Telegraph: George Washington named Britain's greatest ever foe

[Predicto]

but he did.

True. But the Brits had nothing to do with that poor decision. Bonaparte had kicked the butts of the British, the Prussians, the Austrians, the Russians and several smaller states all at the same time, with his armies often at a massive numerical disadvantage in battle after battle. He is probably the greatest general the Western World ever produced. But the march on Moscow did him in.

I guess the answer depends on the criteria you choose to use. Washington was a greater statesman and his personal integrity led to something much more lasting than Napoleon's empire. But to me, Napoleon was a greater "foe" of the British in a military/existential sense, which is what the survey was about.

[GhostofSparta]

The real answer should have been Napoleon. If Boney hadn't tried to take on the Russian winter, he would have remained invincible.

Plus, if he hadn't sold us the Louisiana territory at pennies on the acre, maybe America stays smaller longer and Manifest Destiny doesn't happen. Domino Effect and all.

But I think the fact that within a couple of decades of their respective deaths, Washington's America was still free of British control and Napoleon's Continental empire had crumbled should be a deciding factor. Much as Lee's decision to charge uphill at an entrenched Union army at Gettysburg did irreparable damage to his cause and mystique, Napoleon's decision to no pull his army out of Russia fast enough to save it counts against him. Sure the Brits had nothing to do with the invasion and its consequences, but they still beat him twice when it counted.

Also, Washington kicked Napoleon's ass in Deadliest Warrior, so QED.

[mistertim]

I'd love for somone with photoshop to put the GW crossing the Delaware picture in and caption it, "The British see me rollin' and they be hatin'."

[Stadium-Armory]

I guess the question was military in nature, but I think Gandhi could be in the discussion. He did big things without an army.

[elkabong82]

I think George Washington wins this one because he batted 1.000 against Great Britain and Napoleon didn't (even though he covered more real estate than Washington).

No, GW did not. He lost several battles. His forte was guerilla warfare-style tactics. He could be considered their greatest foe because of that, and beating the empire with rag tag citizen soldiers and beating them through unconventional methods, defying great odds.

Washington's greatest benefit, arguably, was the great expanse of ocean between US and Britain. He could bide his time with guerilla tactics and extend the war until it took so long it became unpopular in Britain and also giving Franklin and others enough time to plead their case to France for help.

The South had a similar strategy for stretches of the Civil War. Once they lost the advantage of mobility by losing the trains (in part b/c they tore some up themselves for impractical ironclads), the tide turned.

This is actually an interesting debate. Washington merits consideration, but so does Napolean. They are the top two IMO,

---------- Post added April-16th-2012 at 09:05 PM ----------

but really Britain's greatest ever foe is the dentist

[thebluefood]

Yeah, like I said, I meant the war as a whole, not the battles. Washington lost numerous battles to the British, but the Americans (lead by Washington) eventually prevailed. Napoleon, on the other hand, had to concede to the British when all was said and done.

[elkabong82]

Same mistake Hitler made. The Russian winters are badarse.

Everyone knows there are 2 classic blunders: never get involved in a land war in Asia, and never go against a Sicilian when death is on the line

---------- Post added April-16th-2012 at 09:25 PM ----------

Yeah, like I said, I meant the war as a whole, not the battles. Washington lost numerous battles to the British, but the Americans (lead by Washington) eventually prevailed. Napoleon, on the other hand, had to concede to the British when all was said and done.

true, but Napoleon, an unlikely leader commanding the armies of history's constant loser, the French, had the British beat until he got too big for his britches and got other enemies of his involved.

and in case it was missed, I still contend that Britain's greatest ever foe is the dentist

[DCSaints_fan]

I don't see how you can not go for Napoleon. The American Revolution, while a substantial defeat for the British Empire was a sideshow compared to what went on Europe. The loss of the American colonies didn't prevent Great Britain from being the pre-eminent world power until 1945.

If the French did not have Napoleon, the conflict between GB and France probably would not have lasted past 1800. With Napoleon, it dragged on for another 15 years. Yes, unlike Washington he had a relatively professional army with experienced generals, but I don't see any of them being able duplicate his early feats in Italy or Austria. The British actually had a strategy, of basically avoiding giving battle against Napoleon for a long time.

