How do British text/history books treat the American Revolution?

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Atheus

Diamond Member
Jun 7, 2005
7,313
2
0
Originally posted by: mugs
Why should we have been willing to let them set the terms of their surrender?

To avoid a lot of civilian deaths?

Or they could have dropped one in the sea or something, got everyone soaking wet, and said "there's more where that came from". That might have done the trick.
 

Feldenak

Lifer
Jan 31, 2003
14,090
2
81
Originally posted by: DVK916
Originally posted by: Feldenak
Originally posted by: MmmSkyscraper
Originally posted by: Atheus

Britain, soldiers served - 11,115,000, dead/missing - 580,000
USA, soldiers served - 11,260,000, dead/missing - 318,274
Russia, soldiers served - 34,476,700, dead/missing - 8,668,400

:Q
rose.gif

IIRC, Stalin liked frontal assaults and would just repeatedly throw men into meat grinders. The other Allies tended to "care" more for the troops.

And we can thank Russia for doing the most to end WW2.

Actually, you can thank Hitler for being a complete nutjob.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
56,590
16,585
146
Originally posted by: Feldenak
Originally posted by: MmmSkyscraper
Originally posted by: Atheus

Britain, soldiers served - 11,115,000, dead/missing - 580,000
USA, soldiers served - 11,260,000, dead/missing - 318,274
Russia, soldiers served - 34,476,700, dead/missing - 8,668,400

:Q
rose.gif

IIRC, Stalin liked frontal assaults and would just repeatedly throw men into meat grinders. The other Allies tended to "care" more for the troops.

Yeah, while I have total respect for the Soviet soldiers, Stalin used them as little more than cannon fodder. It was a war of attrition, nothing more. Had Stalin not had the numbers, he would have lost miserably.

Stalin had murdered any and all great military minds in the purges previous to WWII. He was left with some of the worst military leadership one could ask for when Germany invaded.
 
Dec 27, 2001
11,272
1
0
Originally posted by: DivideBYZero
Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
So basically, they skip the whole ugly hundreds of years of British colonial imperialism and intrusion and jump from ancient rome to WWII. No wonder Brits are so damn snooty.....THEY'RE PERFECT!!!

Yes. Yes we are.


/snoot

LOL. Seriously, in America you leave history class feeling awful about yourself. You go, "Why don't we just give the country back to the Indians.....we stole it from them and don't deserve it" and "People from the South are awful for enslaving black people" and "Poor Mexico never had a chance, what with us having Sam Houston and David Bowie and Johnny Appleseed and all" and "We did WHAT to the Canadian british colonials.....oh man, can't we give them Maine and Minnesota to compensate".
 

AbsolutDealage

Platinum Member
Dec 20, 2002
2,675
0
0
Originally posted by: Atheus
Originally posted by: mugs
Why should we have been willing to let them set the terms of their surrender?

To avoid a lot of civilian deaths?

Or they could have dropped one in the sea or something, got everyone soaking wet, and said "there's more where that came from". That might have done the trick.

We spent millions on the plutonium and uranium to produce the 2 bombs used. Dropping one into the ocean as a scare tactic would have been a poor use of those resources.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
56,590
16,585
146
Originally posted by: Atheus
Originally posted by: mugs
Why should we have been willing to let them set the terms of their surrender?

To avoid a lot of civilian deaths?

Or they could have dropped one in the sea or something, got everyone soaking wet, and said "there's more where that came from". That might have done the trick.

We killed far more civilians in the firebombings of Tokyo than we did with the bombs. Not to mention the bombings of other Japanese cities.

WWII was the last war won and the last successful occupation of a country because the civilian populations were pounded into submission. Every man of fighting age was either dead, or captured.

As we have learned (or should have learned) since, merely targeting the military does not work. You either fight the entire country, or you do not fight at all.
 

B00ne

Platinum Member
May 21, 2001
2,168
1
0
Originally posted by: iamwiz82
Russians would just mow down any Russian troops retreating.


