100 years ago, Britain would kick the shit out of the US or India

>what are nuclear weapons

>>76080896
POORtugal has nuclear weapons, now?

>>76080925
Britain & India do you dumb fuck.

>>76080879
>brazil could destroy portugal
Doubt

>>76081207
Brazil absolutely could.

>>76080951
India probably has 1 pooclear weapon

Can smell the mulattoshart off this thread

>>76080879
It was inevitable OP

Like a mountain rolling down a larger mountain.

>>76083765
No, they have more than 1.3 billion of them.

I find nothing funny about it.

>>76081218
It depends if it was an offensive or defensive war. Mongrel countries do not have a will to fight.

>>76083814
kek

File: 1405236686700.png (39KB, 914x1091px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 914x1091px

>>76080879
>Brazil could absolutely rape Portugal.

File: portuguese pepe packs a punch.png (745KB, 783x757px) Image search: [Google]

745KB, 783x757px

>>76080879
>Brazil could absolutely rape Portugal.
[citation needed]

File: 1494874097480.jpg (134KB, 766x733px) Image search: [Google]

134KB, 766x733px

>>76080879
There is more to wars than numbers burger, just because you are shit warriors doesnt mean the rest of us are like you.

who cares how powerful they are if they complete shitholes

>>76087287
Crimea river

>>76087261
>just because you are shit warriors
We never lost a war except Vietnam, which was not a military but a political defeat caused by traitorous leftists.

>>76080879
>Ain't it funny how times change?
100 years ago it would take months for your shitpost to reach the other side of the world, in a poorly worded letter. Funny how industry reshapes the world.

>>76083814
Wew, good one bru.

>>76087325
>which was not a military but a political defeat
It was a complete failure on all fronts, you dumb fucking LARPing teenager.
Get your head out of the endless depths of your arse.

it doesn't matter how mighty military forces a country has since the end of WW2. Once it has a stable and strong economy and its people are just living well, nothing else matters, i believe

File: 1497295580521.jpg (8KB, 255x204px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 255x204px

>>76087325
Bullying third world shitholes when you are America is not an impressive act. The only war i rate you in was against Japan in WW2, ill give you that one.

>>76083824
>Mongrel countries do not have a will to fight
This is what ethnonationalists actually believe btw, he's not trying to be funny.

>>76087365
Didn't we go into that war too or something?

>>76087375
Big powers don't directly go to war since 1945, they fight proxy wars, of which Vietnam was one.

>>76083814
funny Stralyun

>>76083952
Brazil, please ABSOLUTELY RAPE Poortugal

>>76087261
the last time Poortugal's ass was kicked by Indians:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Goa
>Portugal:
>Casualties and losses
>4668 POWs
>Decisive Indian victory

>>76087325
you have also lost in Afg-stan, I live very near, I know how miserably the burgers have lost, even after a trillion dollars and many lives not to speak of the hundreds thousands of your burger soldiers wounded

>>76087492
This Paki has to be one of the more pathetic trolls /int/ has seen. Go make another thread about bleaching your skin white.

>>76087492
Are you from Peshawar or somewhere near?

>100 years ago no one could defeat Russia

i guess some things don't change

>>76087492
I was wondering...who will you marry? Your sister or your cousin?

>>76087562
Do you honestly think portugal would have a chance? No nuclear weapon and they outnumber you 100:1. There's no inhibitable environment in Portugal either, no pesky jungles.

>>76087371
Oh, see who is talking on stability.
You live in Korea. At any time a war can occur there.

Don't be too naive. Also remember your country only exists because of American help. Thousand of people died just to save that little peninsula.

>>76080879
>100 years ago, Britain would kick the shit out of the US or India in terms of military force.
For India it was 50/50. We had a slight technology gap but it was mainly due to good political maneuvering, cooperating with the princely states to subjugate the other states that didn't want to just regularly pay shekels for independence and pure situational coincidence (Aurengzab tanking the empire/the Maratha confederacy declining after the third battle of Panipat) that they were able to become incorporated into the empire.
For America... well I don't Britain was ever more powerful than America post independence desu.

>>76087605
well.. at least we haven't gone through a hyperinflation like the one Brasil experienced, which devastated your country's economy. go see your country's credit rating. It's way lower than that of Korea dude. I'm not saying Korea is the best country in the world but at least, in terms of economy, it's not that bad as you think

>>76087604
I think that if Brazil invaded Portugal they would get BTFO'd and i also believe that if Portugal invaded Brazil we would get BTFO'd
We have uranium and the expertise to make nuclear weapons, so in an extreme case we could just make them.

