Another War of 1812 Web Site
Came upon this site for those of you interested in the "War of 1812"!
Lots of info about the war on land and upon the Lakes with some great painting inspirations!
Feel free to check it out and peruse to your hearts content!!
http://www.eighteentwelve.ca/?q=eng
If only we had taken Canada!! But then; what would we have done with it?
"War is the greatest game Man can play!" BG George B. McClellan
Yep, 50 stars and a maple leaf would look good on the flag. Or if you are Canadian, a maple leaf and 50 stars. Its just a shame that we're not one country.
Originally Posted by Gunner
I'm sure if you asked nicely Ottawa would let you join
I am glad we are not one country.
Me too, eh?
Whoops! Time to put the worms back in the can.
[shrug] Well, for one: Britain would have been *really* screwed in WW1 and WW2, with those resources controlled by a neutral rather than an ally.If only we had taken Canada!! But then; what would we have done with it?
But, I figure if the Canadians had wanted to join the US, they would have; so I suspect there would have been an exodus, and the gaps filled in by new immigrants. (And very likely the American Civil War would have been *much* shorter, if it happened at all, as the Southerners get flat outnumbered and squashed in the voting and courts.)
Best to let sleeping dogs lieWhoops! Time to put the worms back in the can.
The consequences of Great Britain having less of her major Empire supporters in WW2 dont even bare thinking about.
1) Great Britain sues for peace with Germany (most likely outcome). Hitler deals with the Soviet Union alone, Oswald Mosley and co gradually seize control of British politics thru massive pressure and support from the Nazis. Now whos screwed next???
2) Hitler invades Great Britain and achieves better than a bloody stalemate just south of London (not as likely). New puppet regime installed and conquest of Soviet Union becomes easier as the empire sues for peace to consentrate on stopping Japan. Once again, whos screwed next?
The real possibilty of Spain and Portugal joining the Axis, then the build up of pressure on Mexico and other South and Central American countries to join too.
With the full resources of Eastern and Western Europe to use, and bases to strike from in central america, plus Japan knocking on the back door. Its not looking good for Uncle Sam eh? Thankfully, theoretical.
I think you forgot to mention one minor detail, the Atomic bomb.
Germany was the first intended target, but they were lucky enough to surrender before Japan.
Last edited by Gunner; 05-03-2015 at 02:03.
No ed i didnt forget the A bomb. It is very likely that after Great Britain signed a treaty with Germany many Ultra intercepts and other secret files would have gone to the US. These would have indicated in 1940-41 that Germany was proceeding on its own A bomb and rocket projects at a fast pace. With no allied bombing over europe and Norway secure, its just as likely the Germans would have made fantastic leaps forward in tech. A scary prospect when you consider the V rockets and the German scientists who got the US to the moon. All in all its a bloody fantastic thing the allies won. Its also no surprise at all that Winston Churchill was voted the greatest Briton who ever lived recently by the nation.
For all his failings, his leadership in that period was an inspiration to the free world. Hopefully we will not need a man of his fortitude to do that again.
I do believe Nelson was second.
Would the US have dropped the A bomb on Germany? An interesting question.
With the large number of German/Amercans. The political fallout of a poluted europe?
As horrid as it sounds, Japan was a more politically easy decision to make, afterall they attacked the US at pearl harbour.
Last edited by Popsical; 05-03-2015 at 04:26.
You do have an active imagination Steve. Like I said earlier, I should have left the worms in the can.
Cheers Ed
Ive read a heck of alot of what if scenarios as they really fire my imagination.
Too many authors lose their thread to follow what they want to happen not what the respective characters would want. Its a shame.
One major flaw with this (and an ironic one, considering this is a naval-wargame site): The Germans may end up controlling Europe, but they *don't* end up controlling the Atlantic necessarily -- what happens to the RN if the Germans do manage to take over Britain? (I'm picturing a British gov't-in-exile in Australia, or perhaps India.) With no navy, and a land war in western Asia (see next), the Germans can't get to the Americas, much less attack the US. (And even if they do get the RN, it will take a while to integrate them into Germania's armed forces....)
