlessly made fun of, and that was aggravated by my father
being in the Air Force, so we moved every 2-3 years forcing me to reestablish
myself all over again in a "hostile" environment.

Perhaps as a result, the skin is just too thick. But I personally regard
the quality of being slow to take offense, or not being quick to see personal
slight as a very positive one.

Color me insensitive in that regard.


SMH

[The Revolution Will Not Be Televised]

On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 15:33:35 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
> wrote:

>The irony is the majority of the soldiers in the government army
>at Culloden were lowland scots who hated the highlanders far
>more than the English. It was they who committed most of the
>atrocities after the battle.

Well, yes, the point is that Culloden needs to be seen as an episode
in Scottish history, and as an incident in an on-going Scottish civil
war as much or more than it was an example of the mythical English
oppression of Scotland in action. Not that we'll see a Hollywood
movie made about that, nor one about the heroic and victorious
struggle of the burgesses of Aberdeenshire to drive the westie rabble
and their tyrannical overlords from the sacred soil of the Garioch at
Harlaw in 1411: no English arch-devils to be demonised there, so it
just becomes invisible. Unlike the Culloden myth.

Shooting the ******** off the thieving teuchters was an entirely
legitimate patriotic duty in those days. Still should be, north of
the Mearns and Mounth.

Gavin Bailey

--

"Will Boogie Down For Food".- Sign held by Disco Stu outside the unemployment office.

[Stephen Harding]

Vince Brannigan wrote:

> Stephen Harding wrote:
> > William Black wrote:
> >
> >>"Stephen Harding" > wrote in message
> >>
> >>> Just like both sides of the
> >>>English civil war never doubted they were British.
> >>
> >>I would doubt that any of them, with the possible exception of the king,
> >>considered themselves anything but English, Scottish or Irish.
> >>
> >>The idea of 'Britain' as a nation wasn't actually around to any extent then.
> >
> > Yes of course you are correct.
> >
> > I'm displaying my lack of conciseness in reference to a blur of references
> > available to people who live in "The British Isles" and Britain in particular.
> >
> > So many terms to choose from, yet so many mistakes to be made in historical
> > and geographic context.
>
> This is actually a matter of quite some debate among scholars.
>
> "Whereas originally the name Cymry seems to have shared the same
> British'/`Welsh' ambiguity of Britannia, Britones and so forth, by the
> late eleventh century it is likely that Cymry was used solely to denote
> the Welsh' and `Wales', being distinguished more clearly from the qually
> long-established terms Brython and Prydain, which denoted `Britons' and
> "Britain' respectively.(108) One could perhaps go further and argue that
> the change in Latin terminology both reflected and helped to reinforce
> an increasing assumption on the part of Welsh literati of a need to
> distinguish more sharply between the twin elements in national identity,
> namely, between a British dimension which defined the Welsh in relation
> to the past and the future and, on the other hand, a Welsh dimension
> which linked them to a specific territorial space in the present.(109)
>
> British or Welsh? National Identity in Twelfth-Century Wales(*).

You're not helping me here Vince!


SMH

[The Revolution Will Not Be Televised]

On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 10:56:12 -0400, Stephen Harding
> wrote:

>Again, you're reading too much into snippage. A long, way off topic diversion
>in a long, off topic thread just means snippage is warranted.

Hey, at least I mentioned Force Z which had a submarine. And Japanese
badguys [who weren't played by English actors, suprisingly enough].

>If this means I've been anti-British, or ignoring some points you feel you've
>scored, so be it.

Actually, I wouldn't characterise your position as anti-British at
all. You're entitled to your opinion, and while I disagree with it, I
don't equate your reluctance to identify the unacceptability of
prejudiced elements in movies with a specific desire to push the
agenda involved in those prejudices.

I was interested to observe how far, if at all, you had considered the
perspective I was putting forth.

>I see clearly where you're coming from, simply don't agree with your
>interpretation. You disagree with mine.
>
>The fact that we haven't re-enacted the battle of Lexington is about as
>good as can come of it. There's simply nothing more to be said, so I'll
>just snip this thread altogether now.

Fair enough. Although actually I'm sure your disagreement is germaine
to my actual criticisms of the films in question.

["The Eternal Jew"]

>I'm not familiar with the movie, that's why I made no response concerning
>it.
>
>I *presume* this was some sort of anti-Jewish propaganda movie put out by
>the Nazis pre-WWII?

Yes.

>If so, I don't think I could even be offended by that. It's so pure and
>simple propaganda as to be humorous.

If you can seperate the film from the context it was made in, then
that's understandable. In many ways the best antidote to such bigotry
is comedy, but then you don't seem to share the basic appreciation of
films as potential vehicles for such bigotry to start with. That's
not an attack, just an acknowledgement of difference.

>I'm not Jewish, so perhaps once
>again I'm simply displaying my insensitive nature.

No offence, but I'd listen to a Jew, and especially a central European
Jew when it came to defining the level of offence involved in that
movie.

>I had a tough time growing up as a kid due to a physical handicap. I
>was pretty ruthlessly made fun of, and that was aggravated by my father
>being in the Air Force, so we moved every 2-3 years forcing me to reestablish
>myself all over again in a "hostile" environment.
>
>Perhaps as a result, the skin is just too thick. But I personally regard
>the quality of being slow to take offense, or not being quick to see personal
>slight as a very positive one.

Well, if I could think offhand of a movie that portrayed physically
handicapped children as unstable, violent and antisocial war criminals
I might wonder if you felt any offence.

>Color me insensitive in that regard.

It's not that important if I think you're insensitive, what does
matter is if you consider yourself insensitive and whether or not this
amounts to a reasonably tolerable kind of insensitivity. I'd place
most films somewhere on a spectrum of offensiveness for various
reasons, but I would consider some to be so offensive that they
invalidated any entertainment to be derived from them, even parody or
comedy. That requires a sensibility towards their historic and
artiistic context. That sensibility allows me to overcome
objectionable elements in some movies much of the time (e.g. most
westerns) and enjoy them, but not in others.

If you don't share this approach and consider any film valid
entertainment regardless of the sociological or historical context,
you naturally won't share this appreciation.

Gavin Bailey

--

"Will Boogie Down For Food".- Sign held by Disco Stu outside the unemployment office.

[The Revolution Will Not Be Televised]

On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 14:08:58 GMT, Vince Brannigan
> wrote:

> I'm just back from Glasgow.

Remission of sentence is a wonderful thing.

Gavin Bailey

--

"Will Boogie Down For Food".- Sign held by Disco Stu outside the unemployment office.

[Vince Brannigan]

The Revolution Will Not Be Televised wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 14:08:58 GMT, Vince Brannigan
> > wrote:
>
>
>>I'm just back from Glasgow.
>
>
> Remission of sentence is a wonderful thing.
>

Hey Glasgow's always fun and I got to go to Dundee and see the RRS
DISCOVERY and the HMS UNICORN, not to mention the site of the Tay bridge
disaster. I'm trying to cook up a deal to help advise them on fire
safety in historic ships.


Vince

[William Black]

"Vince Brannigan" > wrote in message
...

> "Whereas originally the name Cymry seems to have shared the same
> British'/`Welsh' ambiguity of Britannia, Britones and so forth, by the
> late eleventh century it is likely that Cymry was used solely to denote
> the Welsh' and `Wales', being distinguished more clearly from the qually
> long-established terms Brython and Prydain, which denoted `Britons' and
> "Britain' respectively.(108) One could perhaps go further and argue that
> the change in Latin terminology both reflected and helped to reinforce
> an increasing assumption on the part of Welsh literati of a need to
> distinguish more sharply between the twin elements in national identity,
> namely, between a British dimension which defined the Welsh in relation
> to the past and the future and, on the other hand, a Welsh dimension
> which linked them to a specific territorial space in the present.(109)
>
> British or Welsh? National Identity in Twelfth-Century Wales(*).

You're left with horribly complex ideas about the pre Roman natives of the
British archipelago and their relationship with a wider Western European
culture.

Did the 'British' tribes see themselves as part of a culture that extended
beyond their shores or did they see themselves as tribal where 'the people'
ended at the forest.

In reality the idea of the 'nation state' emerged in Western Europe in the
fifteenth century, a good illustration being the Hundred Years War which
started as a fight between feudal magnates and ended as a war between
England and France.

--
William Black
------------------
On time, on budget, or works;
Pick any two from three

[Vince Brannigan]

William Black wrote:

> In reality the idea of the 'nation state' emerged in Western Europe in the
> fifteenth century, a good illustration being the Hundred Years War which
> started as a fight between feudal magnates and ended as a war between
> England and France.

nation states had of course emerged elsewhere at earlier times. Nations
, the latin "gens "had a long-standing albeit complex development
process.

