French block airlift of British troops to Basra

Peter McLelland wrote:

Stephen Harding wrote in message ...
Brian Sharrock wrote:

From your side of the Atlantic, I suppose everybody over the
horizon seems to be 'Euro', but to me, a Briton, the idea that
there'' some kind of "Euro spin" over the rebellion of some British
colonists funded by the French Kingdom in the furtherance of a
republic is laughable. I know it's probalby hard to examine the

I understand there are "Europeans" and there are "Britons". I've
become quite anti-European as I age and carelessly lumped the UK with
Europe. I think most Americans consider the Brits "different" from
the "Continentals" even though technically (I think), you're all Euros.

That perhaps is the source of the American problem with Europe. Europe

No. The American problem with Europe is largely one of divergent interests.
Europeans don't understand, or simply don't care to consider American
interests, assuming the US is basically another European country across
a very wide channel.

At one time, that characterization was pretty much true. That is no longer
the case, and becomes less so each year.

is complex, it is dynamic, and it is often just as perverse as the
USA. We cannot all be lumped together in one pot, but our difference

Yes, the normal "perverse" USA. I think you'll find the USA just, if
not more dynamic and complex than Europe. Perhaps you have your own
characterizations and stereotypes to re-examine?

are different to US internal differences, so you tend to ignore them,
a mistake I fear. Just as an example, I am British, but I am a Scot
also, I also hold and am proud to do so the Queens commision. My
allegances are complex, but we can cope with this, and it helps
sometimes when we are faced with situations like the Balkans, because
we understand that there are layers of what matters. Life is complex.

Yet you seem to believe there is one "American" character. That is not
the situation. Any cultural, ethnic or religious division or "layer"
you want to point to in Europe will more than likely be easily matched
with one comparable in the US.


SMH

Stephen Harding wrote in message ...
Peter McLelland wrote:

Stephen Harding wrote in message ...
Brian Sharrock wrote:

From your side of the Atlantic, I suppose everybody over the
horizon seems to be 'Euro', but to me, a Briton, the idea that
there'' some kind of "Euro spin" over the rebellion of some British
colonists funded by the French Kingdom in the furtherance of a
republic is laughable. I know it's probalby hard to examine the

I understand there are "Europeans" and there are "Britons". I've
become quite anti-European as I age and carelessly lumped the UK with
Europe. I think most Americans consider the Brits "different" from
the "Continentals" even though technically (I think), you're all Euros.

That perhaps is the source of the American problem with Europe. Europe

No. The American problem with Europe is largely one of divergent interests.
Europeans don't understand, or simply don't care to consider American
interests, assuming the US is basically another European country across
a very wide channel.

At one time, that characterization was pretty much true. That is no longer
the case, and becomes less so each year.

I think this comment actually emp[hasised my point, I and many others
in the UK do not always agree or support hte views of others in
Europe, and often the reverse is true also, but in general we do try
to understand why these differences of opion exist and live with them
in a practical way. The world is not ablack and white place, but
exists in many colours and shades and there is aneed to interpret
these if one is to understand it.

is complex, it is dynamic, and it is often just as perverse as the
USA. We cannot all be lumped together in one pot, but our difference

Yes, the normal "perverse" USA. I think you'll find the USA just, if
not more dynamic and complex than Europe. Perhaps you have your own
characterizations and stereotypes to re-examine?

I was not suggesting that the USA was in any way uniquely perverse,
rather bthat all countries have a perverse side to their nature and
culture, in the eyes of others. This is just a fact of life.

are different to US internal differences, so you tend to ignore them,
a mistake I fear. Just as an example, I am British, but I am a Scot
also, I also hold and am proud to do so the Queens commision. My
allegances are complex, but we can cope with this, and it helps
sometimes when we are faced with situations like the Balkans, because
we understand that there are layers of what matters. Life is complex.

Yet you seem to believe there is one "American" character. That is not
the situation. Any cultural, ethnic or religious division or "layer"
you want to point to in Europe will more than likely be easily matched
with one comparable in the US.