>>76087542
Yup, somewhere near
Since you are Superior Russian brother, let me tell you something that would give the burger an ass burning diarrhea

I have seen with my own eyes burger SOP-MOD weapons taken by the Kaliban after killing their seals and commando units

the shops were once littered with such things, even until a few years ago

things with names of burger soldiers on them, Sgt. this, Captain that, and I am not even joking

more than a 100,000 soldiers have been seriously injured or disfigured
the latest ones being killed:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/10/world/asia/afghanistan-american-soldiers-killed.html?_r=0

everyone knows the burgers have lost miserably in Afg-stan

so has NATO
BBC even did a recent report on this
most of the country is now ruled by the Kaliban
a province which the brits gave so many of their soldier's lives is now once again conquered and ruled by the Kaliban you can see it in this report:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-40171379

>>76087701
Well, that's what happens when you put a commie in the presidence. The same would occur there if were not by Americans. ;)
Who cares for economy when I don't know if I'll be living tomorrow?

>>76087635
America's entire industry was pretty much founded on spying and industrial espionage in Britain

>>76087492
>>76087762
>>76087542
>>76087604
Points of my posts being, even if you a trillion DOLLAZ, a large modern army and a lot of nations that you have cuckolded, doesnt necessarily mean you will win

NATO and burgers have lost in Afg-stan and everyone knows it
its just not promoted or announced on burger media like CNN etc.

>>76087512
stupid teenager you still have alot to learn

>>76087562
if this is the only line of defense you will hide behind then you have proven the points against you
anyways, I think you should be a province of Spain
Portugal doesnt need a separate existence

>>76087817
with that poor economy, even living present would be such a pain. Plus, your country also has to do something about the drug cartels lurking around every corner of the cities in Brasil so it's no surprise that you don't give a shit about the economy cos nobody can tell when and where you can be abducted and trafficked by one of those cartels.

>>76087885
>>76087885
>anyways, I think you should be a province of Spain
>Portugal doesnt need a separate existence

You mean Portugal should be a province or off shore colony of Brazil right ?!!

>>76087885
line of defense? Yeah we lost against India, we had a small enclave in a country with a billion people, what did you expect? For us to sink billions and thousand of lives for a place that isnt worth it? All countries win and lose wars, tell me a country with 100% win ratio.
Also you didnt anwser me, your sister or your cousin?

>>76087880
proof/ reference/ book?

>>76080879
UK could definitely cripple the poos and the poos wouldn't get anywhere near the UK.

The poos don't have functioning SLBMs.

>>76087950
>tell me a country with 100% win ratio.
Chile

>>76087375
Japan was a freakshow failed state that couldn't defeat a China in civil war.

>>76087921
All those cartals come from commie organizations too.
You're a true naive. Fuck off, gook.

>>76088110
Hope you're gonna be fine and don't forget to bring a pistol with you whenever you go out to protect urself from the drug cartel members :D
adios amigo

>>76088063
why would UK war with India or Pakistan
former colonies, same state laws and language, large expat population, the benefit from our large population markets and vice versa

If anything except for the tension we have with the Indians these 3 countries could have been a commonwealth super market

Infact UK should think about this, creating a commonwealth super market after Brexit

>>76088152
UK doesn't want more poos and muslims.

>>76088021
Look up Francis Lowell and Samuel Slater or read any book on 18th C industrial espionage

>>76088151
I'm not in Colombia. Do you even know the difference between them?

>>76088151
No, they are right. The most likely mental to fire a noooc is that chubby best Korea leader and there are only two countries he is gonna aim his kaboom at.

Guess which one of those 2 is like a minute away in missssile time?

your country mate. Have you booked your noooklear bunker yet?

>>76088197
Not much difference between them in that there are a shitload of drug cartels.

>>76088278
Really hope Kim Jong un nukes exactly where you live. >:D

>>76088337
That's exactly why we had the US deploy THAAD, theater of high altitude area defense missiles, to shoot down the North Korean missiles. And it's highly unlikely that NK would ever push the button to launch the nukes. If it were to do so, it wouldn't be heading to Korea but to the US or the US military bases around many countries, which is why North Korea's this obsessed with developing ICBM to hit the mainland of the US directly.

>>76088439
"it doesn't matter how mighty military forces a country has since the end of WW2. Once it has a stable and strong economy and its people are just living well, nothing else matters, i believe"

oh boi

>>76080879
>100 years ago, Britain would kick the shit out of the US or India in terms of military force.