The British suffered more casualties in single actions against the French, than they suffered during the entire American Revolution.

GW while he performed a very remarkable feat in keeping the continental army intact, which mostly consisted of half-starving, illiterate, probably drunk farm boys and vagabonds for as long as he did, was no Napoleon. I don't see Washington being able to recreate Napoleon's victories.

[HailGreen28]

The UK just kept stirring **** until they finally took Napoleon down with the SIXTH Coalition. Seventh if you count the Hundred Days and Waterloo.

Though the cause was lost, I don't think more than a handful of generals could ever have run the Six Day's Campaign as well as Bonaparte did.

[zoony]

I say Hitler. Without the US Britain would have been conquered.

[G.A.C.O.L.B.]

I say Hitler. Without the US Britain would have been conquered.

How so?

And the article says Hitler doesn't count because he never actually lead armies on the battlefield.

[zoony]

How so?

And the article says Hitler doesn't count because he never actually lead armies on the battlefield.

Well he was absolutely obsessed with maps and military maneuvering. He overrode his Generals constantly. I think he counts

If GB did not have the US supplying her Germany would have made pretty quick work of it. The Brits had no Generals and an inferior army. Their air force would not have held out forever and their navy was irrelevant in the English channel.

[PCS]

George Washington finished 4th in the online poll,but won out in the second part of the poll,(interesting). Napoleon ended up in third,(again interesting). Apparently many of his greatest battles came against other countries and his final campaign against Great Britain didn't adhere him to those voting. :whoknows:

[G.A.C.O.L.B.]

Well he was absolutely obsessed with maps and military maneuvering. He overrode his Generals constantly. I think he counts

If GB did not have the US supplying her Germany would have made pretty quick work of it. The Brits had no Generals and an inferior army. Their air force would not have held out forever and their navy was irrelevant in the English channel.

Not my rules.

And I think it was a wrap for Hitler in Russia. Doubt he'd ever be able to conquer GB after he made that decision.

I've always thought us opening a second front was as much about halting the Soviet advance as it was finally knocking out Hitler (and getting the Soviets involved with Japan).

[zoony]

The battle of Britain began before the invasion if Russia. Iirc quite a bit before. Someone correct me if I'm wrong

[G.A.C.O.L.B.]

The battle of Britain began before the invasion if Russia. Iirc quite a bit before. Someone correct me if I'm wrong

And they lost.

(They being the Germans)

Hitler had invasion plans of Britain and everything. Then they got their asses handed to them in the skies and that was the end of that. Hitler basically fell back, reinforced his defenses on the coast and turned his attention to the Soviet Union.

---------- Post added April-16th-2012 at 11:20 PM ----------

I know there are some hardcore WWII folks on here so I'm sure they'll correct me if I'm wrong. But I know I at least have the basics down.

[Hubbs]

G Dub kicked a little ass back in the day.

Okay, what the **** is the rationale for George Washington wearing a Bluetooth? :ols:

I say Hitler. Without the US Britain would have been conquered.

Well he was absolutely obsessed with maps and military maneuvering. He overrode his Generals constantly. I think he counts.

Hitler was a ****ing military moron who singlehandedly managed to prevent his own success in conquering practically all of Europe and practically all of North Africa and the Middle East. If it weren't for his boneheaded decisions, Moscow would have fallen, British Egypt would have fallen, Britain would have fallen when massive German reinforcements shifted west after the Soviet Union was reduced to Siberian resistance, and Germany in all likelihood would have won WWII in Europe. (Good chance Japan would have suffered the same fate as it did in real life, though.)

Not my rules.

And I think it was a wrap for Hitler in Russia. Doubt he'd ever be able to conquer GB after he made that decision.

Hitler was incredibly close to accomplishing what Napoleon could not. Like I said above, he was an idiot who ignored his military people and suffered terrible losses because of his ego. He could have won in Russia, which is a very scary thought. He didn't because he thought he was smarter than his generals.

