h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

""as I can't think of a war the US has won on its own."

US Civil War
Spanish-American War"

Didn't they fight the 1812 war against Britain on their own?

I'm rusty on that particular bit of history, so I might be wrong.

"The French and British helped the opposing sides in the civil war."

I don't know if the French helped the Union. Britain certainly built Ironclads for the Confederacy, and there was, apparently, a strong desire in the UK for the Union to be defeated but we didn't actively support the Confederates in any other way, as far as I know.

It wouldn't surprise me if the French did help the Union. From what I can gather, France and the USA used to be good friends until that Xenophobic imbecile de Gaulle entered the fray and poisoned relations between the two nations. We're still seeing the effects of that to this day.

Personally I do not have a problem with De Gaulle not towing the american line as a matter of course, in fact I think it is admirable (even if it do not necessarily agree with the line De Gaulle actually took).

P.S Didn't the french send an expiditionary force dureing the independance war? Any student of American History out there?

From what I've read, French involvement was instrumental in that war (independence).

"Didn't they fight the 1812 war against Britain on their own?"

Yes, but I think Britain was fighting France at the time, which might be considered a distraction.

Anyway, different people have different opinions on who one that war.

Americans generally say that the USA won because we faugfht the greatest empire on Earth to a standstill.

I went to a Canadian museum one, though, that said that Britain won becasue the Treaty of Ghent didn't say anytihng aboutnthe two things that started the war--the impressment of American sailors by the British navy and the fact that Britian was occupying forts in the territory that they had given the US in the 1787 Treaty of Paris.

"It wouldn't surprise me if the French did help the Union. From what I can gather, France and the USA used to be good friends until that Xenophobic imbecile de Gaulle entered the fray and poisoned relations between the two nations."

I'm pretty sure the French didn't help the US. I don't think that they officially recognized the Confederacy like the British did, but that's about all. I don't think they really cared that much--they didn't have the economic interest in the war that the British did.

"Personally I do not have a problem with De Gaulle not towing the american line as a matter of course, in fact I think it is admirable (even if it do not necessarily agree with the line De Gaulle actually took)."

Ironically, de Gaulle and the mentality he has created in France is just the opposite side of the same coin as the right-wing nationalists in America. Exactly the reason the two mentalities can't stand each other.

de Gaulle was not admirable. It was good that he encouraged the French to fight the Nazi occupiers, but his attitude to the Americans was pathetic and hysterically immature. When Roosevelt wanted to land American troops in Morrocco to assist the Free French forces who were attacking the German and Vichy French armies, de Gaulle was incensed. No Americans, he said, should be allowed to land on "French soil" (this was, lest we forget, actually Arab North Africa, anti-imperialism fans). His attitude after the war was pretty much the same. He demanded American troops leave France, prompting the famous "even the ones buried in the cemeteries" response.

If you look at postcards from WWI, American troops are shown joining the war on the French side (American airmen fought under the French banner before the USA entered WWI). Historical footage from both world wars shows Americans being warmly welcomed by the French. De Gaulle destroyed that and poisoned a good friendship between the two nations, out of nothing more complicated than zealous anti-Anglo Saxon Nationalism. Hero? Sorry, no. If the French really want a national hero from WWII they might choose all the very brave Frenchmen and Women who fought the Nazis on their home soil against incredible odds in the Resistance movements, without the luxury of hiding in London. They are the real French heroes of WWII, not that big-nosed racist.

It was--the French navy kept the British fleet out of the Chesepeak Bay in the Battle of the Chesapeake Straits. This kept the British from reinforcing Cornwallis, allowing American and French troops to defeat Cornwellis.

Oddly enough, it was almost the only naval battle the French won against the British in that time period.




I doubt that France would have helped the US durring the Civil War because France was in the middle of it's Second Empire. The main reason that the US and France were allies for a time was that they were both republics and were both fighting against Britain. However, Napoleon III was not so interested in those things and anyway didn't exactly get along with the US--he violated the Monroe Doctrine by making Maxmillian the Emperor of Mexico. I doubt the two countries were that friendly at the time.

"From what I've read, French involvement was instrumental in that war (independence)."

I think the French did enter the Revolutionary war on the side of the USA, not because they supported the ideals of the Revolution (which, ironically, would destroy their own government just over a decade later) but in order to critically damage their British rivals.

So, yes, the USA arguably owes France it's very existance.

"...not because they supported the ideals of the Revolution..."

How does that modify the statement you quoted?
That period is difficult as american history seems to get revised somewhat.

*just bookmarking really*

Following on from the Kyoto discussion earlier: another new (to me) piece of research on global warming says <> see http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0901-01.htm for more.

Is it sensible to say there is still dispute, or is it time to admit that global warming, as a result of human actions, exists? If so, shouldn't we do what we can about it?

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

What I admire about de Gaulle is not him or his policys merely his willingness to find another route and not blithely follow the American way.

There's been an awful lot of inflammatory rhetoric in here since I went on my long vacation, and this topic seems to be going in every direction at once. While I have no problem with topic drift, could we cool it on the rhetoric?

I'd like to remind you all that it was to be able to have conversations on divisive topics that were free of such things that motivated the creation of this forum. We can always find plenty of inflammation at Ask H2G2.

And now, with that off my chest...

"as I can't think of a war the US has won on its own."

How many nations have won any wars since the 1700s on their own? The US came into being in the early stages of globalization. No nation was an island then (metaphorically, of course), and none is now.

To give you an idea of how silly the question is... how many wars have Great Britain won on their own since 1700?

The US did win the Mexican-American War without outside influence of any kind. The Texas Revolution could also be considered an American war. Every other war involved some sort of foreign participation, even when that participation was small in scope (Philippine cooperation in the Spanish American War, for example, or the two Iraq wars where the US provided over 90% of the total forces), so the pedant has what they need to make their point.

Personally I think "Who won what war with whose help?" is a silly jingoistic question at best.

And can anyone explain to me why fighting a war alone is better than fighting alongside allies?

" While I have no problem with topic drift, could we cool it on the rhetoric?"

This from a person who's last words in a long running Iraq thread was to call everyone who didn't agree with him, "pro sadam supports" after a long winded speech degrading people who were anti war.

...anyway, The reason for topic drift on this thread is the oft childish wish not to concede a point but rather to pretend it didn't happen and change the subject. Congrats to moldy sandwitch who has managed to be counted a concede a point.

I'm glad we could end that amicably with very little libel.

Given that the overall topic of this discussion hasn't changed, here's an eye-opener I came across this morning, which lists the USA's acts of terror in recent years: http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0902-02.htm.

Although this thread is - justifiably in some ways - anti-American, it is well worth reminding ourselves that the Americans also do good in the world, and that *many* nations do less good than America does, considered overall. Don't forget.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

That was quite an interesting read. Very enlightening and helps to underline the overall idea concerning this thread. Are there by any chances articles concerning Britain's involvement with terrorism? I'd imagine there's got to be something or we're just left with the Faulklands fiasco.

Did I concede a point? I can't quite remember? This thread's become very complicated...

PS - Is this http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3200699.stm taking the p**s?