Not really. Britain in 1917 was incredibly weak and had been bled white by a war for more than 3 years. If in some crazy hypothetical scenario, you took Britain on June 15, 2017, and the US on June 15, 2017, told everyone else to stop fighting, and said "ok then, you two go at it", the US would have won.

no end to the satisfaction of realising rich white people in europe thought they were god's gift and that europe was eden itself only to get BTFO when they discovered continents bigger and more diverse

1917 britain would never have beat the USA

hell, britain couldn't even beat 1700 USA.

>>76090248
>hell, britain couldn't even beat 1700 USA.

The US didn't exist in 1700....and your country comfortably beat us in 1812 while simultaneously dealing with Napoleon. I think the threshold of "UK can't beat the US" was crossed sometime in the late 1800s, but the US couldn't have beaten the UK until the early 1900s, probably just after WWI.

>>76090248
The US was losing in a war they enjoyed numerical and strategic superiority in until the French intervened.

>>76090306
>The US was losing in a war they enjoyed numerical and strategic superiority
>numerical

Not really, only about 1/3 of the American people were actually behind the war effort. Another 1/3 were British loyalists and the final 1/3 just wanted everyone to stop fighting. The US only really enjoyed numerical superiority (ironically) in New England, and in any case it was hopelessly outmatched by the British when it came to cash and weapons. The new American currency, the continental dollar, was so worthless that you needed a wheelbarrow of the stuff to buy food. Not to mention vast differences in training, the Continental Army was basically a small number of half-trained ex-British officers leading farmboys.

>>76080879
>Brazil could absolutely rape Portugal.

Do they even have any military? If so - why are they still one the most dangerous countries to live? If their military can't even fix this how can they conquer anything?

>>76088063
It'd be more of a stalemate I guess

>>76090372
The colonies had almost no industry or any way to supply a real army, Ben Franklin suggested half-seriously that "We may need to go back to the bow-and-arrow."

>>76090304
>and your country comfortably beat us in 1812
No they didn't. The Duke of Wellington even said the war was not winnable, they'd just get swallowed up in the endless American wilderness.

>>76090613
They comfortably beat us militarily, is what I meant. The US had no real victory other than the Battle of New Orleans (which technically occurred after the war ended). I'm not saying that the UK could have swooped in and re-annexed everything, only that they can and did comfortably defeat the US military, and had they not been distracted by the French the final settlement would have been much worse for us. Heck, the fact that you're quoting the Duke of Wellington kind of sums it up, since he was a little preoccupied at the time with some Corsican midget.

Good thing we only conquered shitholes.
We fuck the entire Maghreb anyday

>>76090613
UK dodnt care about worthless land at the time, tge US only became powerful in the 1870s, they could have easily annexed it if they wanted to no one in the continent had any reason to fight britain, even ben franklin realized ultimately all that mattered were the colonies rights not do much not being in union with britain.

>>76087375
>The only war i rate you in was against Japan in WW2, ill give you that one.
>lose a massive chunk of your navy
>nuke them into surrendering because they couldn't win a conventional war

>>76090852
Not entirely true, the US in 1865 technically had the world's largest army and it was fairly well equipped, enough that the US threat to intervene on Mexico's behalf against the French was taken as a serious concern by Napoleon III. The US in the 1870s was dramatically weaker due to mass demobilization after the war and the fact that our remaining forces were busy with the Plains Indians, it wasn't until the 1890s that the country really started building up its military power again.

>>76087492
>you have also lost in Afg-stan, I live very near
>So you live in the shittiest part?
>, I know how miserably the burgers have lost, even after a trillion dollars and many lives not to speak of the hundreds thousands of your burger soldiers wounded
Yes, the Taliban is in power, the NA lost and bin Laden is alive. If you're referring to be it being a violent shithole it was before we arrived.

>>76090866
The Japanese navy didn't exactly perform admirably in the Pacific.

>>76090866
The US had already won the conventional war. The IJN was non-existent, the IJA was either trapped in Manchuria or a collection of barely-trained soldiers in Japan itself. The nukes were dropped to end the war faster. There was no doubt the US had already won for all intents and purposes, but nobody wanted the inevitably high casualties of a full-scale invasion of Japan itself (look up the plans for yourself, they ordered so many Purple Hearts that we still haven't run out). The option of mining harbors, bombing infrastructure, and watching all the Japs starve was also considered, but was dropped due to a lack of popularity (only 30% of Americans supported genocide against the Japanese in 1945).

The US had total air and naval superiority by 1945, the only question was "do we invade, do we starve them out and kill them all (Lemay's plan), or do we drop a couple nukes and try to scare them into unconditional surrender?".

>>76090866
There was a conventional war. The Japs got hammered.

The nuke was just the icing on the murder-cake.