With no European Theatre as such, the US gets to focus its full attentions on Japan, and later the Chinese Communists -- the Pacific become an American lake (with Britain/Australia a *very* junior partner) that much sooner; and this opens the supply lines to Russia. End result would look very much like Robert Harris's _Fatherland_: Germany stuck into an "eternal war" in the East; rump Russia funded by the US bleeding them dry; effective stalemate in the Atlantic (US CVBGs vs. German U-boat packs), until Germania finally collapses from running out of resources -- tho' not before they manage to purge the "untermenschen" from the face of Europe. So: Yeah, someone's screwed, but it ain't the US.
I wish it were really that easy!
"War is the greatest game Man can play!" BG George B. McClellan
With a Britain "friendly" to Germany there is the potential for improved relations between Britain (and its extensive resources via the Empire) and Japan - if Japan isn't being forced into war through sanctions over China the causus belli for Pearl Harbor, at least in the short to medium term evaporates. So imagine a US where the military industrial revolution doesn't happen and a German led Europe with time to develop its naval forces (Z plan on steroids) and various technological developments as well (the Germans were working on their own A bomb programme, obviously not as effective as the Allied programme but with the potential for them to go down the right route) and you can quite easily postutale a very different world war in the 1950s and 60s.
Yes, I understand yo need a significant law change or a successful civil war to make it happen
Shades of "Hotel California"
The big problem with "German tech advances" (Particularly the nukes) is: They'd sort-of shot themselves in the foot by running off (or murdering) all the Really Smart People -- and guess where all those RSPs went? Yup -- the USA.
To wrap this back around to _SoG_: It's the same problem France had with its Navy -- the naval officers who'd been holding off the Royal Navy during the AmRev were all Aristos... the very people most likely to have an appointment with Mme. Guillotine....
Actually, I was just thinking of declaring my little plot was seceding from the States then requesting Canada to take us in as a new territory!!Yes, I understand yo need a significant law change or a successful civil war to make it happen
Shades of "Hotel California"
"War is the greatest game Man can play!" BG George B. McClellan
Not with their gun laws!Actually, I was just thinking of declaring my little plot was seceding from the States then requesting Canada to take us in as a new territory!!
???
Last edited by Gunner; 05-04-2015 at 20:14.
Don't know how these hiccups happened???
Last edited by Gunner; 05-04-2015 at 20:16.
Don't knock it at least they work, and we all don't have to pack one in order to feel safe
Don't pack* and I always feel safe. Most importantly, we have a choice.
*Except for competition.
I don't think it's so much a question of "choice" or "no choice" as a question of the tradeoffs a given society decides to make. Human beings are social animals, so there's always the balancing act between my freedom and your rights.
As someone living in the US, I can choose to get a gun. But personally what I'd really prefer would be to be able to "choose" to be free from guns around me, to be confident my child's friends don't have guns in the house, etc. I don't have that choice, because as a society we've decided to make guns widely available and easily carried.
In places like the UK they've made a different set of policy tradeoffs, which is onerous for gun enthusiasts, but greatly lowers peoples' statistical risk from gun violence and accidents
Each has their pros and cons, but personally speaking, in respect to guns specifically, I feel less "free" in the US than I think I would in the UK.
(Not that we live in the kind of dystopia you see in the media--I almost never see guns and I do feel safe)
As long as U.S. courts rarely enforce violent gun crimes to the full extent (without time off for good behavior) of the many gun laws that we already have, there will always be violent crimes.
Punish the guilty, not the innocent.
And, time to get back to a more peaceful subject like, Another war of 1812 web site.
Had I known in advance the last rather innocent tongue in cheek comment I made in my original post would have set the discussion off on such a tangent I would have just kept it to myself!
Just thought it was an interesting move in two separate wars we (the USA), made a grab for Canada, and failed so miserably both times. Yet we end up as friends and allies ever since with more in common with one another then we ever had with the Mother country!