Anyway, I think the Napoleon vs. Washington debate is a very good one. One thing I've noticed in this thread: There doesn't seem to be enough acknowledgement of the fact that Napoleon had an entire modern, well-funded, well-supplied, first-rate military on his side, while Washington had a bunch of peasant farmers with muskets. I think it would be interesting beyond imagination to see their places flipped.

[Mark Moseley]

Britain's Greatest Enemies

1) George Washington

2) Adolf Hitler

3) Madona's Accent :pfft:

-David Letterman

[mistertim]

Okay, what the **** is the rationale for George Washington wearing a Bluetooth? :ols:

George Washington is wearing a Bluetooth. Your argument is invalid.

[pjfootballer]

l]http://i.chzbgr.com/completestore/12/4/16/D2ADoVwvokKEyosR-ug6ww2.jpg[/url]

Good one! I love it. Sometimes it's hard to believe that at one time France had a kickass military.

[Corcaigh]

I say Hitler. Without the US Britain would have been conquered.

Not likely.

Hitler's hope was that the British would fear this and capitulate. But Churchill was a different animal to Chamberlain.

The German Navy was far inferior to the British Navy and a sea invasion would have been a total disaster without complete air superiority. While the Battle of Britain is heralded as a great victory, it was as much of a stalemate. The Germans tried to wear down Britian over the Summer and Fall of 1940 but made no real progress.

Hitler turned his attention elsewhere a whole year before Pearl Harbor, although the supply convoys before that were very important. Operation Barbarossa started in the Summer of '41.

[zoony]

And they lost.

(They being the Germans)

Hitler had invasion plans of Britain and everything. Then they got their asses handed to them in the skies and that was the end of that. Hitler basically fell back, reinforced his defenses on the coast and turned his attention to the Soviet Union.

---------- Post added April-16th-2012 at 11:20 PM ----------

I know there are some hardcore WWII folks on here so I'm sure they'll correct me if I'm wrong. But I know I at least have the basics down.

because we were supplying them

[Corcaigh]

because we were supplying them

The Lend- Lease Act which triggered the massive supply convoys wasn't until March 1941.

[Bang]

Prior to the Battle of Britain and all through the first year of the war, British shipping had been destroyed by U-Boats. As Zoony said, if not for US convoys, the UK was isolated. When the Germans kicked the Brits off the continent they made two fatal errors..

1. they did not destroy the British army on the beach at Dunkirk. They stopped, Von Runstedt decided that it would be best to halt the advance and consolidate, and Hitler agreed. They should have continued blitzkrieg fashion and wiped out the remains of the British army. Instead they allowed 300,000 men to escape and come back to fight again, and they also allowed a great and motley rescue flotilla that raised the morale of the people, which was of profound effect. Dunkirk's rescue was a rallying cry throughout the war, and gave the citizens who were the targets of much of it the strength to persevere.

2. Regardless of whether or not they did number 1, they should have IMMEDIATELY followed the Brits across the channel. The British army was shattered, it had left more than half it's weapons on the beach at Dunkirk, and there was no adequate civil defense to repel a massive land invasion and the aircraft overhead. There was no armor, little artillery, no defensive positions.

Instead Hitler listened to a boastful Goerring who proclaimed his Luftwaffe would sweep the skies clean in a month and allow a landing to be uncontested from above. They gave the British the opportunity ot fight them with the ONE weapon they had left, and allowed them to use their greatest advantage, radar.

It was, in my opinion, the absolute worst decision of the war, bar none, including attacking the Soviet Union. Attacking the soviets was profoundly stupid, but the resources used up in the Battle of Britain were never recouped. German air power never recovered, and was largely ineffective and only on the defensive for the remaining 5 years of the war. Attacking the Soviets did put the Germans in the inevitable pincer, but the war was lost when the Germans halted on french beaches and built defenses.

~Bang

[TheGreatBuzz]

No one ever seems to bring up the fact that, if GW were alive today and had to fight a war, his method of fighting would be considered terrorism compared to standard war practices of his time. Yet we put his face on money and name states, schools, and our capitol after him. Does this bother anyone else?