As some one who spends much of my working time on a UK/US project with
several UK and US companies and a number of different government
bodies on both sides I am reasonably aware of the diversity in both
countries. To this I can add the experience of workin g with most EU
countries and many oithers around the world, so I would suggest thta I
have reasonable experience of cultural differences in much of the
world.

Peter

Stephen Harding wrote in message ...
Brian Sharrock wrote:

From your side of the Atlantic, I suppose everybody over the
horizon seems to be 'Euro', but to me, a Briton, the idea that
there'' some kind of "Euro spin" over the rebellion of some British
colonists funded by the French Kingdom in the furtherance of a
republic is laughable. I know it's probalby hard to examine the

But, as fate would have it Briton has always found that laughable,
which is why they're about the only nation left on Earth
that even studies the American Revolution.

While if you ask most Americans what the US's big war was,
it would be the US Civil War, not the British Civil War.

"ZZBunker" wrote in message
om...
Stephen Harding wrote in message
...
Brian Sharrock wrote:

From your side of the Atlantic, I suppose everybody over the
horizon seems to be 'Euro', but to me, a Briton, the idea that
there'' some kind of "Euro spin" over the rebellion of some British
colonists funded by the French Kingdom in the furtherance of a
republic is laughable. I know it's probalby hard to examine the

But, as fate would have it Briton has always found that laughable,
which is why they're about the only nation left on Earth
that even studies the American Revolution.

Please tell your programmers that although they've
'got' the parsing part of whatever is driving you to
auto-respond;-
_Briton_ is not a nation but an adjectival word meaning
a person from Britain.

While if you ask most Americans what the US's big war was,
it would be the US Civil War, not the British Civil War.

Once again, although your words imply an acceptance of
the hypothesis that the regrettable conflict in the North American
colonies _was_ a civil war between essentially British participants -
until the overt involvement of French arms and funding - 'we'
do not normally refer to that rebellion in the colonies as a
British Civil War. [The 'British' civil war, that is a war involving
all of the nations comprising 'Britain , fought on the soil of Ireland
is considered to have reached an apex (or nadir) at the Battle of
the Boyne where a different bunch of Frenchies, and sundry Hollanders,
seemed to have been involved. I'm not sure of the attitude of the
contemporary colonists in North America to these ,presumably, far-off
events.
The colonists seemed to have gone with the flow and not exhibited
any desire to retain their presumed allegiances to the Stuart Monarchs
that had granted them charters]

--

Brian

Brian Sharrock wrote:

"ZZBunker" wrote in message

But, as fate would have it Briton has always found that laughable,
which is why they're about the only nation left on Earth
that even studies the American Revolution.

Please tell your programmers that although they've
'got' the parsing part of whatever is driving you to
auto-respond;-
_Briton_ is not a nation but an adjectival word meaning
a person from Britain.

Since you mention it, does British English actually support the word
"adjectival"?

While if you ask most Americans what the US's big war was,
it would be the US Civil War, not the British Civil War.

[...]

The colonists seemed to have gone with the flow and not exhibited
any desire to retain their presumed allegiances to the Stuart Monarchs
that had granted them charters]

Well ancestors on my fathers side of the family "went with the flow"
to Virginia after Charles lost his head.

Cromwell didn't seem too well disposed towards loyalists any more
than American revolutionaries it would seem.


SMH

"Brian Sharrock" wrote in message ...
"ZZBunker" wrote in message
om...
Stephen Harding wrote in message
...
Brian Sharrock wrote:

From your side of the Atlantic, I suppose everybody over the
horizon seems to be 'Euro', but to me, a Briton, the idea that
there'' some kind of "Euro spin" over the rebellion of some British
colonists funded by the French Kingdom in the furtherance of a
republic is laughable. I know it's probalby hard to examine the

But, as fate would have it Briton has always found that laughable,
which is why they're about the only nation left on Earth
that even studies the American Revolution.

Please tell your programmers that although they've
'got' the parsing part of whatever is driving you to
auto-respond;-
_Briton_ is not a nation but an adjectival word meaning
a person from Britain.

Well, I have to. Since the only thing I've ever refused
to do even more than have my local skyscrapers knocked
down by Middle Easters is to take spelling lessons from moron
Britons. If you get a chance you can relay the message
for me to King James via King Louis XIV, Henry VIII,
and Napolean that they were all more morons
than any of the King Georges.