"War is the greatest game Man can play!" BG George B. McClellan
Considering the close ties between the U.S.A. and Canada nowadays, it is strange to think that there was such a war between them 200 years ago.
Welcome to the internet
Wars have started over less!
That was the most-useful result of the AmRev and 1812 -- the British and the USA figured out "there's room enough for both of us"; and thus the US/Canadian border continues to set records for "longest entirely-undefended border on earth". :)
(I recall a story where the USCG wanted to move one of its larger cutters into the Great Lakes for some reason; it was discovered they couldn't without violating the terms of the demilitarization-of-the-Lakes treaty -- the treaty had never been updated to account for increases in the average size of military vessels, so the maximum size was somewhere just south of four digits.)
Soooo true! Who would have thought?Welcome to the internet
"War is the greatest game Man can play!" BG George B. McClellan
At first I thought maybe some of our Canadian Friends would be hunting my head, but I guess they just let it pass! All in all I'm glad they're on our side still!
"War is the greatest game Man can play!" BG George B. McClellan
Sweden and Denmark are the two countries in the world that have fought the most number of wars and that have been at war the most number of years. (Partly because of being very old and stable countries where you can follow lineage far back.) Still, only a fifty years after the Napoleonic war where we fought each other and Sweden took Norway from Denmark, Swedish soldiers volunteered to help Denmark in the Second Schleswig-Holstein war (Denmark vs Prussia/Austria). A form of Scandinavian nationalism called Scandinavianism blossomed quickly.
I recall being at a defence industry conference in Stockholm a few years back. At dinner I was talking military history with some European and US friends and we ranged over subjects such as WW1, WW2, the Franco Prussian and Russo Japanese Wars, 1812, etc. There was a young Swedish journalist at our table and she listened for a while and said something in all seriousness like "you old countries and all your wars, why can't you be peaceful types like us Swedes, we've never fought anybody". We did find that quite amusing
Well, we fought the Danes on and off for 700 years... then we have kept peace for 200 years, so if you have no history...
I spent a very enjoyable afternoon at the naval museum in Karlskrona when I was presenting at the Swedish Naval Conference in 2014. The curator took us around and spared no-ones blushes with his descriptions of many, many massacres and atrocities in the various Scandinavian wars! I think quite a few of the visitors were quite surprised. But then he reminded the non-local visitors that this was basically a bunch of Vikings and their ilk going at it and the penny dropped
What did you present?I spent a very enjoyable afternoon at the naval museum in Karlskrona when I was presenting at the Swedish Naval Conference in 2014. The curator took us around and spared no-ones blushes with his descriptions of many, many massacres and atrocities in the various Scandinavian wars! I think quite a few of the visitors were quite surprised. But then he reminded the non-local visitors that this was basically a bunch of Vikings and their ilk going at it and the penny dropped
We had a similar experience the first time we visited a slave castle in Ghana. I think many westerners were surprised as they learned slave-related history.
“You can discover more about a person in an hour of play than in a year of conversation.” ― Plato
A list of battles 1801-1900, if anyone is interested.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...1%E2%80%931900
One presentation on the survivability of small warships and auxiliaries, and another on the RN's developing Survivability Strategy and how we manage the various processes involved
I would love to attend such a conference. Are you allowed to share previous presentations?
Do folks do what they do at academic conferences? Someone presents and folks ask questions, basically tearing down the presentation or taking 10 minutes to "ask a question" during which they make their own mini presentation.
“You can discover more about a person in an hour of play than in a year of conversation.” ― Plato
Alas not :(
Occasionally if there is a large industry component in the audience, but when its mainly military then no (unless there are some officers there who think they are "stars" and want to catch the Admiral's eyeDo folks do what they do at academic conferences? Someone presents and folks ask questions, basically tearing down the presentation or taking 10 minutes to "ask a question" during which they make their own mini presentation.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks