George Washington

Was there ever a military commander more dedicated than him?

  1. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The man who could have been King.
    Turned it down and just wanted to go home.
    He was wise to tell us to stay out of European shit.
    Thanks Woodrow.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      You know, I never really thought about it, but the US's involvement in WW1 was in some sense a betrayal of Prussia and their help in the War for Independence. I don't see Baron von Steuben's influence on the Continental Army discussed very often.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The US should have either
        1. Stayed out of it completely, no weapons, no supplies. Fucking nothing
        2. Joined the Central Powers and manifest our destiny all over Canada.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          I do generally wish we had pursued isolationism and remained uninvolved in the conflict. But it also strikes me as one of the early times where the federal government wanted to flex their nuts on the global stage and they probably wouldn't have passed on that opportunity. Oh and the Zimmerman Telegram was certainly inauthentic. Personally I think it was a British false flag.

          bro just ignore the US deaths at sea from submarine attacks whilst also justifying your own invasion of Canada back in 1812 for the Brits effectively doing similar to your trade ships headed to France.

          I don't want to derail the thread, so I won't launch into that debate, but suffice to say that yes US citizens were aboard Lusitania and died as a result of Kriegsmarine action. It is important to note that in the 80s it came out that the Lusitania was in fact carrying munitions making her a legitimate military target.p

          >A betrayal of Prussia.
          The Prussian government was never involved in US Revolutionary War. Baron von Steuben joined the US Continental Army of his own volition.

          Well, not directly involved in hostilities, but I do think they loaned the US money, if I recall correctly.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Well, not directly involved in hostilities, but I do think they loaned the US money, if I recall correctly.
            I've never heard of Prussian loans to the Americans during the ARW. Do you have a source on that?

            Netherlands, Spain, and France all loaned money to the US due to their rivalry with Great Britain. I find it suspect/unlikely that Prussia would loan money to the Americans considering that Prussia as a nominal British ally at the time. A lot of German States were also strapped for cash in the post-7 Years War period and literally send mercenaries, famously Hessians, to help fill out their coffers.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Yeah you're right I was confused. I thought that Prussia was part of the deal with the Dutch but I went and looked and couldn't find anything about it

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >The kingdom of France lands troops after the US Revolution had spent years fighting. Years in which the Revolution had forced the Red Coats down to their Pensacola and Yorktown hold outs.
          >"Yeah bro it was all France baby!"
          France was great force multiplier that made US victory assured. But they weren't the sole contributing factor for victory. France's (in my opinion) biggest contribution was it's privateer fleets which from 1778-1781 greatly kneecapped the British.
          >Inb4 what about France's money and supplies?
          France had delivered it's money & supplies after the US had fixed it's logistic issues. But the aid did greatly increase the US Revolution's tempo of operations.
          Also let's not forget the kingdom of Spain's own massive funding contributions.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Sorry brother my wall of [...]
            was meant for anon [...]

            I was about to ask "what the fuck did my post have to do with fucking France?' lmao

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Sorry brother my wall of

          As per successful operations maybe, however the question was about his dedication. And he was extremely dedicated, even Napoleon had the might of the french military behind him while Washington had to build an army out of militiamen and regular civilians. Not saying that there weren't any professional units in the military but the bulk of the first continental army were militiamen.

          was meant for anon

          fuck do you learn this bullshit? he was french backed
          america got its independence from france
          france won

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          > Joined the Central Powers and manifest our destiny all over Canada.
          >Vancouver Island and BC could have been US state.

          FUCK ME , WE SUPPORTED THE WRONG SIDE.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        bro just ignore the US deaths at sea from submarine attacks whilst also justifying your own invasion of Canada back in 1812 for the Brits effectively doing similar to your trade ships headed to France.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >A betrayal of Prussia.
        The Prussian government was never involved in US Revolutionary War. Baron von Steuben joined the US Continental Army of his own volition.