Vince

[Alan Minyard]

On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 14:08:58 GMT, Vince Brannigan
> wrote:

>
>
>The Revolution Will Not Be Televised wrote:
>> The myths of the American revolution, however, are fundamental to American
>> self-image and the definition of American culture and society in a
>> manner that nobody can claim for Robin Hood in the UK.
>
>
>I'm not so sure. (although, I agree about Robin Hood). I'm just back
>from Glasgow. I stood in a crowded pub in Shawlands for the Scotland
>Lithuania match and then the England Turkey match. Yes I know they are
>drunken footy fans, but the invocation of anti-english mythology was
>fascinating. When the Scots started suggesting that the Turks break
>English necks I inquired as to the basis of the hostility. They were
>mildly surprised that a Yank wouldn't "hate the buggers as much as we
>do". When I mildly suggested compound fractures of the English legs
>would be sufficient and that permanent paralysis was unnecessary, it was
>simlply accepted that I didn't understand just how deep Scotland's
>grievances ran. The mythology of Culloden was invoked, as well as more
>recent events dealing tieh sporitng contests that I was not aware of.
>IIRC Further discussion followed after bioremediation of flammable
>ethanol, but I'm not sure we advanced the ball any further.
>
>Vince
>
>
Sounds rather like Southerners talking about the "Yankees". No real
hatred, but a casual, traditional demeaning.

Al Minyard

[Michael P. Reed]

(The Revolution Will Not Be Televised) wrote in message >...
> On 12 Oct 2003 11:34:00 -0700, (Michael P. Reed)

> > The origins of British strategy date back to the summer of 1775
> >(prior to that they did not have one),
>
> On the contrary, I suggest you actually aquaint yourself with Gage's
> correspondance with the Northern Department in 1773-75, and the
> increase in troop movements to Boston by the War Office which
> resulted..

I suggest you acquaint yourself with sarcasm, Mr. Bailey.

>
> > when Bill Legge, a.k.a. 2nd
> >Earl of Dartmouth and Secretary of American Affairs in the Colonial
> >Office had some discussions with some folks knowledgable (or more
> >correctly with folks who thought themselves knowledgeable) of affairs
> >in America. After which, he came up with his grand plan of campaign.
> >Writing to Thomas Gage about it in August, he suggested that two
> >armies ought to be assembled. One in Boston, which was to be
> >reinforced, and the other, and Main, to occupy New York City, which
> >was to be a piece of cake since it was loyal.
>
> And this plan was carried out to the point of Howe's force taking New
> York while Boston was evacuated.... shurely shome mishtake if the plan
> was to occupy Boston?

Uh, read on McDuff. The decision was taken by Howe (and Dartmouth
after he received Gage's pessimistic reports) to alter the plan by
taking the army *out* of Boston, and landing it at Rhode Island.

> The British made no attempt to return to Boston
> after the spring of 1786. So much for it being a central aim of their
> strategy.

Strawman. I never claimed it was British strategy to capture Boston
first, but rather to operate against New England. Your argument is
also an induction, since circumstances not altogether under British
control intervened to prevent it. I do believe that this guy named
George, who had some friends by the name of Nathanael, John, Bill, and
Harry, had something to do with it.

> >screams for actions for protection. British officialdom missed the
> >boat twice. The first clue that the rebellion was not centered in New
> >England was the invasion of Canada. It being obvious that the army
> >which did so was not composed of New Englanders (other than a few from
> >New Hampshire).
>
> And more from Connecticut and New York. Guess where the first of
> those states is. Yes, that's right, New England.

New England Troops made up half the invasion forces. The other half
were composed of troops from New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and
Virginia. Your point?

> > As mentioned, Howe pulled out (precipitacely) in March of '76 after
> >Henry Knox had drug some former British heavy artillery from
> >Ticonderoga to the heights overlooking the RN's anchorages in Boston
> >Harbor. Howe was to have pulled out before the onset of winter, but
> >had decided, for reasons that are really not clear, to remain, and
> >I've a sneaking suspicion that he had intended on keeping a garrison
> >in Boston despite the plan not too. We'll never know, though.
>
> But we do know what Howe was recommending to Germain, and we know what
> he actually did, and neither of these involved any plan to continue to
> occupy Boston.

Read more carefully. I never said that Howe had a plan for occupying
Boston. I wrote that Howe's alteration to the original Dartmouth/Gage
plan was to *remove* the army from Boston and have it operate from
Rhode Island instead.

> That you prefer to give scope to unfounded speculation
> on this point rather than adhere to the evidence of the historical
> record is instructive.

William Howe to Lord Dartmouth, October 9th, 1775

"In answer to your lordship's first query [presumably of August 2nd]
vizt. 'Whether the ensuing campaign should open from hence with the
whole force,' I beg leave to say that the opening of the campaign from
this quarter would be attended with great hazard, as well from the
strength of the country as from the entrenched positions the rebels
have taken. . . and from the difficulty of access further into the
country they would have every advantage in the defence of it on their
side."

Clearly, Howe was less than thrilled with operating out of Boston.
Which is why he later adds,

"But I am humbly of the opinion that by the entire evacuation of this
town and taking hold of Rhode Island with the force propsed for this
place, the army would be better connected and the corps would act with
greater effect on that side, from whence it might possibly penetrate
into the country ; whereas in this station [Boston]
it could only defend the post and perhaps make some few incursions for
fresh provisions without the power of reducing the inhabitants."

> [snip long, patronising and turgid exposition]

Snipped conveniently because it destroys your above argument.
Patronizing? I will readily admit my original response to Mr Sharrock
was indeed so, though not consciously intended, and for that I do
apologize. As for my response to you, my "exposition" while
tongue-in-cheek at times was otherwise not patronizing (unlike one
comment after another of yours--a dirty habit I've noticed on your
part before). Turgid? I prefer "informative and contextual." Trust
me Mr. Bailey when I tell you that I gave the short version. Nine
years of bloody research with few to discuss it does make one tend to
expouse when the opportunity arises. <g>

> I would not subject myself to this to begin with if I didn't have some
> clue about using responsible primary and secondary sources to form my
> opinion.

Given that you have already argued two maybe three strawmen, misquoted
me several times, exhibited inductive reasoning, and called my
knowledge and objectiveness into question without the slightest shred
of supporting evidence to back it all up, I'm not entirely sanguine
about your "informed" opinion.

> I've no intention of persisting if you want to indulge
> yourself by lecturing an imaginary class of five-year olds.

In other words, you cannot dispute my points. But you needn't be so
childish about it.

> You might
> also want to diversify your reading of British strategy from sources
> which make an effort to understand the context and internal logic
> involved.

Er, Mr. Bailey, the entire point of my "exposition" *was* to put into
context. By the by, you are making some rather dangerous assumptions
about my "understanding."

> Macksey wouldn't be a bad start, although he's not perfect.

And I am patronizing? Ok, so be it. Here be a few sources of light
reading which I found to be a tad useful in writing the afore snipped
"exposition."

Davies, K.G. ed.; DOCUMENTS OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION;
Isish Academic Press, Dublin, 1972-1981 It is basically the Colonial
Office Papers in published form, and comes in 22 volumes, but don't
worry too much only about half are actual letters. The remaining
volumes are mostly callenders.

For the naval content (specifically the "war scare") you'll want NAVAL
DOCUMENTS OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION which has been published by the
Dep't of the Navy. The volumes you want are five and six. Great
stuff. Each being over 1,000 pages in length. Still kicking myself
for not picking up the first eight (and very out of print) volumes
when I had the chance. You might also look in THE SANDWICH PAPERS for
some interesting tid bits not published in NDAR. The Parliamentary
Register for 1776 is an excellent source for the political debates
(the debate of Halloween 1776 is quite engrossing). You'll find the
fiscal information their as well, but the JOURNAL OF THE HOUSE OF
LORDS is better organized. In the volume for 1779, you'll find the
entire correspondece for one year (1776-1777) between Germain and Howe
printed in its entirety. Most, but not all are in Davies.

If you wish, you can then purchase an airline ticket to Detroit, rent
a car, then drive to Ann Arbor to peruse the George Germain Papers (as
well as Gage's, Dartmouths, Knox's, Clinton's, Carleton's and many
other's as well) in the William L. Clement's library [you'll need to
forms of picture ID though], but you may still find a good deal
(though truncated and usually summerized) of Germain's and Knox's
correspondence in volume six of the Historical Manuscripts
Commission's REPORT OF MANUSCRIPTS IN VARIOUS COLLECTIONS.

That ought to serve you as a starter. FWIW, the only factoids in my
"exposition" coming from secondary sources was the mention of
Portugal's scratchiness with Spain (NAVIES, DETERRENCE, AND AMERICAN
INDEPENDENCE by Nicholas Tracy), and Burgoyne's "co-opting" of
Carleton's strategy (Gerald Howson's BURGOYNE OF SARATOGA). I
heartily recommend both books.
[i]
> >Now, what was this about Paine? Never really studied him.
>
> Shame; you seem to have a good handle on prejudicial
> characterisations of British strategy and policy which might be based
> on his particular propaganda.

More name calling. My but you are a virtual cornucopia of fallacies,
Mr. Bailey. If you are unable to argue the point, concede the point.

--
Michael P. Reed

[The Revolution Will Not Be Televised]

On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 17:20:51 GMT, Vince Brannigan
> wrote:

>>>I'm just back from Glasgow.
>>
>> Remission of sentence is a wonderful thing.
>
>Hey Glasgow's always fun

It's alright, Vince, you're back in civilization now. No need to make
patently ridiculous PublicRelationStatements in order to get out of
mob of wegians alive.