Well, I dont know about the Russians, but the Germans certainly did that with their own...
 

Aikouka

Lifer
Nov 27, 2001
30,383
912
126
Originally posted by: Feldenak
IIRC, Stalin liked frontal assaults and would just repeatedly throw men into meat grinders. The other Allies tended to "care" more for the troops.

To think that Stalin cared for anyone is an amusing thought ;). The fact that the poor townsfolk welcomed the Nazis into Russia at first shows the distaste, but Hitler's notion of a xenocide (good book too) doesn't include letting poor Russians in :p.

Originally posted by: AbsolutDealage
We spent millions on the plutonium and uranium to produce the 2 bombs used. Dropping one into the ocean as a scare tactic would have been a poor use of those resources.

Woo, at that rate, we could just equip our fighters with super soakers and go to town in the biggest water gun fight evar!
 

dirtylimey

Senior member
Nov 22, 2006
296
0
0
Originally posted by: B00ne
Originally posted by: iamwiz82
Russians would just mow down any Russian troops retreating.


Well, I dont know about the Russians, but the Germans certainly did that with their own...
The Russians were far more well known for this kind of behaviour. i.e. sending troops through minefields to clear them, then sending the weaponless soldiers to go pick up the weapons from the dead and continue forward.
 

torpid

Lifer
Sep 14, 2003
11,631
11
76
Originally posted by: DVK916What is so terrible about a conditional military surender.

If I recall correctly, the only conditional surrender they were even offering involved keeping korea and taiwan. Though it was possibly known that their only real steadfast term was to keep the emperor in power, I don't think they ever formally proposed a surrender giving up everything except imperial power. In fact it even took a while after russia invaded and the two bombs were dropped for an agreement to be made.
 

chambersc

Diamond Member
Feb 11, 2005
6,247
0
0
Originally posted by: AbsolutDealage
Originally posted by: Atheus
Originally posted by: mugs
Why should we have been willing to let them set the terms of their surrender?

To avoid a lot of civilian deaths?

Or they could have dropped one in the sea or something, got everyone soaking wet, and said "there's more where that came from". That might have done the trick.

We spent millions on the plutonium and uranium to produce the 2 bombs used. Dropping one into the ocean as a scare tactic would have been a poor use of those resources.

Not to mention a HUGE blemish (during a time of war) if it failed. Absolutely unthinkable of committing during a time of war. All in all, some collateral damage was necessary. One death is a tragedy, a million is a statistic.
 

SarcasticDwarf

Diamond Member
Jun 8, 2001
9,574
1
76
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: Feldenak
Originally posted by: MmmSkyscraper
Originally posted by: Atheus

Britain, soldiers served - 11,115,000, dead/missing - 580,000
USA, soldiers served - 11,260,000, dead/missing - 318,274
Russia, soldiers served - 34,476,700, dead/missing - 8,668,400

:Q
rose.gif

IIRC, Stalin liked frontal assaults and would just repeatedly throw men into meat grinders. The other Allies tended to "care" more for the troops.

Yeah, while I have total respect for the Soviet soldiers, Stalin used them as little more than cannon fodder. It was a war of attrition, nothing more. Had Stalin not had the numbers, he would have lost miserably.

You work with what you have. The USSR did not have the weapons or supplies to fight a war in the same way the United States did.
 

NFS4

No Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
72,636
46
91
Originally posted by: MmmSkyscraper
I like how NFS4 lit the blue touchpaper and ran away :D

I've been writing some articles. I'm just now reading through the whole thing :)
 

Auryg

Platinum Member
Dec 28, 2003
2,377
0
71
Originally posted by: AbsolutDealage
Originally posted by: Atheus
Originally posted by: mugs
Why should we have been willing to let them set the terms of their surrender?

To avoid a lot of civilian deaths?

Or they could have dropped one in the sea or something, got everyone soaking wet, and said "there's more where that came from". That might have done the trick.

We spent millions on the plutonium and uranium to produce the 2 bombs used. Dropping one into the ocean as a scare tactic would have been a poor use of those resources.

