American History?
Jul. 16th, 2003 12:14 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
mbarrick
How about some history of American foreign policy and millitary glory written from the same sort of stance as the "French military defeats" page that's going around lately:Revolutionary War: The 13 colonies unilaterally declare their own independence in 1776. George "I never told a lie" Washington commits high treason and breaks his oath to serve the "Sovereign of England and His Rightful Successors" and tries to secure Manhattan in order to control the most important waterway in the colonies, the Hudson River, and fails miserably. The British turn Manhattan into the largest military garrison in history. The colonists resort to small battles and cheap shots in the hopes of eventually annoying the British into leaving. The British create a naval blockade that isolates the colonies from the rest of the planet and the colonists are powerless to beach blockade without French naval assistance. Thirteen years later (1789) the British decide the American colonies are too much of a pain in the ass to keep wasting money on and allow then to succeed.
War of 1812: The Americans decide they want to annoy the British into giving up more territory and try to invade Canada. The British set up another naval blockade, but this time France won't help. The Americans manage to take Toronto, but eventually the war ends with the forces of British North America (i.e. Canada) forcing the Americans back and burning Washington to the ground (hey... wasn't 9/11 the first attack on American soil?). The Americans greatest victory in the war comes in 1814 at New Orleans, unfortunately the battle takes place after the war is over and Washington has already been burned.
The Mexican War: The US annexes the independent state of Texas and tries to buy California. Mexico refuses to sell and disputes the exact location of the Texas border, so the US invades. Mexico tries to defend their territory and President Polk tells Congress that "Mexico has passed the boundary of the United States and shed American blood on American soil." (hey... wasn't 9/11 the first attack on American soil?)
The Civil War: The Americans fight amongst themselves.
The Spanish-American War: Cuba attempts to declare independence from Spain. American interests (i.e. money) is at risk so America invades. War with Spain is used an excuse to also invade Puerto Rico and the Philippines, and annex Hawaii. Control of the Cuban army is given to former Spanish officers and Cuba is "liberated" under the condition that the U.S. have the unconditional right to interfere in internal Cuban affairs and be granted perpetual rights to coaling station at Guantanamo Bay (100 years ago it was about coal, not oil). Celebrities and intellectuals like Mark Twain decry the discrepancies between American "benevolent" foreign policy and its brutal results.
World War I: The U.S. refuses to get involved until the war is nearly over, in 1917. Everybody else has been at it since 1914 and harshly criticizing the U.S. for not helping. Only when American trade ships start getting sunk by the Germans does Woodrow Wilson start whining about the violation of international law and the oppression of the German people under their evil, Imperialist (never mind all America's Imperialism to date, including the systematic genocide of the "savages" who happened to be in the way of Manifest Destiny) government. So, imperialism being bad and all, they side with the British Empire and take on a predominately supply and mop-up role while Britain uses stalwart Australians and Canadians for the most difficult battles (like Ypres, where the only forces *not* to try and retreat from the chlorine gas and die were the Canadians).
World War II: Again the U.S. waits over two years before joining the war until Japan bombs the living crap out of their navy (hey... wasn't 9/11 was the first attack on American soil?). Japan also takes several of the Aleutian Islands (hey... wasn't 9/11 the first attack on American soil?). The U.S., representing half a continent manages to do reasonably well against a small island nation, but eventually resorts to WMD and the killing of hundreds of thousands of civilians to "win". Like the other island they conquered (Cuba) they demand an unconditional right to meddle. Meanwhile, in Europe, they take on a predominately supply and mop-up role while Britain uses stalwart Australians and Canadians for the most difficult battles.
Amendment: The Japanese also bombed Oregon using a submarine-carried scout plane (hey... wasn't 9/11 the first attack on American soil?) and sent appoximately 9,000 balloon bombs over the continental U.S., one of which killed a woman and five children (hey... wasn't 9/11 the first attack on American soil?).
The Korean War: Not really a war. Not really over. Hey, doesn't North Korea have WMD?
The Vietnam War: The U.S. attempts to "liberate" the Vietnamese from communist oppression, while the Vietnamese are leveraging Chinese support to liberate themselves from colonial oppression by the French. Big mess. Neither China nor the U.S. wants to take eachother on directly. The Vietnamese resort to using the exact same small battles and cheap shots tactics against the Americans that the Americans used against the British. They are equally effective. Eventually the American's withdraw because it just isn't worth the effort. Celebrities and intellectuals decry the discrepancies between American "benevolent" foreign policy and its brutal results.