>>76087762
>more than a 100,000 soldiers have been seriously injured or disfigured
Wow why don't you make some more shit up.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_casualties_in_the_War_in_Afghanistan

I know a lot of people who fought there and they are fine but think afghans are disgusting (we aren't huge fans of boy fucking).

>>76090941
US population 1790 4 million
US population 1860 36 million this is around when US became a major power.
US power becomes stagnant as white population becomes stagnant and increases once white population increases.

>>76091242
>US population 1860 36 million this is around when US became a major power.

I disagree. In the 1860s the US had the opportunity to become a major power but essentially chose not to become one. The US didn't become a major power until the 1890s.

>US power becomes stagnant as white population becomes stagnant and increases once white population increases.

.....ok, /pol/. The white population is still increasing.

>>76088106
>Japan was a freakshow failed state that couldn't defeat a China in civil war.
But they weren't they had colonies, a powerful navy, industry, scientific advances and defeated the regional European colonial powers. They also moved a lot of forces from China to fight us and China had U.S. support.

File: maddie.png (213KB, 900x750px) Image search: [Google]

213KB, 900x750px

>>76080879
>Brazil could absolutely rape Portugal.

Lol. No. Nothing would happen.

Neither country has any capability to project and support any kind of expeditionary force.

American history books of the 19th century always depicted the War of 1812 as a victory, modern historians generally regard it as a stalemate.

>>76091419
BRING. HER. BACK.

>>76091534
>modern AMERICAN historians generally regard it as a stalemate.
Important detail there. The rest of the world unanimously agrees you guys lost.
Although I suppose even admitting a draw is big step for Americans, so well done on that.

>>76091534
>American history books of the 19th century always depicted the War of 1812 as a victory

I think it really depends on how you look at it. It was a victory in the sense that the US got what it wanted: control of New Orleans, a settlement of the Orders in Council, a settlement over border disputes in the Old Northwest....it's strange, despite failing utterly in almost every military engagement, the US came out of the War of 1812 with almost everything it wanted (unless you were one of those retarded Senators who wanted to annex Canada).

>>76088152
Fuck off paki scum

>>76091649
>the US came out of the War of 1812 with almost everything it wanted
HOW FUCKING DELUSIONAL CAN ONE COUNTRY BE.

>>76080879
>Brazil could rape Portugal

Good luck crossing the ocean on timber boats. Good luck landing anywhere near our coastline.
Good luck even trying to conquer Azores or Madeira.
Good luck to Brazil's troops fed on SOPA that can barely hold a fucking rifle.

The only thing I respect from Brazil's military is their MP and BOPE and even our equivalents (GNR and GOE) could give them a run for their money.

also
>USA
>get defeated by communist rice farmers
>hurrr durrr not true defeat wuz political n shiz
Half your fucking military were on opion or in whore houses and when it was time to fight they ran or fucked up massivle.

>>76090372
The U.S. invented snipers than and did pretty well with guerilla warfare. The entire conflict leading to the British withdrawal if Boston had shown it wasn't going to be easy for the British.

>>76080879
>Brazil could absolutely rape Portugal
That's assuming they can land in Portugal

>>76091632
>The rest of the world unanimously agrees you guys lost.

Do they really? Because that doesn't seem reasonable. If you look at American goals heading into the war, they were all achieved (except, again, the handful of retards who wanted Canada). It's a fact that Britain dominated most battles....but isn't that, in a lot of ways, similar to what happened with the US in Vietnam? The US pummeled the NV military, killing 2 million Vietnamese while "only" losing 50,000 soldiers, but everyone still agrees that the US lost the war because Vietnam achieved its goals but the US did not.

It seems like a strange double standard to regard the War of 1812 as a British victory, when the war literally began with your government acquiescing to American demands (although unfortunately, because of how slow news traveled in those days, by the time we found out that you guys had given us 50% of what we wanted we had already been at war for two weeks).

>>76091676
But it did. The Orders in Council were repealed. The British finally left the Old Northwest (although you had agreed to do so all the way back in 1894, you kind of dragged your heels). You stopped supporting indians fighting against us. You were kept out of New Orleans (again, it's ironic that our biggest and arguably only real victory in the war came a few days after the war ended, but nobody involved in the battle new that because news was slow as shit back then).

I'm not pretending that the US destroyed Britain and won some great victory, but it did achieve nearly all of its goals. I wouldn't call 1812 a victory, I'd call it "Britain letting us off with a warning because they were busy", but it wasn't a defeat either.

>>76091701
>The entire conflict leading to the British withdrawal if Boston had shown it wasn't going to be easy for the British.

