Gotta love what kinds of losers these French are.....

[wkwillis]

The U.S. plan to invade Canada was called "Joint Army and Navy Basic War Plan -- Red" developed in 1930's.

Canada had a counter-plan in the 1920's called "Defence Scheme No. 1"

Both plans have been declassified and are available with a simple google search.

As some have stated--invading Canada is an old American tradition. Invading Canada successfully is not.

Ooh, you are so snarky. Love it!

 

[wkwillis]

The two times you mention are, of course, the ARW (who had the fleet at Yorktown?) and 1812 (when britain was busy choking the life out of what was, basically, Europe).

I'd have to disagree with your reasoning for american victory there. You won the ARW because it is "hard to defeat a militia on their home ground", as you say. It doesn't help when your base of operations is 3000 km away. American privateers, while romantic, don't come into things too much.


Actually, there was an article in mny paper (the ottawa citizen) about that quite recently. It had the america plan from the 30s (IIRC, it was using numerical superiority to take Quebec, Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver.) The canadian plan (from the 20s) was to run into the borderstates as fast as possible. when the americna army arrives, we reteat, scorched-earthing everything in the occupied US. the idea is to make the US's logistical difficulities too great to mount a serious invasion. This is in the interwar period, remember.

Oh, and we hold onto the champlain valley, windsor, st clair & niagra crossings like mad bastards. I'm starting to wonder if Turtledove read this before "Great War". It seems kinda familiar...

I don't think Yorktown was important. It just gave the British an excuse to go home. What really broke their morale and caused them to pull out of the North was the US busily killing all their loyalist supporters who were a musket shot's distant from the British fortifications.
Britain basically had Manhattan Island, Staten Island, and pretty much that's it. Everywhere else they wound up paying taxes to the US army when they bought food from the farmers in Patriot territory in order to feed themselves. We were perfectly happy to mark up the price of food and sell it to them. Well, actually we just taxed the farmers that sold food to the British.
I wish we hadn't won at Yorktown. We were busy liberating British (well, Tory) slaves and they were providing sanctuary to Patriot owned slaves, if the war had gone on a few years longer slavery would have been over. It would have been for the better. Also, we were ramping up our manufacturing capability to replace imports from Britain.
It was American privateers that took out the British merchant marine. The French were busy tying down the British main battle fleet. And ground forces, to some extent, that is, to the extent that the British had them instead of subsidizing the continental monarchs in their fight with the French.

 

[Zyzzyva]

I don't think Yorktown was important. It just gave the British an excuse to go home. What really broke their morale and caused them to pull out of the North was the US busily killing all their loyalist supporters who were a musket shot's distant from the British fortifications.

You didn't kill all of us - look at my user title!

Britain basically had Manhattan Island, Staten Island, and pretty much that's it. Everywhere else they wound up paying taxes to the US army when they bought food from the farmers in Patriot territory in order to feed themselves. We were perfectly happy to mark up the price of food and sell it to them. Well, actually we just taxed the farmers that sold food to the British.

I'd argue that a as-yet nonexistant country collecting taxes with its army is extortion. Isn't that what people like the LRA in Uganda and the Moaists in Nepal, and, well, guerrilas everywhere do? And, the farmers around Valley Forge sold their food straight to the british, because the british payed cash - Washington's men just had worthless paper.

I wish we hadn't won at Yorktown. We were busy liberating British (well, Tory) slaves and they were providing sanctuary to Patriot owned slaves, if the war had gone on a few years longer slavery would have been over. It would have been for the better.

I don't know about liberating tory slaves, but i do know that a lot of your founding fathers (especially those from Virginia) were slaveowners who saw slavery as practically the fourth inallienable right. Washingtons's slave ran away to New York, along with about 30,000 others. Cornwallis refused to return them when the British left. Most of them went to Nova Scotia with the Loyalists. The British rased black regiments, and Washington forbade blacks from serving in the army. I'm not sure a longer war would have been better for anyone - least of all slaves.

 

[Ian the Admin]

I'd say that frenchmen are more curageous than britishes at least... Did Britain EVER won a war by itself, against a SERIOUS adversary and going straight face to face to the ennemy?

If one thing can be said, is that our cousins have the guts to fight for LOST causes, something that neitheir Britain or USA does, reall - they go for killing.

"they go for killing"?

That's ridiculously offensive. Given that and the fact that you've been warned for overblown offensive rhetoric, this is an official warning: one more crack like that from you and you'll be kicked.

 

[Chingo360]

wow this thread has turned into like the hate thread of AH....

uhm... i dont like this...

 

[Max Sinister]

Better think the next time about it when you wonder whether to start a controversial thread.

 

[wkwillis]

You didn't kill all of us - look at my user title!



I'd argue that a as-yet nonexistant country collecting taxes with its army is extortion. Isn't that what people like the LRA in Uganda and the Moaists in Nepal, and, well, guerrilas everywhere do? And, the farmers around Valley Forge sold their food straight to the british, because the british payed cash - Washington's men just had worthless paper.




I don't know about liberating tory slaves, but i do know that a lot of your founding fathers (especially those from Virginia) were slaveowners who saw slavery as practically the fourth inallienable right. Washingtons's slave ran away to New York, along with about 30,000 others. Cornwallis refused to return them when the British left. Most of them went to Nova Scotia with the Loyalists. The British rased black regiments, and Washington forbade blacks from serving in the army. I'm not sure a longer war would have been better for anyone - least of all slaves.

No, no, no. Long wars are great for slaves. It's so hard to keep track of all the people moving around....Which is why the ARW is such a great thing in my books. Lots of dead white oppressors, lots of whining slave owners, and lots of black people running off and becoming free.
Unfortunately, the Brits left a lot of slaves behind to be recaptured. Pity.
I'm a libertarian. I'm congenitally unable to tell the difference between a tax collector and any other kind of thief. At least the American tax collectors had some kind of elected authority, unlike the Brits. That counts for something.
It must have been frustrating for the Brits. Here they are with all those Canadians to oppress, and as soon as they tried to raise the taxes and tariffs and quotas, the Canadians just shrugged and walked over the border into America in search of more money. How much fun is it to oppress people that don't even notice?