Calling the loyalist that fled to Canada "Canadians" is kind of an uchronia since most of them saw themselves as British and "Canadian" was the word used to describe French Canadians. It makes it way more understandable that Americans thought the Canadians would join when those they were talking about were actually not loyalist, but french settler's descendants who made the majority of Canada's population at that time.
French Canadians didn't join the American colonies during the revolution because of the lack of toleration for Catholicism. Idk why the Americans would think 40 years later the French Canadians would feel any different.
There is little distinction between British and American to a French Catholic in the 18th-19th cs.
If we have to pick, though, the Americans were more distasteful to the French because they were more culturally “English” while the British army and merchant class were more mixed English, Scottish, and Irish. Religiously, of course, American Protestants were much more overtly anti-Catholic while Anglicans were more tepid.
It’s really even simpler than that. The Canadians didn’t join the revolution for the same reason that the border slave states didn’t secede from the union. Rebellion is a lot less attractive when you’re the closest target and will be invaded first.
That's a factor, but hardly the only one. The other reasons include:
* As mentioned by OP, being descendants of Loyalists entrenched their idea of loyalism and hatred for those who caused many of their ancestors the loss of life, property, or homeland.
* Catholicism definitely played a part, not only due to the (not unfounded) concerns of lack of religious toleration by a Protestant majority (many of whom were zealous puritans or other anti-Catholics), but because Catholics (at least at the time) were much more amenable to the idea of rule by a centralized polity (being temporally ruled by a King in England similar to being spiritually ruled by the Pope in Rome), rather than most forms of Protestantism which preferred local government, self-rule, and other ideas shared by the Patriots.
* The Thirteen Colonies were much more developed, and went through their own form of Enlightenment and Republicanism in the decades leading to the American Revolution, whereas Canada was much more rural and more OK with the idea of a Monarchy. Canada simply didn't have the thought leaders like the Founding Fathers, or a similar urbanized, educated middle class necessary to support and transmit their message to the masses. In fact, a big proportion of Canada's educated middle class were Catholic clergy, who would be *especially* opposed to revolution, not only on religious grounds, but because it would threaten their position of privilege.
* Many of the French Acadians who originally disliked being loyal to Britain were expelled by them after the end of the French and Indian War, meaning they were no longer there to oppose the Loyalists.
* The American Revolutionary fervor started dying down, and cracks started being exposed on the issues of slavery and other North-South divides (technically, slavery existed in Canada too, but it was *much* smaller in scale, less institutionalized, and close to extinction.) Not all Canadians wanted to get rid of the British just to be dragged towards the path of another Civil War and internal strife that America would experience in the coming decades.
* The British Army and Navy grew enormously to fight the Napoleonic Wars (the War of 1812 was really just a sideshow for Britain at the time.) Britain could be persuaded to agree to peace in America, a land they lost two generations ago, had formally ceded, and were unlikely to reclaim, but if Canada revolted or was occupied, it would be much more likely that after Napoleon's defeat, Britain would return in full force to reclaim their recent Canadian possessions which they never agreed to cede. Many saw a potential war with Britain as worse than one with America at the time.
* 1812 was simply a politically and culturally different time than 1776. Britain already started taking early steps towards its own democratization and limited self-rule by the colonies (some as a direct result of the American Revolution), meaning there were fewer sticking points to rebel against.
So, while geographic proximity played a role, I think that the main principle was that back then, just like today, you needed an *overwhelming* military superiority *and* political commitment to forcefully annex a country (let alone a large, diverse, and geographically challenging one) that really didn't like you or wanted to be part of you not only at the governmental, but at the societal level. America, especially with its own Northern opposition to the war (at times reaching the point of economic sabotage), did not have such an overwhelming superiority, meaning they would face a political quagmire at best and a military defeat at worst, and the war was not politically winnable for them (as far as annexing Canada goes), even if most battlefield victories had went their way.
One could argue that America did score a limited political victory in the sense of re-asserting their independence, getting Britain to FO regarding US citizen impressment and other abuses, and start treating it as a genuine nation in its own right, rather than as a renegade breakaway state. Under this view, Canada ended up only a tactical battlefield (among others), rather than a strategic war goal. America got less than it wanted out of the war, but not nothing, either.
However, why the Americans thought the French Canadians would want to join them, when the Americans railed against [the Quebec Act ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec_Act)and the freedoms it afforded French Canadians with regard to language and religion.
If you consider an act giving French Canadians rights to be an intolerable act, no wonder they wouldn't want to support your cause.