Not easy, but they surely would have won had it not been for French and Spanish intervention. The US simply had no answer for the power of Britain's military, especially when it came to the Navy. You ever wonder why our only famous naval revolutionary story is about a guy commanding a ship called the Bonhomme Richard?

>>76091632
>The rest of the world unanimously agrees you guys lost
>the rest of the world
I doubt anyone outside the US and Canada has any awareness that this war ever happened.

>>76091780
Impressment didn't stop. You didn't annex Canada. Those were the goals, and you didn't achieve them.

Saying you achieved 'nearly all' of your goals is so fucking mind-blowingly retarded, it's the kind of statement only an American could make. Truly amazing.

>>76091649
That would be like the Vietnam War since Hanoi in the end got what they wanted, which was control of the whole cunt, despite losing every important battlefield engagement.

>>76091944
The goal of the war wasn't to annex Canada, that was a side quest. It was primarily to stop British impressment of sailors.

>>76090722
Not really most of the war were raids, assaults, ambushes and Indians massacring villages. When the naval battles were small. The British failed as often as the Americans. Wellington was right the amount of territory and wilderness made it difficult.

>>76092008
>The goal of the war wasn't to annex Canada
Myth made up by Americans after the war. At the start, annexation of Canada was absolutely the goal. There's plenty of evidence on the internet, go read it.
>It was primarily to stop British impressment of sailors.
Which again, didn't stop.

>>76091944
The goals were to stop the Orders in Council, stop the Brits from supporting constant Indian massacres of Americans, keeping the British out of the Old Northwest, keeping the British out of New Orleans, and stopping impressment. 4 out of 5, not bad for a country that objectively got our ass kicked in almost every

>>76092008
No, it was primarily to stop the Orders in Council. Impressment was a political tool to get the people riled up.

>>76091632
>U.S achieves major goals
>Canada still British
How is that not a stalemate.

200 years ago Brazil wasn't even a real cunt, we turned independent in 1822 and by 1825 we had already fucked up Portugal (and Holland, actually)

>>76091780
I wouldn't say 1812 was a British victory, but the only goal the British government had was to not have Canada invaded, which they successfully managed. The US came out far worse for it since they didn't meet any of their aims (particularly ending impressment, which had largely abated on its own by the end of the War of the Sixth Coalition) and ended the war on a status quo ante bellum at the cost of thousands of lives. I suppose you could argue it helped to break up the last of the major Indian resistance, though.

>>76092057
>At the start, annexation of Canada was absolutely the goal.

By a handful of retards. It's difficult to describe how insanely disorganized the US was at the time, the failures of 1812 are what helped spur the country towards a more centralized, professional model of government and military operation. Annexing Canada was the goal of a handful of retards who were able to run off and do as they pleased because the entire country was so decentralized.

>Which again, didn't stop.

Very true, not all American goals were achieved, which is why calling it a victory is a massive exaggeration. But solidifying Jay's Treaty, repealing the Orders in Council, and keeping Britain out of New Orleans were all massive steps for the US.

>>76092097
>How is that not a stalemate.

Well, the British could have annihilated us, at least militarily if they felt like it. But they were worn out from fighting the French and didn't feel like going through another decade-long struggle in North America. The word "stalemate" almost implies that the two parties were on even footing.

The War of 1812 was a significant turning point in that it saw the growth of a proper American national identity and removed most of the lingering colonial mentality from the country. This can be seen in Webster's Dictionary which is credited with codifying American English and making it distinct from British English. It also saw the emergence of a Canadian national identity.

After the war, the European powers began to take the US seriously as a nation instead of a bunch of renegade British colonies.

File: wtf.gif (2MB, 370x335px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 370x335px

>>76080879
>1917 UK could beat 1917 USA

>>76092173
>By a handful of retards.
How about by Thomas Jerfferson?
>"The acquisition of Canada this year, as far as the neighborhood of Quebec, will be a mere matter of marching, and will give us experience for the attack of Halifax the next, and the final expulsion of England from the American continent."

You can educate yourself if you want. The resources are there.

>>76092171
>The US came out far worse for it since they didn't meet any of their aims

Not even remotely true. I think the strangest part of the War of 1812 is that the US failed militarily but still got most of what it wanted. Although the idea that Britain's primary concern (Canada) wasn't even America's secondary concern certainly goes a long way towards explaining why you essentially let it go despite being capable of doing far worse damage.


>>76092199
>After the war, the European powers began to take the US seriously as a nation instead of a bunch of renegade British colonies.

Lol no, they didn't take us seriously until after the Civil War. When Abe Lincoln got shot, he was watching a play called "My American Cousin", a British production about how we're all silly backwards hicks.

