At least you did not delete the posts so your points are valid. But we fought Britain they did not give us anything we did not earn. The Hitler and UK thing is only one early war understanding. That conflicts dynamics changed. You got to remember the English king was a German.
All over taxes about tea, just for the record…
That irony doesn’t escape me as a historian. Our first true king was French…
1 Like
Actually taxes to pay for the French Indian war. The tea tax was more about making the colonies buy South Asian tea. It is a very complex history far beyond we fought England for independence. England to its credit used kid gloves for the most part that is what cost them.
No, That was after the Vikings I think Æthelstan? 1066 versus the 900’s. And the Irish had kings forever and a day before that. Some guy into making good beef.
The Russian Romanov dynasty is also considered German.
It’s mostly because we had a mad king in charge at the time, George III. He was fucking mental.
If it wasn’t for him, the USA would most likely still be under British rule. 
And it would be one of the Commonwealth countries.
True. Just prior to WWI, all the main protagonists, Wilhelm, Nicholas, and George, were all grandsons of Queen Victoria. And they all still went to war, like some kinda imperialistic-dick-swinging-contest.
Go figure…
I think they would still have had a hard time because of the French and Spanish. America actually owes it to France for stepping in and helping. It is funny I am from Connecticut so people still speak with the English American accent. (Not the British one but the collegial uses) There was supposedly all kinds of shenanigans going on with the royals from all these different countries. I know a couple kings before did not even speak English. Gorge the first?
Not quite. Both the French Empire, and the Spanish Empire, were in freefall decline. And we’re talking early 19th Century. Probably late 18th Century.
Victortorian England against the US? That would be an interest alternate History because the America industrial revolution was just as powerful as the English one just slightly later. Invading North America is considered impossible once the US went coast to coast. We also had baseball bats to fight you guys and your cricket bats. More aerodynamic. That would be an awesome game!
Sorry had to punch that in. Please do not delete it.
A hypothetical war between the United States and the British Empire in the 1900s would most likely have resulted in a stalemate rather than a decisive total victory for either side. [1, 2]
Historians and military analysts point to distinct advantages and limitations on both sides during this era:
British Advantages
- Naval Supremacy: The Royal Navy vastly outmatched the U.S. Navy in 1900, boasting dozens of pre-dreadnought battleships and global reach, whereas the U.S. had only a small standing fleet and limited naval projection. [1, 2]
- Military Size: The British Empire maintained a much larger professional army (roughly 400,000 soldiers compared to a small U.S. regular army of around 100,000). [1]
- Global Empire: Britain could institute severe naval blockades on American ports and disrupt U.S. international commerce. [1, 2]
American Advantages
- Home Ground & Defensive Depth: Invading and occupying the continental United States was logistically nearly impossible for Britain. The U.S. possessed a rapidly expanding domestic rail network, vast distances, rugged terrain, and a patriotic populace. [1]
- Industrial Capacity: American industrial output was already scaling rapidly and could outproduce Britain in a prolonged war of attrition on North American soil.
- Regional Dominance: The U.S. likely would have overrun British North America (Canada) and threatened nearby Caribbean or Atlantic possessions. [1]
The Likely Outcome
- At Sea: Britain would dominate the oceans and blockade American coasts.
- On Land: The U.S. would seize parts of Canada, while Britain could not mount a successful ground invasion of the American mainland.
- Resolution: Lacking the means for a total conquest of the other’s homeland, both nations would likely face heavy economic strain and eventually sign a negotiated peace treaty
Most of our kings spoke many languages. From my off-the-top-of-my-head shit goes, it was only William I and Henry I, the first couple of true kings of England didn’t actually speak our language.
But then, it’s kinda hard to pin down, because most kings of the time predominantly spoke Latin, as was the call from the papacy. It’s a very muddled world at that time.
1 Like
TG for the 1500’s before that no one understood English. I tried to real the Canterbury tales and was like WTF are these people saying? BTW Gorge the 1st according the Gemini. It was not about they did not speak languages most did actually speak more than one and Latin being Latin was required due to religion.
Whan that Aprille with his shoures soote,
The droghte of March hath perced to the roote,
And bathed every veyne in swich licóur
Of which vertú engendred is the flour;
Whan Zephirus eek with his swete breeth
Inspired hath in every holt and heeth
The tendre croppes, and the yonge sonne
Hath in the Ram his halfe cours y-ronne
You used AI, fine. But there wasn’t any war between the two nations in that time.
The war of 1812, which IS historic fact, shows that the US lost that war. We even set fire to the White House.
Again though, this is all history, and over 200 years old, so shouldn’t really be used in “he said”, “she said” rhetoric, especially not in the current climate.
No, I was saying that would be an amazing scenario. The sun never set on the empire in that era and America was on its way up. And if you won 1812 why is America still a country? That is like saying we won Vietnam. I lived there all we did was die there and its still Vietnam. If winning was destroying Vietnam mission accomplished I really felt great knowing my country did so much damage with chemicals kids have flippers (For real)
I am just going to throw this out there and say… We’re WAY off-topic, so let’s get the thread back there, yeah?
This isn’t about modern history, this is about a user who wants a squad.
Feel free to debate the results of modern history with me via PM though.
1 Like
To be fair me and you are just parroting things that other people wrote about. You nor I existed during WW2. Honesty it would be cool to have a debate on what kind of game you could make with the concept. Total steampunk! On the subject itself I think it should stay Axis and Allies not Axis and Allies +1. There were 2 sides.
This is true lend lease made US lots of money and England was in a poor state post war growth was slower than the USA as a consequence. On the plus side Winne taking out big loans means there is still an England!
However in some cases after the war where a nation couldn’t/didn’t want to pay for what they got from lend lease they destroyed the vehicles rather than paying to keep them. As a result many lend lease planes and tanks and trucks were buried and destroyed.
In regards to operation Sealion I still think there was a real risk even if it were unlikely to succeed.
At any rate post Dunkirk Britain left lots of gear behind so lend lease and supplying raw materials for British manufacturing was a big help however at a cost and other than money that’s also why some American aircraft are usually stationed in Britain thanks to a lease.
1 Like
Because they were obsolete.
A risk? Sure. A possible outcome? No. The Royal Navy would have seen to that. And of course, the RAF saw that there couldn’t have been an invasion because the Germans needed absolute air dominance.
Dunkirk was a tragedy-turned-victory. And yeah, we left most of our heavy equipment behind. And again, sure, the US Lend-Lease helped replenish a lot of that equipment. But Dunkirk saved the manpower, something that wouldn’t have been replenished so easily. weapons and ammo are cheap compared to fighting strength. That’s what us Brits are known for. The stiff upper lip.
1 Like