"Brian Sharrock" wrote in message ...
"ZZBunker" wrote in message
om...
Stephen Harding wrote in message
...
Brian Sharrock wrote:

From your side of the Atlantic, I suppose everybody over the
horizon seems to be 'Euro', but to me, a Briton, the idea that
there'' some kind of "Euro spin" over the rebellion of some British
colonists funded by the French Kingdom in the furtherance of a
republic is laughable. I know it's probalby hard to examine the

But, as fate would have it Briton has always found that laughable,
which is why they're about the only nation left on Earth
that even studies the American Revolution.

Please tell your programmers that although they've
'got' the parsing part of whatever is driving you to
auto-respond;-
_Briton_ is not a nation but an adjectival word meaning
a person from Britain.

While if you ask most Americans what the US's big war was,
it would be the US Civil War, not the British Civil War.

Once again, although your words imply an acceptance of
the hypothesis that the regrettable conflict in the North American
colonies _was_ a civil war between essentially British participants -

Nobody ever said if was a conflict between British participants.
Since if you idiots didn't know, by that time the
U.S. Consitution was already in place. And we weren't waiting
around for something as stupid as a Euro-Commie-NAZI-constitution
to be written by idiots with an Einstein, a
few Swiss chocolate clocks, some Belgium courts,
German music, and Chinese medical supplies.

until the overt involvement of French arms and funding - 'we'
do not normally refer to that rebellion in the colonies as a
British Civil War.

We know. Since the only thing Britian does call
a British Civil War has something to do with
a worn out institution called Parliament.


[The 'British' civil war, that is a war involving
all of the nations comprising 'Britain , fought on the soil of Ireland
is considered to have reached an apex (or nadir) at the Battle of
the Boyne where a different bunch of Frenchies, and sundry Hollanders,
seemed to have been involved. I'm not sure of the attitude of the
contemporary colonists in North America to these ,presumably, far-off
events.

That's quite impossible, since Ireland has never even had an army
to have a battle against.

"Brian Sharrock" wrote in message news:

I was somewhat startled to read in "Rebels & Redcoats", Hugh Bicheno,
Harper Collins, 2003;-

Which generally has not received very good reviews (mostly its the
same ol' stuff repackaged). I've only leafed through it, and was
unimpressed.

(Page 22);- Gage ... received a reply ... (Page 23)ordered him to arest
the members of the illegal Provincial Congress, which he knew from
several _well placed informers_ (emphasis mine) was meeting in Concord
... Gage's spies had also told him aconsiderable supply of arms and
military stores was cahed at Concord including three 24 pounder cannon
whose significance has gone strangely unremarked by historians.

Er, this is because there were no 24 pounder cannon. The intel was
wrong.

These were 5,600 pound monsters requiring eight to ten men to
serve themand a team of six horses to pull them ... they were seige guns ...
how they came to be uried in the courtyard of Concord jail is a mystery.
...
The cannon fitted the jigsaw in another way. The conspirators were
desperate to provoke some bloody event to plarize opinion, and the
French would have regarded a brace and a half of 24-ponders as seedcorn.
Pages 24-25 are maps
(Page 26) ... The existance of such powerful weapons at such a place
and time is one of those ugly facts so harmful to beautiful theories,
in this case the myth of peace-loving farmers spontaneously rising up
against unprovoked aggression.

Wow! Mr Bicheno seems to be really out of touch with American
historiagraphy.

They also provide an explanation why
the cautious Gage was suddenly inspired to undertake a high-risk
operation deep into territory where he had many informers and
_must have known_ (my emphasis) the local Militia had been drilling
for just such an eventuality.

Of course he did. No news in that. Concord *was* a provincial
magazine, and there *was* ordnance there, but only amounted to a
couple of three pounders, a couple of casks of powder and ball, and
the odd provisions stores (flour etc).