Also French Canadians who the British had beaten in a war and would likely be sympathetic.
Overall it makes me laugh when Canadians are proud of delaying their independence. Like bravo?...
It wouldn't have been independence for Canada if the Americans won the war. It would have been like what happened to the west during the Mexican American war where Canada would be annexed and the people who were already there would be forced out by waves of Americans coming into the territory. So to the Pre-confederation Canadians it was be ruled by London or by Washington. London was further away.
Also the British may not have liked the French Canadians but they tolerated their existence, at least for the time being, which is more than the Americans would and the French Canadians knew this.
Here in the States we have a little something called dual sovereignty where both the states and federal government are equally sovereign. Plus the more localized a law (federal, state, county, municipal), the more it impacts the daily lives of Americans. Federal law mostly just deals with big picture type stuff
That's not what dual citizenship means. Dual citizenship is when a person has citizenship in two countries instead of one. Also dual citizenship was only legalized in the US in 1967. Also also if the Canadian provinces were conquered, they would have become territories, not states. In American territories the Federal government has much more control.
I said dual *sovereignty*. Completely different from dual citizenship (though *technically* under the Constitution all Americans hold dual citizenship of the United States and the current state they reside in)
You don’t know what you’re talking about and you shouldn’t be spreading misinformation on a history subreddit. Mexicans were not forced from their lands at the end of the Mexican American war. They were given a year to decide if they wanted to become Americans or leave for Mexico. Check article VII of the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. 90% of the Mexicans remained in the US as American citizens.
Canadians being white Europeans definitely wouldn’t have been forced from their land, they would have became citizens by conquer just like the Mexicans. I’m sure they would have had the option to leave, and I’m sure a few key strategic areas may would have been taken, but no there would not have been any widespread exodus of Canadians out of Canada.
Lmao Benjamin Franklin legit thought that the Quebecois would welcome the Americans since he thought they hated the english more then the Americans despite Benjamin penning an entire ass essay on why he thought the Quebecois are rabid dogs that should be put down back in the 7 years war.
Yea, the Quebecois, although hating the british, knew what it was like to live under british rule. American rule would have been much worse in their eyes because, for the most part, the british let Quebec do its own thing.
They also thought the french Canadians would veiw them as liberators and join them. Not realising that the french Canadians hated the french more than the british
More like the British allowed them to keep their laws and Catholic faith prior to the American Revolution. The French-Canadians weren't completely loyal to the British but didn't really act against them either, mostly keeping to themselves. Tensions were still there, and there would be a rebellion decades later, though this is partly due to republicanism.
Meanwhile the hyper-Protestant Americans railed against this policy as one of the Intolerable Acts. In fact, the Americans already invaded Québec in 1775 and failed to get the French-Canadians to join them. They seemed surprised that the clergy in Québec already got what they wanted from the British.
If you were a French-Canadian, would you trust the Anglos that had so far mostly left you alone or the ones that think that your religion is an affront to their freedom?
I mean we were welcomed as liberators by the people the enemy country was occupying, but I doubt the Germans or Iraqis were streaming out of their homes to welcome American soldiers.
Well maybe the Iraqi Kurds did, but they were greeted by poison gas and bullets of Iraqi soldiers, not American troops.
[Out of 108 wars that doesn't seem like a great ratio. ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_United_States)
Also a good chunk of the people the US liberated/attempted to liberate in WWI (Germans), WWII (Germans, some of the French, some of the Italians), Korea (the North Koreans) didn't welcome them as liberators.
Like, I'm not a "America does nothing wrong ever" guy, but "America bad because the nazis and their collaborators weren't happy about their intervention" is just a silly argument.
Doesn't change that they weren't welcomed as liberators in plenty of places, even in those wars in which they were clearly in the right.
Getting welcomed as liberators is pretty damn rare, and not the sort of thing it is wise to count on happening.
... right, I forgot fascist sympathizing civilians don't count when figuring out how to occupy somewhere. We'll just ignore all the bad people when figuring out our plans. That won't ever backfire.
I would note that the general staffs in WWI and WWII very much did NOT assume that their enemies were going to be thrilled to see American troops marching in. Hmm. Could those relative successes teach us anything about any OTHER wars America has been involved in?
You'd plan a great Iraq invasion.
Well, I think fascist sympathizing civilians wouldn't be too hot on any foreign troops occupying their country. Pretty nationalistic bunch, those fascists.