Grenada: America boldly conquers another island.
The Gulf War: The absolute monarchy of Kuwait starts surreptitiously side-drilling into Iraq and sucking Iraqi oil out from underneath them. Then Iraq, whose (albeit corrupt and brutal) government was elected (albeit through fixed elections), tells Kuwait to stop it or they will come in and burn their wells. Kuwait doesn't stop it. So, President Bush Sr. (who just happened to be the director of the CIA at the point where that the Iraqi election was being fixed, the reason for the fix going back to the fall of the Shah and a desire to pit a "moderate" Iraq against a intensely conservative Iran) hurried in to liberate the absolute monarchy from the "elected" leader he helped to install, all in the name of democracy and freedom (and oil). The primary tactic is the have Canadian jets fly in, get fired at to reveal the anti-aircraft locations and ground defense location, and then the Americans hit them with smart bombs from a safe distance followed by a ground invasion once all the defenses are down. Somehow the "elected" leader, Hussein, stays in power. 67% of British deaths in the war are caused by Americans. Roughly 80% of American deaths are caused by Americans. Celebrities and intellectuals decry the discrepancies between American "benevolent" foreign policy and its brutal results.
Afghanistan: America, stinging from "the first attacks on American soil" (since the invasion of the Aleutians, anyway. Never mind Pearl Harbour, Polk's "attacks" by the Mexicans, and of course the Canadians burning Washington to the ground...) enlists the aid of the British, a rogue Muslim state with nuclear capability (Pakistan) that was once part of the British Empire and has been threatening war with the second most populous country on Earth, which was also part of the British Empire (India) to invade an utterly impoverished desert country that also happens to have once been British Territory. The aim of the invasion is to overthrow the American installed regime that was set up to oust the Soviets (also during Bush Sr.'s tenure with the CIA) because the Soviets and Americans don't want to take each other on directly. Bush Jr. vows to liberate the Afghani people in the name of democracy and get Bin Laden "dead or alive". To date Bin Laden has not been found, the Americans are all but gone, and Canada, Britain, France, and Germany amongst others are stuck fighting what's left of the American installed and trained anti-Soviet regime and trying to do the "rebuilding" promised by the Americans. 100% of Canadian deaths in the war are caused by Americans. Celebrities and intellectuals decry the discrepancies between American "benevolent" foreign policy and its brutal results.
Iraq: Bush Jr., himself elected in a fixed election and immediately after being in bed with the nuclear posturing Muslim state of Pakistan, despite 50 years of American presence in Korea and its nuclear posturing, oddly decides the mere possibility of the leader installed by his father maybe potentially making chemical weapons is a good excuse to invade, all in the name of "freedom and democracy". Do date the deposed leader is nowhere to be found and pockets of resistance are doing the small battles and cheap shots thing that worked so well for the Vietnamese. The war is not over and none of the primary objectives have been met. Celebrities and intellectuals decry the discrepancies between American "benevolent" foreign policy and its brutal results.
Addendum (July 17,2003): To date, since Bush Jr. declaired "major fighting over", 34 Americans have been killed by Iraqis, 49 by accident or other Americans.
I originally wrote this July 15, 2003 in a discussion forum on The Smoke Pit. This version has some of the more atrocious spelling and grammatical errors corrected. Feel free to copy, amend and correct.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
*applause*
Date: 2003-07-16 01:09 pm (UTC)Couldn't have said it better myself! I bow to you.
no subject
Date: 2003-07-16 01:37 pm (UTC)Didn't a Japanese scout seaplane armed with some small bombs try to set the forests of Oregon alight in September 1942?
Many years after the war, the pilot was later made an honourary citzien of one of the towns near where he tried to bomb.
no subject
Date: 2003-07-16 01:52 pm (UTC)Basically they would tie explosives to a weather balloon and the prevailing wind would carry it to the U.S. Most of the ones that made it were harmlessly disarmed except for one that landed in a park. A preacher on a church picnic saw it and in looking to see what it was, set it off.
In a purely brilliant bit of forensics the Americans pinpointed the location of the balloon factory by identifying grains of sand found inside the balloons as having come from one particular beach in Japan. In typical American military fashion they sent bombed the crap out of the town next to the beach, thus ending the dreaded Japanese balloon attacks.