>and I got to go to Dundee and see the RRS
>DISCOVERY and the HMS UNICORN,

I used to live in Dundee, but I missed out on Unicorn. Discovery was
interesting, if only to check out the officer's berths and reflect on
the Edwardian class divide. Scott used to rope off the messes in huts
in the Antarctic as well, which I find a little distasteful with my
modern sensibilities, but was probably a simple reflection of the
times with no specifically demeaning intent. I have to say I always
preferred Shackleton myself, especially after reading about his small
boat journey from Elephant Island as a kid.

That was a _real_ sea story.

>not to mention the site of the Tay bridge
>disaster.

Victorian engineering at it's best. For full authenticity don't
forget to recite McGonagall as you cross it courtesy of Scotrail.

> I'm trying to cook up a deal to help advise them on fire
>safety in historic ships.

Tell Captain Haddock to put his pipe out. That should cut down the
premiums straight away.

Gaviin Bailey

--

"Will Boogie Down For Food".- Sign held by Disco Stu outside the unemployment office.

[The Revolution Will Not Be Televised]

On 14 Oct 2003 22:17:37 -0700, (Michael P. Reed)
wrote:

>> > The origins of British strategy date back to the summer of 1775
>> >(prior to that they did not have one),
>>
>> On the contrary, I suggest you actually aquaint yourself with Gage's
>> correspondance with the Northern Department in 1773-75, and the
>> increase in troop movements to Boston by the War Office which
>> resulted..
>
>I suggest you acquaint yourself with sarcasm, Mr. Bailey.

I suggest you aquaint yourself with the result of Gage's return to
Britain in 1774. That British strategy to suppress colonial agitation
failed does not mean that didn't have a strategy.

>> And this plan was carried out to the point of Howe's force taking New
>> York while Boston was evacuated.... shurely shome mishtake if the plan
>> was to occupy Boston?
>
>Uh, read on McDuff. The decision was taken by Howe (and Dartmouth
>after he received Gage's pessimistic reports) to alter the plan by
>taking the army *out* of Boston, and landing it at Rhode Island.

And the first actual deployment being withdrawing Clinton's force for
the attack on North Carolina, and the initial aim of Carleton's
operations after Burgoyne arrived with relief forces in Canada was to
operate in support of Howe's attack on New York.

None of these operations, the first active British offensives, were
directly aimed at conquering New England. Whatever the British
leadership might have been saying beforehand, reconquering New England
does not seem to have been their main strategic aim. I would contend
that by 1776 the continental scale of the problem was understood and
operations were framed accordingly to exploit factors (such as the
perceived strength of loyalism elsewhere) on a North American-wide
basis.

>> The British made no attempt to return to Boston
>> after the spring of 1786. So much for it being a central aim of their
>> strategy.
>
>Strawman. I never claimed it was British strategy to capture Boston
>first, but rather to operate against New England.

But the British made no direct move to recapture the acknowledged main
city of New England and the epicentre of resistance there after they
evacuated it in 1776. They also made no direct substantive effort to
reconquer New England. The closest they might have come to that was
Burgoyne's expedition, but even he was to complain afterwards that he
had been given no lattitude to redirect operations from a southwards
advance along the Hudson towards Connecticut and New England. In this
instance, the only person pushing for an invasion and conquest of New
England in was explicitly turned down.

Meanwhile, the ministry were content to follow Howe's strategy of
taking New York and then developing operations from there southwards,
away from New England. Now, if "conquering New England" was the
central aim of British strategy for the "first half of the war", as
you assert, then the facts of their actual historical behaviour seem
to flatly contradict this.

>> The first clue that the rebellion was not centered in New
>> >England was the invasion of Canada. It being obvious that the army
>> >which did so was not composed of New Englanders (other than a few from
>> >New Hampshire).
>>
>> And more from Connecticut and New York. Guess where the first of
>> those states is. Yes, that's right, New England.
>
>New England Troops made up half the invasion forces.

So, more than "a few from New Hampsphire" then?

>The other half
>were composed of troops from New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and
>Virginia. Your point?

That your initial characterisation of the composition of the force
involved is inaccurate, as you appear to accept.

>> But we do know what Howe was recommending to Germain, and we know what
>> he actually did, and neither of these involved any plan to continue to
>> occupy Boston.
>
>Read more carefully. I never said that Howe had a plan for occupying
>Boston. I wrote that Howe's alteration to the original Dartmouth/Gage
>plan was to *remove* the army from Boston and have it operate from
>Rhode Island instead.

Let's not reduce your claims to a more defensible basis quite so
quickly. What I'm arguing with is your assertion that the British
were mistakenly obsessed with crushing the rebellion in New England
for the first half of the war and adopted this as their strategy.

>Clearly, Howe was less than thrilled with operating out of Boston.

Indeed, and this is why he evacuated Boston when his supply route was
threatened. What needs to be reconciled with your assertions is why,
once he had reassembled his forces at Halifax and gained sufficient
logistical and naval transport resources, his first aim of operations
was New York, and not New England.

>> [snip long, patronising and turgid exposition]
>
>Snipped conveniently because it destroys your above argument.

No, snipped because any amount of discourse, however interesting or
uninteresting, which doesn't address the argument in question is
irrelevant to the point at issue.

> Turgid? I prefer "informative and contextual."

In that case, I would prefer you to post something of relevance to the
point at issue, not a discursive generalist essay on the war as a
whole.

>Trust
>me Mr. Bailey when I tell you that I gave the short version.

Well, I owe you thanks for that, at least.

> Nine
>years of bloody research with few to discuss it does make one tend to
>expouse when the opportunity arises. <g>

Fine, but please confine yourself to the points at issue. I'm not
interested in specious generalities.

>> I would not subject myself to this to begin with if I didn't have some
>> clue about using responsible primary and secondary sources to form my
>> opinion.
>
>Given that you have already argued two maybe three strawmen, misquoted
>me several times,

In that case you'll have no problem with me reproducing the relevant
quotes, taken from your own posts, which I take issue with, viz:

"That was the single greatest misconception made on the part of the
British, and derived most other British misconceptions. Such as the
rebellion was centered in New England, and so all one had to do was
conquer New England and the rebellion would be crushed. This was the
thinking that drove British strategic planning for the first half of
the war. The never understood it, and worse yet, never even thought
of altering those preceptions though all evidence pointed to the
contrary."

Yet we know in fact that British strategy actually focussed on New
York, Philadelphia and then the south. However central they perceived
New England to be to rebel agitation in the pre-war period and in the
first half of the war, reconquest of New England was not actually the
strategy they adopted. In fact, their military efforts to end the
rebellion were directed elsewhere. This only becomes an issue when we
constrast it with your assertions on the issue.

Note that discussions about the "failure" of loyalism and so forth or
other British misconceptions and mistakes are not being challenged or
even discussed, at least by me in this thread so far. In fact, in the
light of the actual British operations adopted which covered much more
diverse ground than the focus on New England which you are putting
forward, it seems you're the one who apparently refuses to alter your
perceptions when evidence points to the contrary.

>exhibited inductive reasoning, and called my
>knowledge and objectiveness into question without the slightest shred
>of supporting evidence to back it all up, I'm not entirely sanguine
>about your "informed" opinion.
>
>> I've no intention of persisting if you want to indulge
>> yourself by lecturing an imaginary class of five-year olds.
>
>In other words, you cannot dispute my points.

No, in other words I would like you to dispute my points by actually
_addressing_ them, not by rambling on about generalities.

> But you needn't be so
>childish about it.

This is usenet, I'm afraid. Although here, at least, your criticism
is bang on the money.

>> You might
>> also want to diversify your reading of British strategy from sources
>> which make an effort to understand the context and internal logic
>> involved.
>
>Er, Mr. Bailey, the entire point of my "exposition" *was* to put into
>context.

Spare yourself the effort. I can read, and have access to libraries.

> By the by, you are making some rather dangerous assumptions
>about my "understanding."

Not at all. You might have an outstanding academic understanding of
the subject, but it doesn't seem to be on display over this issue.

>> Macksey wouldn't be a bad start, although he's not perfect.
>
>And I am patronizing? Ok, so be it. Here be a few sources of light
>reading which I found to be a tad useful in writing the afore snipped
>"exposition."

Thanks for the references. I'm actually familiar with the first, and
original documents in the WO and CO classes such as Howe's orderly
book. You certainly seem to have better access to relevant
correspondance in the original sources than I do. Hopefully you find
them more legible than I've found the public documents here.

>> >Now, what was this about Paine? Never really studied him.
>>
>> Shame; you seem to have a good handle on prejudicial
>> characterisations of British strategy and policy which might be based
>> on his particular propaganda.
>
>More name calling.

Not at all. I think your exposition so far adheres remarkably to the
existing cliches.

>My but you are a virtual cornucopia of fallacies,
>Mr. Bailey.

So point them out in relation to this argument about the centrality of
the reconquest of New England to British strategy in the first half of
the war.

> If you are unable to argue the point, concede the point.

If you're unable to substantiate the assertion, just say so. Somebody
with your familiarity with relevant sources should be able to
reconcile your strategic assertions with the historical evidence
without too much problem.

Gavin Bailey

--

"Will Boogie Down For Food".- Sign held by Disco Stu outside the unemployment office.