I don't even know where you trying to go in the second paragraph. And yeah, a crack about Iraq. Have you spoken to many Americans about their views on the war in Iraq? Because I don't know anyone who defends that war. It's pretty widely accepted here that the war in Iraq was a huge mistake.
Are you a brit?
Yes. That's kind of my point. It may be right to occupy somewhere. That doesn't mean the locals are gonna like it. And in fact they usually don't. I'm genuinely confused this idea is surprising to so many people. Iraq is an excellent example of this, as is Afghanistan for that matter.
And that may be accepted NOW re Iraq, but it was very much not at the time. The original line was a crack about Iraq (among other things). It's literally a Dick Cheney quote (I remembered it as Rumsfeld, but checking it's actually Cheney). It's a joke about poor American military planning, not saying America was always wrong in every war it went into.
Don't worry, it works for Europeans too. They wanted to "civilize" the inhabitants of the countries they colonized and ended up brutalizing their lands and systems and people.
Although Kosovo was a good decision. They were very happy
What the fuck are you talking about? During the war Germans were fleeing to the Americans and British to surrender so they didn’t have to be raped and murdered by the Soviets. A wall had to be built and armed guards had to be used to keep Germans from fleeing from east to west Germany.
A small minority of people in France and Italy holding an opinion is a hardly relevant to the discussion. You’re not going to get everyone in any nation to agree on anything. Italy literally overthrew its government and switched sides almost as soon as the Americans landed.
North Korea of course didn’t welcome them as liberators because they were the ones the South Koreans were being liberated from. That’s like saying the Japanese in the Philippines weren’t welcoming the Americans as liberators.
... there's a big difference between 'welcomed as liberators' and 'definitely who we should surrender to as compared to the guys who will massacre us.'
The Vichy regime was widely popular, at least initially, and there were plenty of collaborators.
The North Koreans in North Korea are the ones I'm referring to. Remember the bit where they were nearly defeated wholly before the Chinese intervened?
Also I left out the Japanese in WWII originally. Are you going to claim that the Japanese home islands would have welcomed the Americans as liberators? Or can you maybe get the not-that-complicated point that just because the Americans are actually on the side of right does not mean that everyone else is going to agree and be thrilled to see them? Fascists may be bad people, but their guns and rocks and misinformation hurt just the same.
I'm literally quoting Rumsfeld, people, this is not rocket science.
You realize North Korea were the ones who started the Korean War right? They were the ones the South was being liberated from.
Why are the Japanese relevant? Do you think America went to war with Japan with a belief that they were the liberators of the Japanese?
No, it was the Koreans, Chinese, Filipinos, Taiwanese, Malaysians, Pacific Islanders, Indonesians, Burmese, and more that saw the Americans as liberators against the Japanese
The Japanese are relevant because Japan had to be occupied. Thinking 'we're going to be welcomed as liberators' would have gotten a lot of people killed. WWII is, frankly, notable for Americans mostly NOT thinking that. Oh, and the Americans weren't engaged in a huge proportion of the places you just listed.
Let me recap for you:
Initial joke: "Americans keep thinking they'll be welcomed as liberators when they won't be."
Idiot on the Internet: WELL WE WERE WELCOMED AS LIBERATORS ALL THE TIME IN THESE WARS.
Response: "Here are some blindingly obvious examples of large groups that did no such thing in those exact wars, also that's a tiny fraction of the wars America has fought in."
Idiots on the Internet: BUT THOSE WARS WERE RIGHT AND FASCISTS DON'T COUNT AND YOU SUPPORT FASCISM AND WAAAAAAH.
Use a brain cell for five seconds. I'm done with this.
Ww1 america turned up, ignored what the french and british told them not to do, did it anyway, and lost thousands of men. America was the only nation in the western front to lose more men to injury and illness than in battle too. And keep in mind ww1 was the war in history that this happened.
America lost so many men to illness because by the time troops came over in large numbers the flu pandemic was in full swing... which killed 25 to 50 million people worldwide. Not sure what your point is there
We still aren’t liberators. Not only are forcing people into existence legal and accessing reliable methods to free oneself illegal there, but even here.
Yeah, I say who gives a shit anymore. If countries want to genocide each other, who are we to tell them what they should do?
Highly agree tbh. I'd rather us not give money to foreign countries and instead pull that money to ourselves. No UN either, they hardly achieve anything and end up not the liberators, but the invaders.
Yea the loyalists were persona non grata in America following the war. So they went North to Canada, which was almost completely French at the time, and became the founding population of Ontario, Canada's most populated province. Today the majority of Anglo Canadians are descended from them.