I'm sorry for the length of this extract from the book, but _I_ had
never been aware of this ordnance before;
I could never really understand
the march route particularly when one considers the practise of line
infantry in those days, these guys could march up escarpments,
through swamps across dunes etc ... in step all the way. The forestation
that apparently presented no problem to their harassers should have
been as easy for them to traverse. Was there an overarching reason
to stay on the road/track?

Smith wasn't one of the brightest cookies on the block, and was not
really given another important field command, but mainly served in
garrison duty for the remainder of his stay in America.

Elsewhere, I'm sure the author says that 'the British' had _not_ shipped
this size of ordnance to the American landmass ... I might be wrong here ...
where did they originate?

Britain, perhaps captured from the French, forged in America. . . 24
pounders (presumably iron) did exist in some of the fortifications
that existed and were taken over by the provinicial governments.
None, however, were at Concord. New Hampshire, e.g., did offer some
24 and 32 pounders to the New England Army besieging Boston in June.

Curiously the four-part accompanying documentary WGBH / BBC
presented by Richard Holmes elided over this ordnance, Richard Holmes
seemed to prefer riding on contemporary buses ...

The 24 pounders appear to only exist in Mr Bicheno's fervid
imagination. AFAIK, no where does Gage mention this as a reason for
going to Concord. In fact, his first intention was to destroy the
magazine at Worcester (fifty miles away), but this was ruled out as
too far to safely march. In his view, Concord was a much safer
objective in that it was much closer. Of course, the "Americans" all
knew it was his objective as well.

I highly recommend the book, although it 'accompanies the TV series its
'slant' seems different.

Meanwhile, the French will deny the provenance of this ordnance, along
with the supply of commissioning expertise to the Fuerzas Argentinas
and any missiles that the Polish Army finds in Iraq ... plus ca change?

Unless it was captured ordance from the French and Indian War, any
artillery ordnance was not otherwise French. The French government
did not make the decision to assist the "rebels" until the spring of
1776, and the first French ship to make port with artillery
(AMPHITRITE) did not arrive until the spring of 1777, some two years
after Lexington and Concord, and the French only supplied us with
light field guns beside. I.e. 4-pounders. I am not aware of a single
French siege gun arriving in America that was not part of the French
Army. American siege guns, including a couple of "light" 24 pounders
captured at Saratoga, were either captured from the British or
manufactured locally. There is no conspiricy here, sorry.

--
Regards,

Michael P. Reed

"Vince Brannigan" wrote in message
...


Stephen Harding wrote:
Brian Sharrock wrote:


Slight semantic problem; the loyalists(sic) _were_ British.
They didn't 'side with' the British, they were British, remained
British and refused to follow the rebellious smugglers, slave-owners,
land-owner and lawyer clique into an armed French-funded
insurrection. History _does_ record that they were treated badly
by the revolting colonists.


So is this the current Euro spin on the American Revolution?

Just a bunch of criminal, low life types, cajoled by the perfidious
French, into breaking away from "The Empire", where most wanted to
stay?
My, my how the politics of anti-Americanism spins its web.

It is the historical record, not current spin
See for example

http://www.uelac.org/loyalist.pdf

FWIW the only part of my family heritage that is not Irish traces back
through a Nova Scotia German family with Hessian connections from the
revolutionary war.

"The Romkey (Ramichen or Ramge) family came to Halifax, Nova Scotia in
1750 from the village on Nieder-Klingen in Odenwald region of the
Palatinate. The family has its origins in the neighbouring village of
Spachbrücken in the Landgraviate of Hessen-Darmstadt. Johann Wendel
Ramichen or Ramge, his wife Anna Margaretha Uhrig, and their children
spent three winters in Halifax before moving to Lunenburg in 1753. The
family eventually settled at Five Houses on the LaHave River where Anna
Margaretha's brother had his 30-acre farm lot."
http://kenneth.paulsen.home.comcast....cotian_Fam.htm

Many loyalists and Hessian soldiers were settled in Nova Scotia after
the American revolution. See for example The Hessians of Nova Scotia:
The Personal Data Files of 225 Hessian Soldiers who Settled in Nova
Scotia by Johannes HelmutMerz. 1994

Vince


Why am I not supprised......

Last I looked there is not barbed wire keeping folks inside the US.. People
are free to leave when ever they wish.

Jim