Factual correction
Date: 2003-07-16 02:03 pm (UTC)Here (http://www.stelzriede.com/ms/html/mshwfug2.htm) is a link to some Seattle Times articles from 1945 about the balloon bombs.
I-25 / The Pig War of 1859
Date: 2003-07-16 02:06 pm (UTC)Try the link above for more info about the seaplane attack. The only reason I knew about it was that about eight years ago, I was on vacation on the south coast of Oregon and stopped for the night in Port Orford. The woman who ran the B&B that we were staying at recounted the story to us. It was and still is quite a local historical event.
Also, you ommited the 1859 Pig War between the United States and Great Britain.
* * * *
How one pig could have changed American history
From Out West #15
By Chuck Woodbury
editor, Out West
One of the America's most unusual wars involved only one casualty -- a pig -- and yet it could have changed the course of history. The bizarre conflict took place on present-day San Juan Island (in Washington state) and involved American and British troops, and even warships.
The Pig War began on June 15, 1859, when an American settler named Lyman Cutlar shot and killed a trespassing pig belonging to Englishman Charles Griffin of the Hudson Bay Company. "It was eating my potatoes," said Cutlar, who had already warned Griffin to keep his pig out his potato patch. "It is up to you to keep your potatoes out of my pig," was Griffin's reply.
Normally, the shooting of a pig would be a small matter, but American and British tempers were short in those days. Both the United States and England claimed the San Juan Islands; ill-defined boundary lines were to blame.
When British authorities threatened to arrest pig-killer Cutlar, his fellow Americans called for U.S. military protection -- which they got in the form of the 9th Infantry.
The Brits responded by dispatching three warships under the command of Capt. Geoffrey Hornby.
Forces on both sides grew, but guns remained silent. A month passed without incident. British Rear Adm. Robert L. Bayes, commander of British Naval forces in the Pacific, did his best to avoid war. He would not, he said, "involve two great nations in a war over a squabble about a pig."
Yet, the scene remained tense and potentially explosive. By August 10, American forces numbered 461; British forces numbered 2,140 with five warships.
When word reached Washington, officials were shocked that the shooting of a pig could cause such an international incident. President James Buchanan dispatched General Winfield Scott, commanding general of the U.S. Army, to investigate and hopefully contain the potentially deadly affair.
Scott got both sides to agree to restrain their guns while a solution was worked out. During this time, both countries kept token forces on hand -- at what are now National Historic Sites called American Camp and British Camp.
The paramount issue was who owned San Juan Island -- the Americans or the British.
For twelve years, including the Civil War period, the issue was debated. It wasn't until 1872 that the question was put to a third party for a decision. On October 21, Kaiser Wilhelm I of Germany declared the San Juan Islands American property; land north of the 49th parallel was Canadian, to the south it was American. A month later, British troops departed.
And so ended the Pig War. If things had gone differently -- and war had actually begun, who knows what would have happened. Would the angry British have then sided with the Confederacy in the Civil War? If so, how would that have affected that war's outcome? Would it have swung the balance of power toward the South?
If so, the world would be a far different place today -- and all because of a hungry pig in a potato patch.
Re: I-25 / The Pig War of 1859
Date: 2003-07-16 02:20 pm (UTC)The "Pig War" didn't actually come to shots fired (other than at the pig) so it doesn't really count. Although it is worth mentioning that the Hudson's Bay land grant specifically included all the land north and west of the Columbia River. The American's annexed that territory by filling it with settlers. The British responded by loading the most strategic point in the area (Victoria, which is a choke point that can be used to blockade naval access to both Vancouver and Seattle) with loyalists. Which is why to this day southern Vancouver Island in general and Victoria in particular are so British.
Re: I-25 / The Pig War of 1859
Date: 2003-07-16 03:11 pm (UTC)The I-25 attacks are definitely worth including. I had no idea that the Japanese has done any bombing on the mainland other than the balloon attacks.
Interestingly enough, the reverse was true for most Americans. The I-25 incident seemed to create some popular panic of a Japanese invasion; as a result possibly - the balloon attacks were hushed up and not revealled to the public until after the war.