The same thing happend with former Confederates following the Civil war btw. A large number of them moved to other countries following their defeat, especially Brazil and Belize. They didnt have near the numbers as the revolutionary era loyalists tho, and so they wound up assimilating into the local culture. And introduced a number of American foods and cultural practices into Brazillian culture in the process.
Yeah it makes perfect sense in retrospect/context, I guess I just never made the connection and thought Britain was just being shitty to the US due to not fully acknowledging the US as an independent state.
You might be right there. I mean, I even managed to forget the Napoleonic Wars were at the same time. That being said Canada was invaded because of the Royal Navys actions and the fact the US Navy at the time stood no chance against them. Context is important.
Well, no, Canada was being invaded because there was a pretty long land border there between the US and the British Empire, with whom the US was at war.
And what was the cause of that war? Thats right impressment of US Sailors into the Royal Navy along with Trade disagreements and Native American policies. At this point we're arguing semantics when my original point was the one of the causes of the entire war. You're not wrong but you're also not acknowledging the reasons the war started which in turn led to the invasion.
https://ussconstitutionmuseum.org/major-events/war-of-1812-overview/#:~:text=With%20only%2016%20warships%2C%20the,concessions%20on%20the%20maritime%20issues.
Agreed.
OTOH, your comment implied more separation between the Empire's Canadian territory and her Navy than is correct. It wasn't like invading Canada over RN policies would be today, and not invading Canada during the War of 1812 would have been grossly negligent to the point of being treasonous.
Also, the Americans did not do well in 1812. They also tried to invade Quebec again. After it failed the first time. They didn't even reach Montreal in round 2.
The history is actually very deep. I mean the Americans during the revolution considered themselves English and British even afterwards. The national identity of America wasn’t set. A lot of loyalist went to Canada. I like history and it’s funny that yall (obviously and rightly in respect) have a national story. Canadas national story during that era is American are dicks. I was just playing into the rivalry. I’m passionately in love with America so it’s fun when people show a different viewpoint from their side. And the overall message is America was wrong which is more the understandable to a Canadian or more truly a British empire perspective.
We’ve been shit talking each other about it ever since.
I get defensive cause Canadians get a little too hateful sometimes considering how much they are dependent on us. It’s all historical banter and it’s fun. I didn’t start it haha
We're all Anglos, technically so english, but we're not British Anglos, America had that differential long before the revolution, they did not consider themselves "British" but definitely citizens of the British Kingdom.
And like I said, just because we took New Orleans and Washington doesn't mean ya lost the war, Britain was tired from Napoleon's tomfoolery and called it a draw.
Yeah we are all anglos but not really. I’m a mutt of every colonial settler but about half is Anglo and my culture is certainly Anglo. And yeah “Tomfoolery” is perfect… great word haha.
And absolutely correct with the whole issue with France. Most people were borderline illiterate and it was just tomfoolery. We are still all the best of friends as peoples despite all the banter.
Definitely agree and that’s the correct outlook on it all
Calling the loyalist that fled to Canada "Canadians" is kind of an uchronia since most of them saw themselves as British and "Canadian" was the word used to describe French Canadians. It makes it way more understandable that Americans thought the Canadians would join when those they were talking about were actually not loyalist, but french settler's descendants who made the majority of Canada's population at that time.
French Canadians didn't join the American colonies during the revolution because of the lack of toleration for Catholicism. Idk why the Americans would think 40 years later the French Canadians would feel any different.
Because of the innate desire of French people to not be British. I mean this unironically.
They obviously didn't want to be American either.
There is little distinction between British and American to a French Catholic in the 18th-19th cs. If we have to pick, though, the Americans were more distasteful to the French because they were more culturally “English” while the British army and merchant class were more mixed English, Scottish, and Irish. Religiously, of course, American Protestants were much more overtly anti-Catholic while Anglicans were more tepid.
It’s really even simpler than that. The Canadians didn’t join the revolution for the same reason that the border slave states didn’t secede from the union. Rebellion is a lot less attractive when you’re the closest target and will be invaded first.