>>76092245
>When Abe Lincoln got shot, he was watching a play called "My American Cousin", a British production about how we're all silly backwards hicks.
That's some fucking irony right there.

>>76092218
>How about by Thomas Jerfferson?

I consider Thomas Jefferson to be a retard. I always have.

>dude we shouldn't build a navy because the french will always protect us, man
>the french revolution is great, we should be more like that even though I'd probably the one getting my head chopped off, since I'm an aristocrat
>rights of man and freedom for all, but hang on while I rape my slave

>>76092173
Taking Canada actually could have been done rather easily except for the reasons you mentioned, one main road linked the interior towns to Quebec City, which was the only major port and link to the outside world. Taking Quebec City would have starved the interior into surrender. However, leadership of the US Army was so poorly handled that they instead embarked on a three pronged invasion of Canada which was doomed to failure.

>>76080879
India and the US could 'squash the uk' if they wanted 50-100 modern nuclear warheads to be dropped on each of their countries LOL

>>76092286
>rights of man and freedom for all, but hang on while I rape my slave
To be fair, that was the same with pretty much every leader of the Revolution.

>>76092245
>Lol no, they didn't take us seriously until after the Civil War. When Abe Lincoln got shot, he was watching a play called "My American Cousin", a British production about how we're all silly backwards hicks

That was just butthurt because they knew the US was a rising superpower that stood to overtake them someday. To that end, the British and French both actively supported the Confederacy in the hope of Balkanizing and dismembering the country.

The other thing being that European monarchs disliked the US for being a symbol of republicanism.

>>76092306
If Canada had relied solely or even primarily on militia, then yes, invading Canada may have been possible. Unfortunately for the Americans that had and would never have been the case.

>>76092265
Right? Here is Abe Lincoln, a legit hick but a good man - farmboy from Kentucky, local champion wrestler, worked his ass off to become a lawyer, fought tooth and nail to keep his country together...gets shot by a "classy" southerner while he's watching a play making fun of hicks.

>>76092318
>To be fair, that was the same with pretty much every leader of the Revolution.

Only the Southern ones. The Northerners wanted nothing to do with it. The likes of Adams and Hamilton thought slavery was disgusting*. That's why they went to war over it decades later.

*Although tbf, Hamilton only opposed slavery because he knew that free blacks in New York would vote Federalist. Which they absolutely did. Clever bastard.

After the War of 1812 actually Canada were the butthurt party because the Anglo-American agreement to demilitarize the border left Canadians feeling like London had betrayed them and left them exposed to a future US attack.

>>76092361
The British regiments garrisoning Canada weren't the best quality troops anyway, all the elite soldiers were (obviously) fighting France.

>>76092411
>Only the Southern ones.
Washington and Jefferson both raped their slaves like they were being paid to do it though.

>>76092357
>That was just butthurt because they knew the US was a rising superpower that stood to overtake them someday.

You're dramatically overestimating the foresight of the Europeans in those days. The US in the 1850s and 60s was like China in the 1980s: "Oh, they're growing economically but they have a century to go before they reach our level of power and sophistication". Nobody in 1860 thought that the United States would soon dominate the world, except maybe de Tocqueville.

>The other thing being that European monarchs disliked the US for being a symbol of republicanism.

On the contrary, we were a convenient place for pro-republican dissidents to run off to. Imagine if the German "48ers" had stayed in Germany instead of running off to America, or if the dirt-poor starving masses of Victorian Britain and Ireland hadn't been able to make their way over here. They really didn't mind us at all.

>>76092173
>Well, the British could have annihilated us, at least militarily if they felt like it

Would have been impossible for the reasons mentioned earlier--they'd have gotten swallowed up in the endless wilderness.

>>76080879
>100 years ago, Britain would kick the shit out of the US or India in terms of military force.
Wrong.
They were unable to do so 200+ years ago.
Read a better book.

>>76092499
>Nobody in 1860 thought that the United States would soon dominate the world, except maybe de Tocqueville
Europe self-destructed in 1914 to 1945. However, Britain had already been overtaken by the US and Germany as an industrial and technological leader.

>>76092480
>Washington and Jefferson both raped their slaves like they were being paid to do it though.

I agree 100%. But Washington and Jefferson were both Southerners, which is kind of my point.

>>76092504
>they'd have gotten swallowed up in the endless wilderness.

Really? I wasn't aware that the US Navy was stationed in the endless wilderness, or that the US relied on the endless wilderness for international trade. Britain didn't need to go running off into the endless wilderness to beat the United States from 1812-1815. They simply had to blockade Boston, NYC, Philly, Baltimore, Charleston, and even New Orleans. Without French/Spanish assistance (both were out of commission thanks to the Napoleonic Wars), they could have. They chose not to because they were busy and it wasn't worth the trouble.