Actually IIRC we did tell Japan beforehand what we had, it wasn't a suprise attack. They just didn't believe us. We only had 2 bombs at the time, and they didn't want to use one to scare them just in case the other one was a dud.
 

jman19

Lifer
Nov 3, 2000
11,220
654
126
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: Atheus
Originally posted by: mugs
Why should we have been willing to let them set the terms of their surrender?

To avoid a lot of civilian deaths?

Or they could have dropped one in the sea or something, got everyone soaking wet, and said "there's more where that came from". That might have done the trick.

We killed far more civilians in the firebombings of Tokyo than we did with the bombs. Not to mention the bombings of other Japanese cities.

WWII was the last war won and the last successful occupation of a country because the civilian populations were pounded into submission. Every man of fighting age was either dead, or captured.

As we have learned (or should have learned) since, merely targeting the military does not work. You either fight the entire country, or you do not fight at all.

Yep, it's important to realize that the surrender of the Japanese probably wouldn't have happened without a LOT of civilian casualties anyway. The bombs ended the war faster and probably saved a lot of lives in the end.
 

JS80

Lifer
Oct 24, 2005
26,271
7
81
In 5th grade I thought it was pretty fvcked up of the Colonists to rebel against the British. The Brits invested so much resources I concluded at that age colonists were ungrateful bastards.
 

LordMorpheus

Diamond Member
Aug 14, 2002
6,871
1
0
Originally posted by: DVK916
Originally posted by: iamwiz82
Originally posted by: DVK916
Not everywhere in the U.S is one sided. In my H.S and college we use Howards Zinn book which is very critical of the U.S, hell my H.S teacher even did this thing on the evils of american history. All of the evil things the U.S did, like massacare over 500,000 women and children in the filipines. How we nuked Japan for no good reason. Stuff you don't get in alot of other class rooms.

Yeah, that sounds like a unbiased book :roll:

Before the nuke Japan offered a conditional surrender. The U.S and Allies refused to accept a conditional surrender.

Conditional surrender worked out real well after WWI.
 

b0mbrman

Lifer
Jun 1, 2001
29,470
1
81
Originally posted by: iamwiz82
I recall spending quite a bit of time on British history. Hell, I remember weeks of Henry VIII.

Yes. One of our required classes in high school was "World" History. It was disproportionately British history...
 

b0mbrman

Lifer
Jun 1, 2001
29,470
1
81
Originally posted by: DVK916
Not everywhere in the U.S is one sided. In my H.S and college we use Howards Zinn book which is very critical of the U.S, hell my H.S teacher even did this thing on the evils of american history. All of the evil things the U.S did, like massacare over 500,000 women and children in the filipines. How we nuked Japan for no good reason. Stuff you don't get in alot of other class rooms.

I definitely trust your figures on the topic of the massacare in the filipines.

Seems like you paid a lot of attention that day.
 

DaShen

Lifer
Dec 1, 2000
10,710
1
0
Originally posted by: NFS4
I don't know why this popped into my head, but I was just wondering this? How does British text treat cover the topic of the American Revolution? Are we seen as ungrateful bastards? Are they put in a better light?

They don't address it probably. Much like we don't address much European or Asian history. They probably put it as a side note. Maybe a chapter on English history, I am guessing.
 

Wreckem

Diamond Member
Sep 23, 2006
9,464
1,005
126
Originally posted by: Atheus
Originally posted by: DVK916
Most people in the U.S don't learn that Russia was preparing for a million+ troops to invade Japan.

Yep:

Britain, soldiers served - 11,115,000, dead/missing - 580,000

USA, soldiers served - 11,260,000, dead/missing - 318,274

Russia, soldiers served - 34,476,700, dead/missing - 8,668,400

So if anything the Russians won the war. That isn't well known on either side of the pond.


Well how many christians did stalin kill during the same time has Hitler killing the jews?

Get back to me when you really want to talk history. Stalin was much more of a slaughterer than Hitler.