That's a factor, but hardly the only one. The other reasons include: * As mentioned by OP, being descendants of Loyalists entrenched their idea of loyalism and hatred for those who caused many of their ancestors the loss of life, property, or homeland. * Catholicism definitely played a part, not only due to the (not unfounded) concerns of lack of religious toleration by a Protestant majority (many of whom were zealous puritans or other anti-Catholics), but because Catholics (at least at the time) were much more amenable to the idea of rule by a centralized polity (being temporally ruled by a King in England similar to being spiritually ruled by the Pope in Rome), rather than most forms of Protestantism which preferred local government, self-rule, and other ideas shared by the Patriots. * The Thirteen Colonies were much more developed, and went through their own form of Enlightenment and Republicanism in the decades leading to the American Revolution, whereas Canada was much more rural and more OK with the idea of a Monarchy. Canada simply didn't have the thought leaders like the Founding Fathers, or a similar urbanized, educated middle class necessary to support and transmit their message to the masses. In fact, a big proportion of Canada's educated middle class were Catholic clergy, who would be *especially* opposed to revolution, not only on religious grounds, but because it would threaten their position of privilege. * Many of the French Acadians who originally disliked being loyal to Britain were expelled by them after the end of the French and Indian War, meaning they were no longer there to oppose the Loyalists. * The American Revolutionary fervor started dying down, and cracks started being exposed on the issues of slavery and other North-South divides (technically, slavery existed in Canada too, but it was *much* smaller in scale, less institutionalized, and close to extinction.) Not all Canadians wanted to get rid of the British just to be dragged towards the path of another Civil War and internal strife that America would experience in the coming decades. * The British Army and Navy grew enormously to fight the Napoleonic Wars (the War of 1812 was really just a sideshow for Britain at the time.) Britain could be persuaded to agree to peace in America, a land they lost two generations ago, had formally ceded, and were unlikely to reclaim, but if Canada revolted or was occupied, it would be much more likely that after Napoleon's defeat, Britain would return in full force to reclaim their recent Canadian possessions which they never agreed to cede. Many saw a potential war with Britain as worse than one with America at the time. * 1812 was simply a politically and culturally different time than 1776. Britain already started taking early steps towards its own democratization and limited self-rule by the colonies (some as a direct result of the American Revolution), meaning there were fewer sticking points to rebel against. So, while geographic proximity played a role, I think that the main principle was that back then, just like today, you needed an *overwhelming* military superiority *and* political commitment to forcefully annex a country (let alone a large, diverse, and geographically challenging one) that really didn't like you or wanted to be part of you not only at the governmental, but at the societal level. America, especially with its own Northern opposition to the war (at times reaching the point of economic sabotage), did not have such an overwhelming superiority, meaning they would face a political quagmire at best and a military defeat at worst, and the war was not politically winnable for them (as far as annexing Canada goes), even if most battlefield victories had went their way. One could argue that America did score a limited political victory in the sense of re-asserting their independence, getting Britain to FO regarding US citizen impressment and other abuses, and start treating it as a genuine nation in its own right, rather than as a renegade breakaway state. Under this view, Canada ended up only a tactical battlefield (among others), rather than a strategic war goal. America got less than it wanted out of the war, but not nothing, either.
However, why the Americans thought the French Canadians would want to join them, when the Americans railed against [the Quebec Act ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec_Act)and the freedoms it afforded French Canadians with regard to language and religion. If you consider an act giving French Canadians rights to be an intolerable act, no wonder they wouldn't want to support your cause.
Also French Canadians who the British had beaten in a war and would likely be sympathetic. Overall it makes me laugh when Canadians are proud of delaying their independence. Like bravo?...
It wouldn't have been independence for Canada if the Americans won the war. It would have been like what happened to the west during the Mexican American war where Canada would be annexed and the people who were already there would be forced out by waves of Americans coming into the territory. So to the Pre-confederation Canadians it was be ruled by London or by Washington. London was further away. Also the British may not have liked the French Canadians but they tolerated their existence, at least for the time being, which is more than the Americans would and the French Canadians knew this.
Here in the States we have a little something called dual sovereignty where both the states and federal government are equally sovereign. Plus the more localized a law (federal, state, county, municipal), the more it impacts the daily lives of Americans. Federal law mostly just deals with big picture type stuff
Contrast Louisiana with Quebec today and tell me who the French of Canada should have gone with...
Bingo " continue to eat his Quebecois popcorn" sorry to bother please continue.
That's not what dual citizenship means. Dual citizenship is when a person has citizenship in two countries instead of one. Also dual citizenship was only legalized in the US in 1967. Also also if the Canadian provinces were conquered, they would have become territories, not states. In American territories the Federal government has much more control.