>>76092480
Everybody in the South did that in those days, Louisiana Creole culture accepted the idea of married men keeping slave girls as mistresses.

>>76092577
>But Washington and Jefferson were both Southerners, which is kind of my point.
Well fug, I assumed that since the Revolution started in Boston he must have been from there, same with Jefferson. My bad.

The biggest mistake we ever made was letting the US get off with a clip round the ear for committing what was for all purposes treason.
If I had a time machine, I'd go back to 1782, purge all the seditionous Whigs in parliament and pull forces out from India after the Saintes then land them en masse across the eastern seaboard. Instate draconian martial law and expel any major rebel figures to France or Australia, done and sorted, no more America

>>76080879
Do you really believe brazilmuds uheheuhe could cross the ocean and invade Portugal LMAO
it would be funny to watch.
We would go berserker and from a socialist hellhole to a nationalist far right state in a second.
And im not even talking about our allies help.

>>76092664
Really, the French are to blame.

Perfidious Francais.

>>76087555
>mfw global warming is a Sino-American maneuver to cripple Russia once and for all

>>76091835
>The US simply had no answer for the power of Britain's military, especially when it came to the Navy
British regulars in the Revolutionary War were generally good quality troops, but officers were typically arrogant and often sadists who considered the enlisted men bullet sponges rather than people. They were primarily trained to fight wars in Europe and lacked decent maps of the American colonies, and they were poorly prepared for the rugged woodlands, swamps, and bad road network as compared to the neat, tidy farm fields and cobblestone roads in France.

>>76092705
Yes, but the colonists were as much to blame for seeking their help in fighting their own kin, even some of the "patriots" found the alliance with France distasteful.

>>76092638
Nah, they're both from Virginia

>>76092664
>1782

Way too late. Britain was already at war with France and Spain all over the world. You land troops en masse in North America, you lose everything else. And there's no guarantee that you even could land troops, with the combined power of the French and Spanish navy.

>>76092752
Irrelevant when it comes to the navy. No navy, no shipping. No shipping, and the shipping-based people from Baltimore to Boston abandon your war effort in a heartbeat.

>>76080879
India squash the UK? For real? Maybe with the weapon of uterus, then yes, absolutely.

>>76092687
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4jtuNUaJ2O0
>portuguese drones

>>76092789
>even some of the "patriots" found the alliance with France distasteful.

One of the most ironic parts of our revolution is that many future Federalists like Hamilton and Adams preferred Britain over France. They just preferred Britain as a foreign friend and ally, rather than as a colonial master. France was just a distasteful way of achieving that relationship.

>>76092816
kek
also please stop

>>76092816
RARE

>>76091835
>You ever wonder why our only famous naval revolutionary story is about a guy commanding a ship called the Bonhomme Richard?
No because I'm aware our navy was basically privateers raiding the Carrabba's and British Isles shipping and ports. John Paul Jones' crew was more interested in plunder than tactical victories.

>>76092819
sure sure

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yoCNEpGm90Q

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g4nXsG47Ts4

Brazil vs Portugal (for lusophanes)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUlCOBCncSY

>>76092805
>Irrelevant when it comes to the navy. No navy, no shipping. No shipping, and the shipping-based people from Baltimore to Boston abandon your war effort in a heartbeat.
There's the whole problem though.

>send the British navy to blockade the extremely loooong American coastline
>whoops, all your ships are on the other side of the Atlantic leaving the British isles exposed
>France invades the UK

There was a limit to how much military force they could commit to North America without denuding the homeland of troops and allowing European rivals to take advantage.

File: 1485311895158.gif (1MB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 320x240px

>>76092687
>We would go berserker and from a socialist hellhole to a nationalist far right state in a second.

>>76092953
>>76092957
kek

>>76092842
Hamilton and Adams were Federalists, they identified with British culture more strongly and favored an aristocratic government with less popular participation. Jefferson was a Frenchboo, he admired the French Revolution and direct, popular democracy.

>>76083824
>Mongrel countries do not have a will to fight.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_Brazil

They're literally undefeated you stupid cuck.

>>76093056
That's one reason Federalism died with the War of 1812, their elitist, pro-British sentiments died out and Jefferson's populist ideas won out.

>>76092975
>France invades the UK

Not in 1815. The war was over, Napoleon was exiled to St. Helena, Tsar Alexander's troops were partying in Paris.

>>76093056
Yes, that's basically what I'm saying.