Somewhat related to bizarre enemy action in North American, I remember watching a CBC news programme in ca.1980 which mentioned of a German secret weather station during WW2 that was located up in Ungava in Northern Quebec. No one here knew about out until well later after the war when those stationed there gave up their secret.
Germans in Ungava
Date: 2003-07-16 03:21 pm (UTC)Re: Germans in Ungava
Date: 2003-07-16 07:46 pm (UTC)It was set up by U-537 in 1943. It was an automated station with a 150 Watt short-wave transmitter. The station was code-named, "Kurt". I was undiscovered until 1981. This book (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0773508015/qid=1058409901/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_1/102-6394000-1052969?v=glance&s=books&n=507846) seems to be the definitive resource.
More
Date: 2003-07-16 02:09 pm (UTC)http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/history/wwii/jbb.htm
vietnam war
Date: 2003-07-16 02:25 pm (UTC)Re: vietnam war
Date: 2003-07-16 02:58 pm (UTC)Also the bombings in Kosovo, the "unofficial" reprisals for that U.S. embassy bombing in Africa, Panama, Nicuragua, the botched rescue attempt during the Iranian Hostage Crisis, the continued funding of
The Kingdom of JerusalemIsrael and the proxy wars fought through her, and all the other absurd crap. But I was trying to stick to things that were officially declared wars. I almost left Korea off the list for this reason, but it is currently relevant and routinely referred to as "The Korean War" so I let that one slip. Like I said at the outset, I could write a book...other US misadventures
Date: 2003-07-16 03:16 pm (UTC)Off the top of my head, they were Cuba, Nicaragua, Dominican Republic, Haiti, as well as: the Canal Zone, Puerto Rico, the former Danish West Indies that were purchased in 1917 and because the US Virgin Islands as well as a keystone-cops expeditionary force in Mexico on the hunt for Pancho Villa (who also has a healthy credit to his name for attacking US soil when he retaliated by attacking the Texas border town of Columbis on March 9, 1916)
Re: other US misadventures
Date: 2003-07-16 03:27 pm (UTC)And on the northern side, ever seen the 1935 draft plans for a second crack at invading Canada?
Re: other US misadventures
Date: 2003-07-16 03:33 pm (UTC)Nope - I have seen a declassified Canadian defense document of about five pages (legal sized) from 1923-1925 regarding how to deal with a US invasion.
It was expected that by the third day of a US attack - after the Americans had been stopped in New Westminster, the Yankees would be put on the run and Canadian troops would go on the counter-attack into Washington State. I recall Spokane for some reason was one counter-attack objective.
Re: other US misadventures
Date: 2003-07-16 04:41 pm (UTC)The U.S. document verges on a joke. For example it completely glosses over the stragegic importance of Victoria and Prince Rupert. Vancouver and Seattle are useless as ports without Victoria, and leaving Price Rupert open allows a supply line to and from the interior.
Spokane is a strategic pass. Land-based supplies from the east would come through Spokane. If, for example, Surrey and Delta were taken (the river would be difficult to cross, thus the expectation to stop the advance in New West), supplies would have to come from the south. Nothing would be getting past the Strait of Juan De Fuca because of the strategic position of Victoria. Supplies from the east (where the factories are) would most expediently come through Spokane. Take Spokane and the supply lines to the front are lengthened by hundreds of miles as the would have the be re-routed south via a Boise-Portland-Seattle route. Take out the bridges between Portland and Vancouver, WA, and Seattle is effectively cut off.
Re: other US misadventures
Date: 2003-07-16 05:38 pm (UTC)As for the ca.1925 document I saw, it (a reproduction) was contained at my junior secondary school in a pamphet file on US-Canada relations .
Re: vietnam war
Date: 2003-07-16 04:40 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-07-16 03:51 pm (UTC)Thanks
Date: 2003-07-16 04:45 pm (UTC)Re: Thanks
Date: 2003-07-16 10:40 pm (UTC)Re: Thanks
Date: 2003-07-16 10:42 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-07-16 03:54 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-07-16 04:25 pm (UTC)I can understand the sick logic behind it, though, if it is true. I can see wanting a more visceral demonstration of what the bomb could do, something more gruesome than melting sand in Nevada, to deter anybody (i.e. the Soviets) from remobilizing their millitary against the U.S.
Corroborating Facts
Date: 2003-07-16 08:12 pm (UTC)