I said dual *sovereignty*. Completely different from dual citizenship (though *technically* under the Constitution all Americans hold dual citizenship of the United States and the current state they reside in)
You don’t know what you’re talking about and you shouldn’t be spreading misinformation on a history subreddit. Mexicans were not forced from their lands at the end of the Mexican American war. They were given a year to decide if they wanted to become Americans or leave for Mexico. Check article VII of the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. 90% of the Mexicans remained in the US as American citizens. Canadians being white Europeans definitely wouldn’t have been forced from their land, they would have became citizens by conquer just like the Mexicans. I’m sure they would have had the option to leave, and I’m sure a few key strategic areas may would have been taken, but no there would not have been any widespread exodus of Canadians out of Canada.
Preventing conquest by the Americans delays our independence? I’m glad we kept ourselves separate from the US.
"I'm sure the fucking Québécois will be just lining up to support us, they're known to love Anglos"
Lmao Benjamin Franklin legit thought that the Quebecois would welcome the Americans since he thought they hated the english more then the Americans despite Benjamin penning an entire ass essay on why he thought the Quebecois are rabid dogs that should be put down back in the 7 years war.
Yea, the Quebecois, although hating the british, knew what it was like to live under british rule. American rule would have been much worse in their eyes because, for the most part, the british let Quebec do its own thing.
Also the Canadians that joined them were exiled to America, where the American government gave them shite land
Better a man with shit land than a shit in no man’s land
Problem is that it took them over a decade to get that land
The meme made for you by the Monarchy and Canadian Mounties (TM)
They also thought the french Canadians would veiw them as liberators and join them. Not realising that the french Canadians hated the french more than the british
More like the British allowed them to keep their laws and Catholic faith prior to the American Revolution. The French-Canadians weren't completely loyal to the British but didn't really act against them either, mostly keeping to themselves. Tensions were still there, and there would be a rebellion decades later, though this is partly due to republicanism. Meanwhile the hyper-Protestant Americans railed against this policy as one of the Intolerable Acts. In fact, the Americans already invaded Québec in 1775 and failed to get the French-Canadians to join them. They seemed surprised that the clergy in Québec already got what they wanted from the British. If you were a French-Canadian, would you trust the Anglos that had so far mostly left you alone or the ones that think that your religion is an affront to their freedom?
„We will be welcomed as liberators“ How to get your shit rocked 101.
America: 'we will be welcomed as liberators.' Virtually every war in their history, including even the Revolution so they might have noticed: lol no
TIL the people we defended in WWI/WWII/Korea/Gulf War didn't want us there
I mean we were welcomed as liberators by the people the enemy country was occupying, but I doubt the Germans or Iraqis were streaming out of their homes to welcome American soldiers. Well maybe the Iraqi Kurds did, but they were greeted by poison gas and bullets of Iraqi soldiers, not American troops.
I mean, the gulf war was more about defending Kuwait than anything
[Out of 108 wars that doesn't seem like a great ratio. ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_United_States) Also a good chunk of the people the US liberated/attempted to liberate in WWI (Germans), WWII (Germans, some of the French, some of the Italians), Korea (the North Koreans) didn't welcome them as liberators.
If your argument hinges on the sentiment of literal fascists, maybe you need to reevaluate your argument.
Like, I'm not a "America does nothing wrong ever" guy, but "America bad because the nazis and their collaborators weren't happy about their intervention" is just a silly argument.
... and I said America was bad in those wars where? Invading evil empires is good, but it doesn't mean the evil empires think they're evil.
But their Victims wanted to be liberated? Their oppressors *not* wanting that doesn't change that.
Doesn't change that they weren't welcomed as liberators in plenty of places, even in those wars in which they were clearly in the right. Getting welcomed as liberators is pretty damn rare, and not the sort of thing it is wise to count on happening.
... right, I forgot fascist sympathizing civilians don't count when figuring out how to occupy somewhere. We'll just ignore all the bad people when figuring out our plans. That won't ever backfire. I would note that the general staffs in WWI and WWII very much did NOT assume that their enemies were going to be thrilled to see American troops marching in. Hmm. Could those relative successes teach us anything about any OTHER wars America has been involved in? You'd plan a great Iraq invasion.
Well, I think fascist sympathizing civilians wouldn't be too hot on any foreign troops occupying their country. Pretty nationalistic bunch, those fascists. I don't even know where you trying to go in the second paragraph. And yeah, a crack about Iraq. Have you spoken to many Americans about their views on the war in Iraq? Because I don't know anyone who defends that war. It's pretty widely accepted here that the war in Iraq was a huge mistake. Are you a brit?