>>76093000
the funny thing is that he is right.
it works in cycles for Portugal, when threatened

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utA-BrRWPSw

File: 1497232995457.jpg (40KB, 534x627px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 534x627px

portugal is friend of brazil so no rape

>>76093117
>Not in 1815. The war was over, Napoleon was exiled to St. Helena, Tsar Alexander's troops were partying in Paris.
I'm talking the Revolutionary War.

File: 6a013488b55a86970c01b8d0ff2dc4970c.jpg (807KB, 1866x1359px) Image search: [Google]

807KB, 1866x1359px

Ah yes, French """"liberty""""

>>76080879
>Brazil could absolutely rape Portugal.
>check map
>portugal still exists
JUAN STOP BEING LAZY AND REANNEX YOUR PROVINCES
inb4 genocide the natives if you don't want them to go full scatalan

>>76093206
Thing is, while most Americans initially welcomed the French Revolution, the bloodshed and church burnings of the Terror quickly turned everyone off. And it did in France itself which caused the Thermidorian Reaction, the lunatic-fringe fedora atheists and communist edgelords were suppressed and a more moderate, centrist regime took over.

>>76093186
Oh, ok. I misunderstood you, I was talking about the War of 1812.

>>76092173
>Well, the British could have annihilated us, at least militarily if they felt like it. But they were worn out from fighting the French and didn't feel like going through another decade-long struggle in North America. The word "stalemate" almost implies that the two parties were on even footing

Except it's viewed as one even by Wellington who was probably the most knowledgeable British commander of the time.

>I think you have no right, from the state of war, to demand any concession of territory from America ... You have not been able to carry it into the enemy's territory, notwithstanding your military success and now undoubted military superiority, and have not even cleared your own territory on the point of attack. You cannot on any principle of equality in negotiation claim a cessation of territory except in exchange for other advantages which you have in your power ... Then if this reasoning be true, why stipulate for the uti possidetis? You can get no territory: indeed, the state of your military operations, however creditable, does not entitle you to demand any.

We also defeated their Indian allies confederacy which was a goal.

>>76093113
>undefeated
We've been in like 2 actual wars

>>76087395
Not an argument, the less united a country is the less it's people will want to fight for it

>>76092577
>Really? I wasn't aware that the US Navy was stationed in the endless wilderness, or that the US relied on the endless wilderness for international trade.
You realize we were praying on their shipping causing insurance rates to increase making Atlantic shipping less profitable and they had even more war tax on top of the tax from Napoleon, so they weren't exactly economically doing well.

>>76093307
The Revolution had a somewhat warm reception in Britain as well, people thought at the time France would end up with a liberal constitutional monarchy. The opposition was only much harder-edged once the true danger had been ascertained.

>>76093206
Although Britain was far from democratic at that time since the king still had extensive powers and religions other than Protestantism were banned.

>>76093649
t. south brazil """white"""

>>76093307
>the lunatic-fringe fedora atheists and communist edgelords were suppressed and a more moderate, centrist regime took over

They also rioted in the streets of Paris in 1848 and 1871, each time they were suppressed and moderate, bourgeois government won out. These guys were like the Occupy Wall Street/Bernouts of the 19th century.

>>76093649
The country is united, the thing is you basement dwellers spend way too much time here and have pretty much gone mental

>>76092638
>Well fug, I assumed that since the Revolution started in Boston he must have been from there
He was there when the Continental army laid siege to Boston using artillery they captured from fort Ticonderoga. Maybe that's what you were thinking about.

>>76093649
What a dumb fag

You don't even know shit about your cunt, why would you post here?

>>76091196
This. Also we wanted to power through the end of the war so the Russians couldn't influence Japan.

>>76092664
You do realize you and your allies were losing more from combat and disease than we were.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolutionary_War

You were forced to let debtors and prisoners out to fight

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Army_during_the_American_Revolutionary_War

I think you'd eventually have run into manpower problems.

>>76092705
They wanted revenge for the 7 years war.

>>76092752
>and bad road network as compared to the neat, tidy farm fields and cobblestone roads in France.
Hey it worked for Russia historically

File: 1486690300607.jpg (8KB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 250x250px

united states is the only country in the world to fight a war over bananas

literal apes

>>76094312
Britain had less population than France, they couldn't field as big of an army, and they traditionally did not have conscription. Aside from that, men were unmotivated to fight a war for distant clay on the other side of the ocean, as opposed to the existential threat posed by Napoleon.

>>76080951
we have antimatter bombs. but we took a vow to not use on fellow earthlings. so britain is safe

>>76094421
So called "banana republic"

(Double entendre because their country is filled with blacks)

>>76095349
>antimatter bombs
Your shit stinks so bad it can hurt inanimate objects?

>>76087950
Brazil