[William Black]

"Vince Brannigan" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> William Black wrote:
>
> > In reality the idea of the 'nation state' emerged in Western Europe in
the
> > fifteenth century, a good illustration being the Hundred Years War
which
> > started as a fight between feudal magnates and ended as a war between
> > England and France.
>
> nation states had of course emerged elsewhere at earlier times. Nations
> , the latin "gens "had a long-standing albeit complex development
> process.

Those tended to be city states that got big or were the product of a single
man driven to build an empire.

The nation state, with the co-incident 'national identity' is later, and
still with us.

--
William Black
------------------
On time, on budget, or works;
Pick any two from three

[ZZBunker]

Olivers > wrote in message >...
> Brian Sharrock muttered....
>
>
> > I imagine that a book about 'The Patriot' would finish on Page 6,
> > then have three-hundred -and seventy pages of Historic Corrections"
>
> Two of the historical figures from whom Mel Gibson's part was drawn were
> grandsires (multi-great) of mine. One was a man apparently acutely harsh
> to the puir Native Americans, while the other weighed in at a solid 300
> pounds, disenabling him in an attempt to walk to a major engagement.
> Happily, a substantial mule was available. Nothing of either (aside from
> commitment and courage/fool-hardy rashness) is apparent in the screenplay
> or the Gibsonian interpretation thereof.
> >
> > Hornblower and Sharpe (novels) are poles apart from the idiocy
> > and pure propagandising of 'The Patriot'.
> >
> Let me commend to your reading the novels of Kenneth Roberts covering the
> American expereience 1755-1800 or so. While hardly bodice rippers,
> actually demure by modern lubricious standards, they are well done, if not
> a little slanted toward the "American" perspective. _Rabble in Arms_,
> first read when I was eight or so, struggling with a real adult novel,
> remains quite readable to day, and his descriptions of the travails of
> Rogers and his Rangers provide a new and unusual view of the French &
> Indian Conflict.
>
> On the Boston issue....Could one interpret Britsh policy toward continued
> or re occupation as based upon the concept that Boston unoccupied was no
> threat, easily - and cheaply in men and money - guarded/blockaded from the
> sea, and likely should other strategies succeed to fall gently into British
> hands, the cold harsh mercantilism of the upper classes swallowing up all
> those radical revolutionaries?

It probably was. But since at that time Maine was part of Massecusetts,
then as now, nobody but the *British* Military really cared all
that much about Boston mercantilism.

[Peter McLelland]

"William Black" > wrote in message >...
> "Vince Brannigan" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >
> > William Black wrote:
> >
> > > In reality the idea of the 'nation state' emerged in Western Europe in
> the
> > > fifteenth century, a good illustration being the Hundred Years War
> which
> > > started as a fight between feudal magnates and ended as a war between
> > > England and France.
> >
> > nation states had of course emerged elsewhere at earlier times. Nations
> > , the latin "gens "had a long-standing albeit complex development
> > process.
>
> Those tended to be city states that got big or were the product of a single
> man driven to build an empire.
>
> The nation state, with the co-incident 'national identity' is later, and
> still with us.

The nation state is almost as old as the hills, look at Egypt,
Assyria, Israel, and Babylon of biblical times. These were established
nation states with national identities, dynastic rulers over long
periods, and are even reflected in modern states.

I would agree that the principle of Greco Roman states were city
based, although in later years the Roman state changed from the city
based concept to that of the true nation state.

Even in Europe many of the modern states were well established as
nation states by the end of the first millenia.

Peter

[The Revolution Will Not Be Televised]

On 14 Oct 2003 22:17:37 -0700, (Michael P. Reed)
wrote:

>Read more carefully. I never said that Howe had a plan for occupying
>Boston. I wrote that Howe's alteration to the original Dartmouth/Gage
>plan was to *remove* the army from Boston and have it operate from
>Rhode Island instead.

In fact, Howe's plan outlined to Dartmouth on 9th October 1775 (echoed
by Gage on 1st October 1775) was to remove his forces from Boston, and
split them into 2 forces. The larger force was to take New York
(quoted as 20 battalions or 12,000 men), the smaller Rhode Island
(5,000 men or eight or nine battalions under Clinton) "from whence it
might possibly penetrate into the country". Only then, after "the
reduction of the rebels in New York" would he consider New England -
"these corps might take seperate routes into
the province of Massachusetts Bay as circumstances might arise". [page
140]

The tentative language adopted in regard to invading Massachusetts Bay
contrasts with the unchallenged immediate focus on New York and
reflects the actual priority for these tasks. This was further
emphasised by the order in which they were performed by Howe in
historical reality, i.e. the taking of New York coming first, Rhode
Island second, and the possibility of Clinton operating against
Massachusetts from Rhode Island a distant third which was abandoned in
favour of developing operations from New York into New Jersey and up
the Hudson.

Clearly, operating directly against New England was not a British
strategic obsession at the time in view of the other strategies
actually pursued. This was explictly recognised by Dartmouth in the
letter of 2nd August 1775 to which Howe and Gage were responding in
October, which offered three strategic alternatives for Howe's (and
Gage's) consideration:

1. "Whether we should push the war with our whole force in the next
campaign on the side of New England"

2. Make "Hudson's River the seat of the war" and take New York,
leaving a holding an diversion force in Boston.

3. Go to "other places".

The fact that Gage and Howe both ruled out 1, and opted for 2, with
the proviso that the Boston force actually went to Rhode Island, along
with the division of strength involved and the later discarding of
land-based offensive plans from Rhode Island indicates that the New
York policy was the prime strategic object. Davies is quite clear
that the Rhode Island force was a "supporting post", i.e. subsidiary
to New York.

Furthermore, in an echo of the reduction of the putative role for
Clinton's force at Rhode Island, nobody was particularly interested in
Burgoyne's attempts to broaden the scope of his advancdown the Hudson
to an ultimate objective of invading Connecticut [although by the same
token nobody seemed interested in reducing the fog of inchoerence
surrounding Burgoyne's ultimate objectives beyond opening up land
communications between New York and Canada]. By that stage, Howe was
more interested in Washington's army and Philadelphia than he was in
supporting Burgoyne in the Hudson valley. The only possible contender
for a 1777 invasion of New England was basically allowed to run into
defeat with no effort to even define it as such or get Howe to support
it properly.
[i][i]
>> That you prefer to give scope to unfounded speculation
>> on this point rather than adhere to the evidence of the historical
>> record is instructive.
>
>William Howe to Lord Dartmouth, October 9th, 1775
>
>"In answer to your lordship's first query [presumably of August 2nd]
>vizt. 'Whether the ensuing campaign should open from hence with the
>whole force,' I beg leave to say that the opening of the campaign from
>this quarter would be attended with great hazard, as well from the
>strength of the country as from the entrenched positions the rebels
>have taken. . . and from the difficulty of access further into the
>country they would have every advantage in the defence of it on their
>side."
>
>Clearly, Howe was less than thrilled with operating out of Boston.
>Which is why he later adds,
>
>"But I am humbly of the opinion that by the entire evacuation of this
>town and taking hold of Rhode Island with the force propsed for this
>place, the army would be better connected and the corps would act with
>greater effect on that side, from whence it might possibly penetrate
>into the country ; whereas in this station [Boston]
>it could only defend the post and perhaps make some few incursions for
>fresh provisions without the power of reducing the inhabitants."

You'll note my points about Howe's priorities and aims for the New
York and Rhode Island forces come from the same letter. The "primary
object", as defined by Howe, was *not* the invasion of New England,
whether from Boston *or* Rhode Island.

It's not as if my reading of these sources is particularly
revolutionary: this is what Davies himself has to say in the
introduction to Volume XI Transcripts, July - December 1775:

"As to the deployment of this army [reinforcements promised to Howe
and Gage in August 1775], Dartmouth invited Gage to choose between New
England, New York and 'other places', leaving it entirely to the
judgement of the generals but himself coming out fairly strongly in
favour of New York."

"Both were flatly against carrying on the war in New England (by which
the meant the army's fighting it's way out of Boston), and for the
same reason: everything favoured the enemy. Both, predicatably,
opted for taking post at New York, with the qualification that the
British forces then in America were not sufficient to hold Boston as
well. Finally they agreed in selecting Rhode Island as the principle
supporting post for New York, a possibility Dartmouth had raised on 1
July but not in his letter of 2 August." [page 3]

Whoever was pushing this vision of British "misconceptions" about "all
that they had to do" being to "conquer New England" to "crush the
rebellion" and this being "the thinking that drove British strategic
planning for the first half of the war", it wasn't the British
commander-in-chief in America, his successor, nor the relevant
minister responsible for instructing them in accordance with
government policy.

This seems to cover British strategic planning in 1775-1777. What
other "first half of the war" did you have in mind?

On another note, when it comes to British "misconceptions", one of the
basic facts behind Howe's objections to operating out of Boston was
the strength of rebel forces and their ability to replace casualties
from the surrounding countryside. Compared to Burgoyne's initial
under-rating of the difficulties of getting to Albany and his
dismissal of the possibility of a large local force with sufficient
capacity to defeat his advance being gathered without withdrawing
support from Washington, this was a reasonable and accurate
appreciation.

Gavin Bailey

--

"Will Boogie Down For Food".- Sign held by Disco Stu outside the unemployment office.

[Michael P. Reed]

(The Revolution Will Not Be Televised) wrote in message >...