Yes. That's kind of my point. It may be right to occupy somewhere. That doesn't mean the locals are gonna like it. And in fact they usually don't. I'm genuinely confused this idea is surprising to so many people. Iraq is an excellent example of this, as is Afghanistan for that matter. And that may be accepted NOW re Iraq, but it was very much not at the time. The original line was a crack about Iraq (among other things). It's literally a Dick Cheney quote (I remembered it as Rumsfeld, but checking it's actually Cheney). It's a joke about poor American military planning, not saying America was always wrong in every war it went into.
Don't worry, it works for Europeans too. They wanted to "civilize" the inhabitants of the countries they colonized and ended up brutalizing their lands and systems and people. Although Kosovo was a good decision. They were very happy
Apparently "local inhabitants not thrilled to see invading army despite moral rightness of invaders' cause" is a shocking concept to people today.
What the fuck are you talking about? During the war Germans were fleeing to the Americans and British to surrender so they didn’t have to be raped and murdered by the Soviets. A wall had to be built and armed guards had to be used to keep Germans from fleeing from east to west Germany. A small minority of people in France and Italy holding an opinion is a hardly relevant to the discussion. You’re not going to get everyone in any nation to agree on anything. Italy literally overthrew its government and switched sides almost as soon as the Americans landed. North Korea of course didn’t welcome them as liberators because they were the ones the South Koreans were being liberated from. That’s like saying the Japanese in the Philippines weren’t welcoming the Americans as liberators.
... there's a big difference between 'welcomed as liberators' and 'definitely who we should surrender to as compared to the guys who will massacre us.' The Vichy regime was widely popular, at least initially, and there were plenty of collaborators. The North Koreans in North Korea are the ones I'm referring to. Remember the bit where they were nearly defeated wholly before the Chinese intervened? Also I left out the Japanese in WWII originally. Are you going to claim that the Japanese home islands would have welcomed the Americans as liberators? Or can you maybe get the not-that-complicated point that just because the Americans are actually on the side of right does not mean that everyone else is going to agree and be thrilled to see them? Fascists may be bad people, but their guns and rocks and misinformation hurt just the same. I'm literally quoting Rumsfeld, people, this is not rocket science.
You realize North Korea were the ones who started the Korean War right? They were the ones the South was being liberated from. Why are the Japanese relevant? Do you think America went to war with Japan with a belief that they were the liberators of the Japanese? No, it was the Koreans, Chinese, Filipinos, Taiwanese, Malaysians, Pacific Islanders, Indonesians, Burmese, and more that saw the Americans as liberators against the Japanese
The Japanese are relevant because Japan had to be occupied. Thinking 'we're going to be welcomed as liberators' would have gotten a lot of people killed. WWII is, frankly, notable for Americans mostly NOT thinking that. Oh, and the Americans weren't engaged in a huge proportion of the places you just listed. Let me recap for you: Initial joke: "Americans keep thinking they'll be welcomed as liberators when they won't be." Idiot on the Internet: WELL WE WERE WELCOMED AS LIBERATORS ALL THE TIME IN THESE WARS. Response: "Here are some blindingly obvious examples of large groups that did no such thing in those exact wars, also that's a tiny fraction of the wars America has fought in." Idiots on the Internet: BUT THOSE WARS WERE RIGHT AND FASCISTS DON'T COUNT AND YOU SUPPORT FASCISM AND WAAAAAAH. Use a brain cell for five seconds. I'm done with this.
Buddy don’t act like you’re not the moron here. You’re the one making wild assumptions and black and white generalizations.
Ww1 america turned up, ignored what the french and british told them not to do, did it anyway, and lost thousands of men. America was the only nation in the western front to lose more men to injury and illness than in battle too. And keep in mind ww1 was the war in history that this happened.
America lost so many men to illness because by the time troops came over in large numbers the flu pandemic was in full swing... which killed 25 to 50 million people worldwide. Not sure what your point is there
We still aren’t liberators. Not only are forcing people into existence legal and accessing reliable methods to free oneself illegal there, but even here.
They literally pulled a "More like under new management" most of the time
Yeah, I say who gives a shit anymore. If countries want to genocide each other, who are we to tell them what they should do? Highly agree tbh. I'd rather us not give money to foreign countries and instead pull that money to ourselves. No UN either, they hardly achieve anything and end up not the liberators, but the invaders.
Even the Ukraine proxy war, really. Just months before the revolution, >60% regretted the fall of the Soviet Union, a figure that “magically” fell.
Had no idea there were political migrations during US war of independence. How many loyalists have fled?
Anywhere from 80 to 100 thousand people
I'm partially descended from loyalists. The anti-American sentiment is still very strong in my family.
