Comments by "Stephen Jenkins" (@stephenjenkins7971) on "The British-American War of 1812 - Explained in 13 Minutes" video.

@Artour Babiev This guy skipped how the Americans sacked the Canadian capital, FYI. And how deep the Americans cut into Canadian territory overall. Get over yourself lol
28
This logic pretty much applies to every "big power vs small power" war.
8
Yeah, big powers can't really recall all of the minor conflicts it was embroiled in. Just like the US can't really recall the part it played in the Falklands War. For the US, that was very insignificant as well.
8
@robertgissy2851 The US did win in Korea. It kept South Korea. It failed in Vietnam, like Britain failed in 1812 to maintain its economic imperialism over the US. Why the hell are you guys so salty?
2
@user-kp1fe4kf5f Historians are far more knowledgeable than "British and Canadians" propaganda. They usually point to this conflict being a draw or being a victory for the US for achieving its war goals. If you believe otherwise, then that's more of a propaganda issue, I'm afraid.
2
@ghostofsomme2234 By your logic, Vietnam was defeated by the US.
1
@AunknownMan The literal video mentioned that the US achieved its war goals while the UK just washed its hands of the affair after goading the US into a war by literally kidnapping sailors for their war. In what world do you exist does that equate to a British victory?
1
@pootubekeepsdeletingmycomm4328 The British sent almost 25% of its armed forces to North America. It's obvious the British DID try pretty damn hard if it neglected much of their empire for one front.
1
@phoenixrose1192 Idk why you're so salty here. I just said that the British didn't actually match France on the field, and we were talking about armies, not the navies. No one is refuting the UK's immense Navy. But ultimately, the British Navy couldn't do anything to France unless it took the fight to land. It's the same dilemma between Ancient Athens and Sparta; the land power vs the sea power. It was a stalemate. In what world do you exist in did the Royal Navy lead Napoleon to invade Russia? Russia re-opened trade to the UK against the Continental System for their own economy, the UK had no active role in that decision, let alone the RN. Okay? I don't care. That has nothing to do with the War of 1812. Stick on topic or quit responding to me. -_-
1
@phoenixrose1192 Well, duh. The Anglo-Russian War was not worth the cost and the Russians decided trade was better than war in that case. But that was RUSSIA'S decision, and had nothing to do with the UK itself or the British Navy. If the UK signed a treaty and required for Russia to trade, then you could make an argument. But that was not the case.
1
B Whit The British Army was made up of 250k men or so. The force sent to the US was actually a considerable size for the UK at the time at around 60k men. That means that the UK sent almost 25% of their entire army to deal with a weak and disorganized baby United States. That's hardly all that impressive.
1
B Whit Should've left that place a long time ago. If the US didn't have the will to keep more than 2k troops there at any one time for a decade or longer, then it shouldn't have bothered occupying in the first place imho. Idk why you think I'd find that offensive. Especially considering the UK's far more embarrassing defeat since it was literally defeated in open combat and its army mostly destroyed. The US, in contrast, just got bored of the stalemate. Lastly: This isn't my opinion. The War of 1812's conclusion is pretty much agreed by historians. You're the one making your own propaganda here...
1
B Whit Do you not know what irony means? Because you seem to be the definition of it. That or hypocrisy.
1
B Whit The Brits and their penchant for portraying their world conquests as heroic really have no room for this conversation.
1
B Whit A Britbong in spirit, even if not in nationality. Likely a Little Englander wishing for the UK to come and dominate them again. What does it matter, in the end? An ignorant person is still ignorant in the end, regardless of nationality. And that's really the issue with you, ultimately. Not your national origin.
1
B Whit I happen to have actual professionals on my side of the isle, not you. So you're the one wrestling with reality here, and making all kinds of snide remarks due to insecurity about the US. I love it when people bring up their ancestors as if their accomplishments anyway reflect your own. It speaks of insecurity.
1
@pootubekeepsdeletingmycomm4328 Nobody seriously claims it was a stalemate. And almost eveyr Canadian and Brit I know think they won this conflict despite being forced to give up their Native allies and stop stealing US sailors, which was the initial objective for the war. So the US prolly had more of a right to declare victory than otherwise.
1
@pootubekeepsdeletingmycomm4328 They were American by every right of a soverign state, regardless of contracts they signed. And make no mistake that the UK also flat-out stole US sailors that were NOT former British deserters. By no right mind can you claim the UK had any right to do that. The British cared for the Natives in the same way they cared for their Indian troops; as useful proxies to maintain their dominnace. British troops never even entirely left US soil until after this war, occupying forts in US territory and wanted to have the Natives disrupt the US' growth in any shape or form. Divide and conquer tactics. So the UK forced to let go of that particular knife at the back of the US was a victory, though only a setback from a UK perspective. The Canadians were British, true, but after a few campaigns the US was burning the provincial capital, which was partially why the UK retaliated by burning the White House. It took British Regulars to push US militias out of Canada.
1
@phoenixrose1192 Yep, but the fact was that the British had done it to the Americans for many years and it was perceived as a humiliation that could not go unanswered. The fact it retroactively stopped 3 years afterwards really didn't change US feelings on the matter.
1
@phoenixrose1192 Uh, the British never won a war on their own either. And the US has almost won more battles in its near-300 year history than the UK had in its near 1,000 years. The fact the US even caught up at all is just sad. The UK has 1,105 to the US' 833. If the US had 200 more years, it'd have won more battles, and that's still half of the UK's existence. So let's not act too high and mighty, yeah?
1
@phoenixrose1192 I know. But that really doesn't change the fact that the Americans were justifiably aggrieved. You can't just slap someone around and then shrug when the fight started saying that "well, no reason to slap anymore!" Or do you think it'd be A-OK to kill British soldiers and avoid war even if the reasoning behind it has nothing to do with the UK? Come on man. You're being obtuse. There are things sovereign nations cannot allow to go unanswered.
1
@safeysmith6720 I agree it wasn't much. But seeing as sacking the US capital is somehow a big deal, I brought it up in return.
1