On 14 Oct 2003 22:17:37 -0700, (Michael P. Reed)
wrote:

>>Read more carefully. I never said that Howe had a plan for
occupying
>>Boston. I wrote that Howe's alteration to the original
Dartmouth/Gage
>>plan was to *remove* the army from Boston and have it operate from
>>Rhode Island instead.

> In fact, Howe's plan outlined to Dartmouth on 9th October 1775 (echoed
> by Gage on 1st October 1775) was to remove his forces from Boston, and
> split them into 2 forces.

> The larger force was to take New York
> (quoted as 20 battalions or 12,000 men), the smaller Rhode Island
> (5,000 men or eight or nine battalions under Clinton)

It's taken me awhile to figure out your "quotes" as they are coming
from different letters from different men at different times under
different iterations of different plans. However, I think I have it
figured out.

In answer to Dartmouth's interogatories of August 2nd, Gage gives no
figures. Howe (October 9th) gives the "20 battalions for New York" in
his letter of 9 October, but pares that number down to 16 in his of
November 26th. The "8 or 9 battalions" mentioned was the force
required *in addition to* those reinforcements already in the pipeline
in order to hold Boston "if my orders shall be to leave a force here
for the preservation of the town and to proceed with the remainder to
New York." In other words, Howe was telling Dartmouth, that there was
no way Boston could be held without another 5,000 men. He does,
however, later propose these for Rhode Island.

> "from whence it
> might possibly penetrate into the country". Only then, after "the
> reduction of the rebels in New York" would he consider New England -
> "these corps [i.e. Howe and New York and whatever Carleton/Burgoyne
> might get down the Hudson from Canada] might take seperate routes into
> the province of Massachusetts Bay as circumstances might arise". [page
> 140]

Page 140 of what source? Macksey? If so, it is a distortion of the
facts.

On August 2nd, Dartmouth asked the following questions

1. Whether or not to "push with our whole force. . .on the side of
New England" in 1776?

2. Whether or not the Hudson River was a better "seat of the war" and
so take New York City while holding Boston?

3. If New York was not safe, to make raids elswhere?

4. If neither were advisable, to abandon Boston for Halifax and await
circumstances?

Gage responded by answering

1. Attacking out of Boston would be a bad thing.

2. "It has always appeared to me most advisable to make Hudson's
River the seat of the war. Its situation between the eastern and
western colonies is advantageous, besides being commodious in
transporting the necessaries of an army. We are made to believe also
that many friends in that province would appear in
arms and the troops receive many supplies they are in want of. A
communications with Canada might be better secured from thence than
any other part and during winter, when the troops can't keep the
field, attempts might be made upon the southern provinces by embarking
in the transports." He then states that the force then in Boston was
inadequate for holding both Boston and New York.

3. Agrees.

4. Believes that Boston was teneble through the winter.

Now his answer to #3 would appear to validate, somewhat, your claim,
but further in the letter he added "t appears to me most necessary
for the prosecution of the war to be in possession of some province
where you can be secured and from whence you can draw supplies of
provision and forage, and that New York seems to be the most proper to
answer those purposes.
"The possession of Boston occasions a considerable diversion of the
enemy's force and so far of use, but is at the same time so open to
attacks on many sides that it reuires a large body to defend it."
He then suggests that if enough troops were made available "to
multiply our attacks" [i.e. if he is reinforced], he would occupy
Rhode Island, where he conceives "it tobe easily defended with the aid
of a frigate or two and a few smaller vessels of war, and is so
situated as to have an easy communication with New York, and from
thence the whole coast of Connecticut, the north side of Long Island,
and the western parts of Massachusetts Bay, may be attacked."

In other words, New York was not meant to be a strategic objective,
but merely a secure *base of operations*. He does suggest operations
against Southern colonies, but only in the winter, and any seasoned
campaigner knew to be damned difficult to ship troops from one theater
to the next, and back again. So, any thought of a campaign agains the
southern colonies must be construed as an after thought, or a "selling
point," but one made with little consideration of seriousness. That
notion is further inhanced by his desire to operate from Rhode Island
*against* Connecticut and Massachusetts-i.e. New England. Overall, it
sets the stage, but his outline lacks depth of ultimate motive.
Probably because he had already sent his resignation, and was mainly
just "going through the motions." It was not the final word on what
was ultimately the ultimate British purpose.

On October 9th, Howe answered that same set of questions from
Dartmouth (as he knew he was to take command upon Gage's stepping
down) and answered them thusly.

1. Ditto Gage

2. Partly answered above. He would take 20 battalions to New York,
leaving five for the defense of that city, and first to open
communications with Canada (which would have 3,000 men for its defense
and 3 or 4,000 Canadians [who never would show up]). However, once
this was accomplished, "these corps might take seperate routes into
the province of Massachusetts Bay as circumstances may arise." He
then brings up the notion of removing the Boston force from that city
to operate in Rhode Island so that the "army would be better connected
and the corps would act with greater effect on that side, from whence
it might possibly penetrate into the country." IOW, the taking of New
York was the stepping stone for the invasion of New England. No
where does Howe mention operations south of New York.
[i]
> The tentative language adopted in regard to invading Massachusetts Bay
> contrasts with the unchallenged immediate focus on New York and
> reflects the actual priority for these tasks.

But not the ultimate objective.
[i]
> This was further
> emphasised by the order in which they were performed by Howe in
> historical reality, i.e. the taking of New York coming first, Rhode
> Island second, and the possibility of Clinton operating against
> Massachusetts from Rhode Island a distant third which was abandoned in
> favour of developing operations from New York into New Jersey and up
> the Hudson.

Again, inductive reasoning suggesting that Howe was following a part
of a concerted plan, when in fact he was doing nothing but reacting to
events.

> Clearly, operating directly against New England was not a British
> strategic obsession at the time in view of the other strategies
> actually pursued. This was explictly recognised by Dartmouth in the
> letter of 2nd August 1775 to which Howe and Gage were responding in
> October, which offered three strategic alternatives for Howe's (and
> Gage's) consideration:

<Snip Dartmouth's points raised above>

> The fact that Gage and Howe both ruled out 1, and opted for 2, with
> the proviso that the Boston force actually went to Rhode Island, along
> with the division of strength involved and the later discarding of
> land-based offensive plans from Rhode Island indicates that the New
> York policy was the prime strategic object.

Wrong. As I enumerated above. New York was meant to be a secure base
for subsequent operations against New England.

> Davies is quite clear
> that the Rhode Island force was a "supporting post", i.e. subsidiary
> to New York.

How does the occupation of New York win the war for the British? That
is what is at discussion here. Both Gage and Howe make it clear what
they wanted in going to New York was not a war winning strategy but
only a change of base, because Boston was such a poor one.


> Furthermore, in an echo of the reduction of the putative role for
> Clinton's force at Rhode Island, nobody was particularly interested in
> Burgoyne's attempts to broaden the scope of his advancdown the Hudson
> to an ultimate objective of invading Connecticut [although by the same
> token nobody seemed interested in reducing the fog of inchoerence
> surrounding Burgoyne's ultimate objectives beyond opening up land
> communications between New York and Canada]. By that stage, Howe was
> more interested in Washington's army and Philadelphia than he was in
> supporting Burgoyne in the Hudson valley. The only possible contender
> for a 1777 invasion of New England was basically allowed to run into
> defeat with no effort to even define it as such or get Howe to support
> it properly.

Again, this is entirely inductive, and is not even correct on the
facts of it. Firstly, Howe's initial plan for 1777, dispatched on
November 30th of 1776, had the armies operating up the Hudson and out
of Rhode Island. The New Jersey army was only to make faints.
Burgoyne would not have mentioned operations against western
Massachusetts if that was not connected in any ways with prevailing
sentiment. That notion was shot down more for reasons of command and
control and logistical than any thing else. Burgoyne was ordered to
Albany as the easiest way to get him out from under Carleton and
placed under Howe's command. There was never supposed to be much
opposition to that movement at all as, like in '75, everyone assumed
the Hudson valley was dominated by loyalists, and that the American
army there was weak. Other than that, Burgoyne had no purpose.
Germain never provided any input, then or at any other time. Not in
'76 and not '78 save to suggest the obvious choices Clinton would be
forced to act on. It is one of the primary reasons that both Carleton
and Howe (and IIRC Clinton) all came to despise Germain. He provided
no strategic direction. Knowing that, British strategy has to be
discussed with the primary focus given to the theater commanders
perspectives, and for 1777, both came to the conclusion, seperately,
that New England was the primary objective. That is why it is
included in Howe's first, and why it was included in Burgoyne's
proposal. Remember, he left for London some time before Cornwallis
landed at Fort Lee. If Howe had not had other objectives in mind, he
would not have ordered Cornwallis to halt at Brunswick and so allow
Washington to make his escape. It was only after circumstances
changed that Howe made his drastic departure from previous strategy,
whereas Burgoyne merely continued it (if somewhat aimlessly).

> You'll note my points about Howe's priorities and aims for the New
> York and Rhode Island forces come from the same letter. The "primary
> object", as defined by Howe, was *not* the invasion of New England,
> whether from Boston *or* Rhode Island.

Tactically, no, but strategically, yes.

In his letter of November 30th, 1777, he proposed an army of 10,000
men to act offensively from Rhode Island against Boston, another
10,000 to act up the Hudson, and an army of 8,000 "to cover Jersey and
to keep the southern army in check by giving a jealously to
Philadelphia."

> It's not as if my reading of these sources is particularly
> revolutionary:

Not it is not. It is in fact quite conventional.

> this is what Davies himself has to say
> in the
> introduction to Volume XI Transcripts, July - December 1775:
> "As to the deployment of this army [reinforcements promised to Howe
> and Gage in August 1775], Dartmouth invited Gage to choose between New
> England, New York and 'other places', leaving it entirely to the
> judgement of the generals but himself coming out fairly strongly in
> favour of New York."

Which, of course, was answering the question of basing.

> "Both were flatly against carrying on the war in New England (by which
> the meant the army's fighting it's way out of Boston),

Which of course is silly. Boston was NOT the only avenue of approach
into New England. I mean, really, just where do you think an army
operating from Rhode Island was going to operate against? Georgia?

> and for the
> same reason: everything favoured the enemy. Both, predicatably,
> opted for taking post at New York, with the qualification that the
> British forces then in America were not sufficient to hold Boston as
> well. Finally they agreed in selecting Rhode Island as the principle
> supporting post for New York, a possibility Dartmouth had raised on 1
> July but not in his letter of 2 August." [page 3]

> Whoever was pushing this vision of British "misconceptions" about "all
> that they had to do" being to "conquer New England" to "crush the
> rebellion" and this being "the thinking that drove British strategic
> planning for the first half of the war", it wasn't the British
> commander-in-chief in America, his successor, nor the relevant
> minister responsible for instructing them in accordance with
> government policy.

Little trouble was expected in New York as it was full of the King's
"Friends." They weren't going to New York to pacify it. It was
already considered pacified!


> On another note, when it comes to British "misconceptions", one of the
> basic facts behind Howe's objections to operating out of Boston was
> the strength of rebel forces and their ability to replace casualties
> from the surrounding countryside.

Of course Howe was referring to New England, and not all of America in
general. He, and Gage et al, wanted New York because it was
considered friendly territory. Howe even persisted in that mistake
through the first half of 1777. Burgoyne too. Germain's papers make
it clear that he also thought New York was mostly loyalist. Howe
occupied New Jersey in full because he was under the impression that
most Jersians were loyal (and he quoted the numbers of "loyalists" who
took loyalty oaths as proof). Read where he talked of the Canadian
army being composed of 3000 British troops and 3 or 4,000 Canadians!
It is probable that more Canadians enlisted in the American army than
the British. Not one single Canadian regiment was ever raised (though
a number of loyalist regiments were raised in Canada, but from
loyalist expats from other colonies-chiefly New York). One of the
reasons Howe gave for going to Philadelphia was to raise troops from
the "mostly" loyal population. After 1778, the British went to the
South in hopes of garning all those loyalists to be found there. That
was one of the great delusions of the war for the British, but I never
included New England in that estimate.


> Compared to Burgoyne's initial
> under-rating of the difficulties of getting to Albany and his
> dismissal of the possibility of a large local force with sufficient
> capacity to defeat his advance being gathered without withdrawing
> support from Washington, this was a reasonable and accurate
> appreciation.

Everyone underestimated the difficulties in getting to Albany. The
British constantly under-estimated Washington (who was quite a good
strategist-he never thought, until it actually occured, that the
British would be so stupid as to march south down the Lakes and
Hudson) who they always planned on him doing what they wanted him to
do, and not what he might actually be capable. His withdrawal into
New Jersey was one overlooked possibility, as was his willingness to
sacrafice the New England coast so as not to violate the priniciple of
mass was another, and his strategic plan for 1777 was a brilliant
study in its simplicity.

--
Regards,

Michael P. Reed

[The Revolution Will Not Be Televised]

On 21 Oct 2003 13:02:43 -0700, (Michael P. Reed)
wrote:

>> In fact, Howe's plan outlined to Dartmouth on 9th October 1775 (echoed
>> by Gage on 1st October 1775) was to remove his forces from Boston, and
>> split them into 2 forces.
>
>> The larger force was to take New York
>> (quoted as 20 battalions or 12,000 men), the smaller Rhode Island
>> (5,000 men or eight or nine battalions under Clinton)
>
>It's taken me awhile to figure out your "quotes" as they are coming
>from different letters from different men at different times under
>different iterations of different plans. However, I think I have it
>figured out.

I've specified the dates involved.

>In answer to Dartmouth's interogatories of August 2nd, Gage gives no
>figures.

Which is why I quoted Howe, not Gage, although the latter agreed with
Howe on the matter of abandoning Boston in favour of Rhode Island and
centering operations on New York. Given that Howe was about to
supersede Gage, his intentions are material to the discussion.

> Howe (October 9th) gives the "20 battalions for New York" in
>his letter of 9 October, but pares that number down to 16 in his of
>November 26th.

Note the relative proportions of the force in both cases, as I said:
the main concentration of force for the coming campaign was to be
against New York.

>The "8 or 9 battalions" mentioned was the force
>required *in addition to* those reinforcements already in the pipeline
>in order to hold Boston "if my orders shall be to leave a force here
>for the preservation of the town and to proceed with the remainder to
>New York." In other words, Howe was telling Dartmouth, that there was
>no way Boston could be held without another 5,000 men.

...if the main object was to be, as all agreed, New York.

>He does,
>however, later propose these for Rhode Island.

>> "from whence it
>> might possibly penetrate into the country". Only then, after "the
>> reduction of the rebels in New York" would he consider New England -
>> "these corps [i.e. Howe and New York and whatever Carleton/Burgoyne
>> might get down the Hudson from Canada] might take seperate routes into
>> the province of Massachusetts Bay as circumstances might arise". [page
>> 140]
>
>Page 140 of what source?

The only one I've referred to, Davies, Vol XI with passing reference
to Vol XII. If I quoted Macksey I would say so, and I would admit it
if I had omitted to provide a relevant reference.

>Macksey? If so, it is a distortion of the
>facts.

I'd appreciate it if you didn't seek to attribute bad faith or
dishonesty without some compelling evidence of such. If I'm quoting a
reference, I try to do so accurately and without distorting the
meaning with selective editing of statement or of context, as I've
indicated below. In this case Howe's letter to Dartmouth of 9th
October 1775 is reproduced on page 140 of Volume XI.

>In other words, New York was not meant to be a strategic objective,
>but merely a secure *base of operations*.

For one who criticises inductive reasoning, can you spot a flaw in
that statement at all?

>2. Partly answered above. He would take 20 battalions to New York,
>leaving five for the defense of that city, and first to open
>communications with Canada (which would have 3,000 men for its defense
>and 3 or 4,000 Canadians [who never would show up]). However, once
>this was accomplished, "these corps might take seperate routes into
>the province of Massachusetts Bay as circumstances may arise."

The full quote being something like:

"The accomplishment of the primary object for opening the
communication being obtained by the two armies and secured by proper
posts, in which operation the reduction of the rebels in the province
of New York must in some measure ne included, these corps might take
seperate routes into the province of Massachusetts Bay as
circumstances arise."

This gives Howe's clear strategic priorities ("the primary object")
taking New York and "crushing rebel resistance" in New York before a
tentative and qualified ambition to move into New England. I'd be
interested to see if you could refer to any statement of Howe's
identifying an offensive in New England as a "primary object" or
immediate "object" of his intentions in the same manner as he uses
such phrases to refer to New York in 1775 or concentrating on
Washington's army in 1776. The language used seems clear enough to
me. Which is impressive, given the customary obscurity of Howe's
prognostications,

He
>then brings up the notion of removing the Boston force from that city
>to operate in Rhode Island so that the "army would be better connected
>and the corps would act with greater effect on that side, from whence
>it might possibly penetrate into the country." IOW, the taking of New
>York was the stepping stone for the invasion of New England. No
>where does Howe mention operations south of New York.
>
>> The tentative language adopted in regard to invading Massachusetts Bay
>> contrasts with the unchallenged immediate focus on New York and
>> reflects the actual priority for these tasks.
>
>But not the ultimate objective.

The ultimate objective was to end the rebellion. My contention is
that this was not restricted to an erroneous obsession with crushing
New England in particular as you assert. This is reflected in the
actual British decision-making process in 1775 which subordinated the
military conquest of New England to the holding of bases to open up
seaborne communication. New England was one possible object, but New
York, Rhode Island and even detatched operations in the south were to
be considered and employed first. It was one object among many, all
of which ended up as a higher priority.

>> This was further
>> emphasised by the order in which they were performed by Howe in
>> historical reality, i.e. the taking of New York coming first, Rhode
>> Island second, and the possibility of Clinton operating against
>> Massachusetts from Rhode Island a distant third which was abandoned in
>> favour of developing operations from New York into New Jersey and up
>> the Hudson.
>
>Again, inductive reasoning suggesting that Howe was following a part
>of a concerted plan, when in fact he was doing nothing but reacting to
>events.

I'm at a loss to consider what you think British planning actually was
then: all plans, even the rebel's ones, revolved around achieving
pre-selected aims while simultaneously trying to react to external
events as they developed. The rebellion itself can be dismissed as
"doing nothing but reacting" to British colonial policy or the British
response as a whole as "doing nothing but reacting" to the rising in
New England, or the French, Dutch and Spanish interventions, etc, etc
ad infinitum.

What the correspondance in question here illustrates is that the
British were not obsessed with New England when considering offensive
operations designed to end the rebellion. In fact, the correspondance
makes clear that British strategy was malleable and was evolved with
full consideration to the operational difficulties on the spot. The
relevant commander-in-chief was given wide lattitude to implement
government policy, which itself was not laid down in a dictatorial
fashion. If this itself is "inductive" and thus beneath your
consideration, then tough: this is actually how British strategic
policy evolved and what it actually was historically.

What remains is that the reconquest of New England did not enjoy the
primacy you assert for it in British strategy.

>> Clearly, operating directly against New England was not a British
>> strategic obsession at the time in view of the other strategies
>> actually pursued. This was explictly recognised by Dartmouth in the
>> letter of 2nd August 1775 to which Howe and Gage were responding in
>> October, which offered three strategic alternatives for Howe's (and
>> Gage's) consideration:
>
><Snip Dartmouth's points raised above>
>
>> The fact that Gage and Howe both ruled out 1, and opted for 2, with
>> the proviso that the Boston force actually went to Rhode Island, along
>> with the division of strength involved and the later discarding of
>> land-based offensive plans from Rhode Island indicates that the New
>> York policy was the prime strategic object.
>
>Wrong. As I enumerated above. New York was meant to be a secure base
>for subsequent operations against New England.

Taking New York was designed to fulfil several objectives, the least
and most tentative of which in the relevant correspondance was as a
possible platform for invading New England. I'm not asserting that
operations against New England were totally rejected in some binary
mirror-image of your original assertions. I am asserting, based
clearly on the sources that I originally referred to and which support
this, that the British had a much broader strategic appreciation than
you claim, reflected in the fact that other objectives were given a
higher priority than the mistaken excessive focus on New England which
you originally asserted.

>> Davies is quite clear
>> that the Rhode Island force was a "supporting post", i.e. subsidiary
>> to New York.
>
>How does the occupation of New York win the war for the British?

How does the evacutation of Boston win the war for the British? How
does abandoning any landward offensive by the Rhode Island force win
the war? How does omitting to specify Burgoyne's ultimate objective
and even ignore his requests to clarify any putative offensive role
for his forces in Connecticut win the war? Now, if the British really
were obsessed with re-conquering New England to the extent that you
originally asserted, such decisions are inexplicable.

If you actually want to know what I think the default British
assumptions about the best means for subjugating New England were, I
would suggest it involved detatching other colonies (which were also
in rebellion and also needed to be dealt with if the government was to
achieve it's policy of defeating the rebellion) by developing
operations in more sympathetic areas first, which might then culminate
in limited military operations relying on seaborne communication on
the New England coast (i.e. as Germain was suggesting in March 1777).
These operations were to be subsidiary to the blockade, while a
combination of blockade and military operations at selected locations
to restore colonial government would provide the political pressure to
force a compromise peace by individual colonies. In other words,
something like what they did in 1812-14 although with a much larger
military component to deal with the Continental Army.

>That
>is what is at discussion here. Both Gage and Howe make it clear what
>they wanted in going to New York was not a war winning strategy but
>only a change of base, because Boston was such a poor one.

Both Gage and Howe turned down operations in New England, not just
with the evacuation of Boston, but in Howe's case for the two years
that followed in which he had the force sufficient for major offensive
operations that he had been asking for in 1775. The direction of
British forces in 1776-1777 and throughout the rest of the war
indicate what their strategic objectives were at the time, and the
secondary basis of any direct offensive against New England is
immediately obvious. What I suggest is a more cogent explanation for
the their strategic motives was a more realistic appreciation of the
size of the task involved in subduing the rebellion on a
continental-wide basis, which explains their willingness to develop
operations in New York, the Hudson, Philadelphia, Charleston and the
Carolinas (not to mention their anti-invasion measures and operations
in the Carribean and India) in a manner that your posited obsession
with New England on their behalf does not.

>> Furthermore, in an echo of the reduction of the putative role for
>> Clinton's force at Rhode Island, nobody was particularly interested in
>> Burgoyne's attempts to broaden the scope of his advancdown the Hudson
>> to an ultimate objective of invading Connecticut [although by the same
>> token nobody seemed interested in reducing the fog of inchoerence
>> surrounding Burgoyne's ultimate objectives beyond opening up land
>> communications between New York and Canada]. By that stage, Howe was
>> more interested in Washington's army and Philadelphia than he was in
>> supporting Burgoyne in the Hudson valley. The only possible contender
>> for a 1777 invasion of New England was basically allowed to run into
>> defeat with no effort to even define it as such or get Howe to support
>> it properly.
>
>Again, this is entirely inductive, and is not even correct on the
>facts of it. Firstly, Howe's initial plan for 1777, dispatched on
>November 30th of 1776, had the armies operating up the Hudson and out
>of Rhode Island. The New Jersey army was only to make faints.

Operations on the Hudson had parity, but even then this was quickly
displaced by his plans detailed in his letter to Germain on 20th
December, which explictly gave priority for operations in Pennsylvania
and the taking of Philadelphia. This was followed up by the deferral
of operations against Boston and the rejection of even *diversionary*
amphibious activity in New England when Germain suggested it in March
1777 in favour of "..more important operations of the campaign...",
i.e. Howe's offensive in Pennsylvania.

>Burgoyne would not have mentioned operations against western
>Massachusetts if that was not connected in any ways with prevailing
>sentiment.

Why did Burgoyne solicit a ruling on this if it was the self-evident
ultimate strategic obsession? Why didn't Germain respond with
something along the lines of "Yes, New England is the priority, move
on it immediately after linking up with Howe at Albany" while telling
Howe to concentrate on New England and ignore Washington and
Philadelphia? Clearly, concentrating on an offensive against New
England was _not_ their main priority.

That notion was shot down more for reasons of command and
>control and logistical than any thing else.

Howe seemed happy enough to know Carleton, who had seniority on him,
wasn't going to be coming down from Canada. Meanwhile, Burgoyne was
clearly going to be his subordinate once any linkup was achieved.

Burgoyne was ordered to
>Albany as the easiest way to get him out from under Carleton and
>placed under Howe's command. There was never supposed to be much
>opposition to that movement at all as, like in '75, everyone assumed
>the Hudson valley was dominated by loyalists, and that the American
>army there was weak. Other than that, Burgoyne had no purpose.

I think mission creep crept in. Opening up communications with Canada
and protecting it from further invasion mutated into something more
incoherent which allowed Burgoyne the scope he wanted. There's no
doubt he underestimated both the quantity and quality of the
opposition he faced. The plan makes no sense at all without taking
that into account. However, even after getting to Albany, there was
no clear plan and again Davies seems to believe his force was
"diversionary" - an adjective that always seems to come into play when
the British were discussing future operational strategy.

>Germain never provided any input, then or at any other time.

I don't really know if he should: the primary issue was integrating
Burgoyne and Howe and getting Howe to act in Burgoyne's support. The
person with the first responsibility there was Howe, but Germain can
be blamed for letting him do his own thing with insufficient
communication and co-ordination.

Not in
>'76 and not '78 save to suggest the obvious choices Clinton would be
>forced to act on. It is one of the primary reasons that both Carleton
>and Howe (and IIRC Clinton) all came to despise Germain. He provided
>no strategic direction. Knowing that, British strategy has to be
>discussed with the primary focus given to the theater commanders
>perspectives, and for 1777, both came to the conclusion, seperately,
>that New England was the primary objective.

It was never Germain's job to provide that kind of direction. Howe
was the commander-in-chief, with wide military and civil
administrative latitude to secure the return of the disaffected.
Co-ordinating via Germain was idiotic, given the distance and time-lag
involved in communicating to London and awaiting a response. Howe
should have been communicating to Burgoyne direct or via Carleton.
That left plenty of scope for mutual recrimination as it was, but the
only messages going back to Germain should have been Carleton's rants.
Military co-ordination had to take place under the aegis of the
commander-in-chief. That put the ball in Howe's court.

That is why it is
>included in Howe's first, and why it was included in Burgoyne's
>proposal. Remember, he left for London some time before Cornwallis
>landed at Fort Lee. If Howe had not had other objectives in mind, he
>would not have ordered Cornwallis to halt at Brunswick and so allow
>Washington to make his escape.

The rationale for Howe's dilatory approach in New York can be
disputed. One objective that had currency then and now hinged upon
Howe attempting to avoid inflicting a bloody defeat on Washington
which would polarise resistance towards a political settlement
further. I've never read that it had any relevance to any obsession
with returning to New England.

It was only after circumstances
>changed that Howe made his drastic departure from previous strategy,
>whereas Burgoyne merely continued it (if somewhat aimlessly).

Howe was the one who decided to keep the main force of the army
against Washington and cancel the intended operations against Boston
from Rhode Island. Meanwhile, his operations udner Clinton in upper
New York fulfilled the letter if not the spirit of his undetakings
about how far he would support Burgoyne. In both cases, two options
(operations in the Hudson valley and the offensive to Philadelphia)
overrode the whatever priority was given to returning to the offensive
in New England.

>> You'll note my points about Howe's priorities and aims for the New
>> York and Rhode Island forces come from the same letter. The "primary
>> object", as defined by Howe, was *not* the invasion of New England,
>> whether from Boston *or* Rhode Island.
>
>Tactically, no, but strategically, yes.

Strategically, by 1777 Howe was in Philadelphia and nobody was
following Burgoyne down the Hudson. As usual, resuming the offensive
in New England was on the back burner.

>In his letter of November 30th, 1777, he proposed an army of 10,000
>men to act offensively from Rhode Island against Boston, another
>10,000 to act up the Hudson, and an army of 8,000 "to cover Jersey and
>to keep the southern army in check by giving a jealously to
>Philadelphia."

On 30th November 1776 (at least that's the date in my notes), he
proposed an army of 10,000 to operate from Rhode Island towards Boston
under Clinton, another 10,000 to operate out of New York towards
Albany, 8,000 to hold Washington in New Jersey with another 5,000 to
hold New York. In the event, he went after Washington, and guess
which priority got axed? That's right, the idea of land operations
against Boston by Clinton, who instead performs a limited offensive in
upper New York while Howe goes after Washington with the main balance
of his army, as announced on 20th December.

What emerges from all this is that New England was a strategic
objective of the British. But that it did not have the priority you
assert for it. Other and more important objectives constantly
eliminated what low-priority plans were made for operations in New
England. I'll leave it up to any spectators of this thread (if any
can overcome the terminal boredom involved) to decide which of our
characterisations of British strategic policy and their underlying
assumptions best fits the facts.

>> It's not as if my reading of these sources is particularly
>> revolutionary:
>
>Not it is not. It is in fact quite conventional.

Saratogan, then?

>> this is what Davies himself has to say
>> in the
>> introduction to Volume XI Transcripts, July - December 1775:
>> "As to the deployment of this army [reinforcements promised to Howe
>> and Gage in August 1775], Dartmouth invited Gage to choose between New
>> England, New York and 'other places', leaving it entirely to the
>> judgement of the generals but himself coming out fairly strongly in
>> favour of New York."
>
>Which, of course, was answering the question of basing.

"Both were flatly against carrying on the war in New England..." The
question of basing was fundamentally relevant to the issue of where
the army was actually to _operate_. Obviously, this wasn't in New
England for the first half of the war. Nor the second, in the event.

>> "Both were flatly against carrying on the war in New England (by which
>> the meant the army's fighting it's way out of Boston),
>
>Which of course is silly.

That's Davies's interpretation, not mine. In that case I wanted to
reproduce the whole quote rather than truncate the parenthesis and
lose his qualification (even if doing so would superficially support
my argument better).

>Boston was NOT the only avenue of approach
>into New England. I mean, really, just where do you think an army
>operating from Rhode Island was going to operate against? Georgia?

The critical issue in both cases is what the army was actually to
achieve. My own disagreement with Davies is that he refers to
continuing operations from Boston by characterising them as "...the
army's fighting its way out of Boston..". To which I respond - where?
To do what? The British force in Boston was besieged by a larger
local force with a hostile hinterland all around. Simply refighting
Bunker Hill ad infinitum might have dispersed the relevant militia
levies, but with the countryside behind them they would always have
the opportunity to reform and replace losses. Gage and Howe both had
an understanding of how the attritional balance was against them in
that context, particularly after Bunker Hill. Only an imbecile would
have advocated plunging an army deep into New England in those
circumstances without any concept of how it was to re-establish
British administration where colonial government had been almost
entirely subverted and the rebel forces were seen as the legitimate
armed force of broad mass of the population.

One of the factors governing the choice of New York as an alternative
to Boston was an appreciation of the differing balance of power
between rebels and loyalists there. As I've just read you to agree
with further on. This differential was crucial, and helps explain why
the British developed operations elsewhere but apart from holding
Rhode Island as a naval base did next to nothing to reconquer New
England directly.

>> Whoever was pushing this vision of British "misconceptions" about "all
>> that they had to do" being to "conquer New England" to "crush the
>> rebellion" and this being "the thinking that drove British strategic
>> planning for the first half of the war", it wasn't the British
>> commander-in-chief in America, his successor, nor the relevant
>> minister responsible for instructing them in accordance with
>> government policy.
>
>Little trouble was expected in New York as it was full of the King's
>"Friends." They weren't going to New York to pacify it. It was
>already considered pacified!

Not when Howe first turned up. It was clear that taking New York was
to be a major amphibious operation against substantive resistance.
Which it was. That resulted in the British actually operating from a
base with better communications with a large military force on hand to
disperse rebel militias and allow a loyalist regime to establish
itself in the shadow of that.

>> On another note, when it comes to British "misconceptions", one of the
>> basic facts behind Howe's objections to operating out of Boston was
>> the strength of rebel forces and their ability to replace casualties
>> from the surrounding countryside.
>
>Of course Howe was referring to New England, and not all of America in
>general. He, and Gage et al, wanted New York because it was
>considered friendly territory. Howe even persisted in that mistake
>through the first half of 1777. Burgoyne too. Germain's papers make
>it clear that he also thought New York was mostly loyalist.

Almost everybody in the British administration thought that _every_
colony had this illusiary mass of oppressed loyalists willing to
spring to the side of the legitimate government at the first sign of a
sizeable British force appearing locally. Howe was explict that there
would be a requirement for militarily eliminating rebel forces in New
York in his letter of 9th October 1775, long before he turned up there
in person and decided he needed more reinforcements to do the job.
You can certainly argue that this was optimistic, but it wasn't an
unfounded belief and indicates why the British weren't interested in
continuing active operations in New England after the siege of Boston.

Howe
>occupied New Jersey in full because he was under the impression that
>most Jersians were loyal (and he quoted the numbers of "loyalists" who
>took loyalty oaths as proof). Read where he talked of the Canadian
>army being composed of 3000 British troops and 3 or 4,000 Canadians!

Everybody had problems getting the local militia to operate away from
home: the Americans not the least.

>It is probable that more Canadians enlisted in the American army than
>the British. Not one single Canadian regiment was ever raised (though
>a number of loyalist regiments were raised in Canada, but from
>loyalist expats from other colonies-chiefly New York).

Canadian anitpathy or neutrality was sufficient to doom the premature
American attempt to conquer Canada as well. In that respect American
operations in Canada faced much of the same dynamic that the British
did further south.

One of the
>reasons Howe gave for going to Philadelphia was to raise troops from
>the "mostly" loyal population. After 1778, the British went to the
>South in hopes of garning all those loyalists to be found there. That
>was one of the great delusions of the war for the British, but I never
>included New England in that estimate.

The perception of the geography of loyalist sympathy was fundamental
to British strategy: an army was only going to operate where it could
assist and be assisted by local American loyalists who were the people
who would actually operate a loyal regime and return the colonies to
"normal relations". This works both ways - it enticed the British to
New York and elsewhere, but it also made them reject Boston and New
England as a potential theatre of operations even before Burgoyne got
bogged down in the Hudson against unexpected local resistance. By
1775 Gage had plenty of experience of the problems of attempting to
excercise British administration in a hostile countryside in New
England, and pastures new seemed more promising to everybody. What
counts above all is that fact that what had been a New England crisis
at the time of the powder alarms had, by the time of the siege of
Boston, become a continent-wide crisis.

>> Compared to Burgoyne's initial
>> under-rating of the difficulties of getting to Albany and his
>> dismissal of the possibility of a large local force with sufficient
>> capacity to defeat his advance being gathered without withdrawing
>> support from Washington, this was a reasonable and accurate
>> appreciation.
>
>Everyone underestimated the difficulties in getting to Albany.

Yes. However, I feel Howe was a little more alive to the
potentialities than Burgoyne was. Having said that, the most
boneheaded actor in one of Burgoyne's plays might have been a little
more alive to the reality than Burgoyne, even if he wasn't quite the
buffoon he is sometimes made out to be.

The
>British constantly under-estimated Washington (who was quite a good
>strategist-he never thought, until it actually occured, that the
>British would be so stupid as to march south down the Lakes and
>Hudson) who they always planned on him doing what they wanted him to
>do, and not what he might actually be capable. His withdrawal into
>New Jersey was one overlooked possibility, as was his willingness to
>sacrafice the New England coast so as not to violate the priniciple of
>mass was another, and his strategic plan for 1777 was a brilliant
>study in its simplicity.

I'm not disputing this hagiography, even if I don't have much patience
with it (pace his battlefield defeats and failure to defend New York
and Philadelphia: he was never able to stop Howe doing what he wanted
to do, and the biggest obstruction to Howe's activities was probably
internal). Washington's greatest achievement was keeping an army -
however ill-equipped and bedraggled - in the field, and improving it
over time. British policy, at least under Howe, sought to exploit the
underestimated difficulty of just doing that. Even so, the existance
of a continental army was just one of a large number of factors the
British had to deal with in 1777-82; the most important were the
European allies the Americans gained, which imposed inescapable
constraints on British seaborne communications and military resources
in other theatres as well as providing the Americans with an allied
expeditionary force.

After 1777 the British were in a major conflict with several European
powers, and America was just one theatre of operations. In those
circumstances re-conquering New England vanished off the radar of
British immediate strategic ambitions.

Gavin Bailey
--

"Will Boogie Down For Food".- Sign held by Disco Stu outside the unemployment office.