Interesting
Yea the loyalists were persona non grata in America following the war. So they went North to Canada, which was almost completely French at the time, and became the founding population of Ontario, Canada's most populated province. Today the majority of Anglo Canadians are descended from them. The same thing happend with former Confederates following the Civil war btw. A large number of them moved to other countries following their defeat, especially Brazil and Belize. They didnt have near the numbers as the revolutionary era loyalists tho, and so they wound up assimilating into the local culture. And introduced a number of American foods and cultural practices into Brazillian culture in the process.
Tnx
So you're just gonna leave out the part about the Royal Navy impressing our citizens into your navy? Tell me you're British without telling me.
I'm going to guess Canadian, actually - outside North America, the War of 1812 was a little brushfire war on the outskirts of the Napoleonic Wars.
Yeah, Wellington was anally raping Marmont in Spain while fighting the Americans
You know, despite being around the same time, I never really made the connection between Britain's naval/economic fuckery and the Napoleonic wars.
The Napoleonic war was the whole reason they were doing it.
Yeah it makes perfect sense in retrospect/context, I guess I just never made the connection and thought Britain was just being shitty to the US due to not fully acknowledging the US as an independent state.
Good guess. Gold Star for you.
You might be right there. I mean, I even managed to forget the Napoleonic Wars were at the same time. That being said Canada was invaded because of the Royal Navys actions and the fact the US Navy at the time stood no chance against them. Context is important.
Well, no, Canada was being invaded because there was a pretty long land border there between the US and the British Empire, with whom the US was at war.
And what was the cause of that war? Thats right impressment of US Sailors into the Royal Navy along with Trade disagreements and Native American policies. At this point we're arguing semantics when my original point was the one of the causes of the entire war. You're not wrong but you're also not acknowledging the reasons the war started which in turn led to the invasion. https://ussconstitutionmuseum.org/major-events/war-of-1812-overview/#:~:text=With%20only%2016%20warships%2C%20the,concessions%20on%20the%20maritime%20issues.
Agreed. OTOH, your comment implied more separation between the Empire's Canadian territory and her Navy than is correct. It wasn't like invading Canada over RN policies would be today, and not invading Canada during the War of 1812 would have been grossly negligent to the point of being treasonous.
Yeah I could have worded it better.
[удалено]
Source?
America invaded Canada? That war was started by the British...
No? The US invaded Canada, Canada and the British defended, how does that make the British the ones who started it?
Also, the Americans did not do well in 1812. They also tried to invade Quebec again. After it failed the first time. They didn't even reach Montreal in round 2.
They were too busy deep throating british boots.
As opposed to what? Sucking our own dicks like the Yankees?
Rather suck my own dick than the British lol
Well that's better than red coat cock
[удалено]
Funny enough it was American soldiers that were getting fucked and dying in frozen holes when they tried invading Quebec in 1775
Neither Australia, New Zealand, or the UK are nearly as impressive as countries as Canada has been, get bent cunt.
Canada is dope. The OG post was Canadians shitting on America so I did the same. It’s all banter. Canada is one of the greats
How is it shitting on Americans? It's a historical fact. They made a miscalculation, and it's not like you lost the war either.
The history is actually very deep. I mean the Americans during the revolution considered themselves English and British even afterwards. The national identity of America wasn’t set. A lot of loyalist went to Canada. I like history and it’s funny that yall (obviously and rightly in respect) have a national story. Canadas national story during that era is American are dicks. I was just playing into the rivalry. I’m passionately in love with America so it’s fun when people show a different viewpoint from their side. And the overall message is America was wrong which is more the understandable to a Canadian or more truly a British empire perspective. We’ve been shit talking each other about it ever since. I get defensive cause Canadians get a little too hateful sometimes considering how much they are dependent on us. It’s all historical banter and it’s fun. I didn’t start it haha
We're all Anglos, technically so english, but we're not British Anglos, America had that differential long before the revolution, they did not consider themselves "British" but definitely citizens of the British Kingdom. And like I said, just because we took New Orleans and Washington doesn't mean ya lost the war, Britain was tired from Napoleon's tomfoolery and called it a draw.
Yeah we are all anglos but not really. I’m a mutt of every colonial settler but about half is Anglo and my culture is certainly Anglo. And yeah “Tomfoolery” is perfect… great word haha. And absolutely correct with the whole issue with France. Most people were borderline illiterate and it was just tomfoolery. We are still all the best of friends as peoples despite all the banter. Definitely agree and that’s the correct outlook on it all