  2. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    hes not even top 1000 top english commanders

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >English
      I bet you think Field Marshall Montgomery was a competent general.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        i bet you these are the only countries that have won a war in the last 60 years

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Your idea of "winning" and "losing" is very skewed.
          >Winning means being absolutely shredded and only achieve the war goal after the superior adversary left due to political pressure
          >Losing means being dominant on the battlefield and installing a friendly government, however it's not stable enough and falls after you leave

          Of course you have the english flag for some reason, even though they won wars in the exact opposite way you are describing the "victory" of the Taliban.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          fuck do you learn this bullshit? he was french backed
          america got its independence from france
          france won

          Brits are so bitter about American hegemony it’s insane lol

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >muh market garden
        Yeah I think the guy that planned D-Day was pretty good.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          is this a screen cap for ants? words words words, sum him up in a paragraph, or worse but still better a green text

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      As per successful operations maybe, however the question was about his dedication. And he was extremely dedicated, even Napoleon had the might of the french military behind him while Washington had to build an army out of militiamen and regular civilians. Not saying that there weren't any professional units in the military but the bulk of the first continental army were militiamen.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        fuck do you learn this bullshit? he was french backed
        america got its independence from france
        france won

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Yes, he was backed by France but not by direct military intervention. Most of the fighting was done by the revolutionaries, not by France. And Washington also decided to press on even after some setbacks. Some major setbacks even. He could've just said "Fuck it, our independence is not worth dying for" and just left, however he was dedicated and kept on fighting. That was my intial point, not who won the war but that Washington was simply a very dedicated general. Which was also the point of OP.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        So dedication means being able to take a shot to the jaw and still keep fighting and still win?

  3. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >only has rednecks, muskets, and rowboats to work with
    >exponentially more successful than his modern counterparts in command of the most powerful military in human history
    born 2 mog

  4. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    For my money he wasn't some genius tier strategist like Napoleon or Alexander. He was, however, an imminently pragmatic man who made the choice to retreat when needed and not to throw his army away for no gain. He was effective in the sense that he held out with what he had long enough to make the British give up and leave.

  5. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Important Historical Document:

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      underrated

  6. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    what was britains gameplan here exactly? judging by their numbers how could they have possibly won this over with what amounts to, a skirmish sized force
    8 years of just doing skirmishes amounted to nothing and they had to surrender
    the revolutionary army never was able field more than what the british had and im pretty sure british command should have known this fact, they had an entire coastline of invasions points to launch from on top of virtually unopposed logistics

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      why do you gays talk about it as if it was british people vs foreigners
      they became foreigners in 1776 before that they were not different than me
      one of the lads
      look at 1812, very very different

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The Brits discredited themselves on that front repeatedly by treating colonists as though they were outsiders that should not be afforded the rights of Englishmen, and using them cynically for the benefit of the homeland. That hostility turned to malice leading up to the Revolution. Asshurt Brits like to refer to Patriots as terrorists as though they were somehow different from any other insurgents that have fought for separation throughout history, and as though they didn't abide by the exact same wartime conduct that the Brits did, but the Brits were more than happy to treat bystanders like trash in their wrath. Every single Founding Father never saw a native from the British Isles as a foreigner until the Brits made clear that they themselves were not British and were not to be treated as such, and the historical record reflects that.

  7. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Napoléon

  8. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    What in the world does 'dedicated' mean here?
    That he only dedicated himself to war?
    >became president
    That he only did war and war related things and made money through war?
    >ran a plantation

    I guess fucking John Paul Jones was more dedicated than Washington???

  9. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    He was a scumbag traitor and possible crypto. The pinnacle of his career was a WWE storyline.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Jesus what an ass pained response

  10. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous
    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I wish that were real

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        well boy are you in luck

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >McCarthy
      Congratulations for being the first person in 50 years to believe that lying sack of shit.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        how did he lie?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I went and googled this and it reads almost verbatim like normal schizo ramblings of the current era if you subbed out a United Nations led one world government for a British Empire led one world government

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Well thats a solid critique. Plus you used google so we knows its absolute.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          And I assume you have an original copy of The Legions of Satan laying around that you'd like to share with the class?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            https://archive.org/stream/legions-of-satan-banning/Legions-of-Satan-Banning_djvu.txt

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >original copy of The Legions of Satan
              from page 2 of your link
              >It is certain that Senator Joseph McCarthy did much research on the Communist conspiracy. He came too close when he discovered British Israel and its Kingdom Message propaganda. The following quotes are
              from an article with the title:-
              I didn't realize McCarthy was alive in 1781.
              Also from page 18 of your link
              >This book can no longer be found -- did it exist? If it did
              >if it did
              >IF
              lmao

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Okay this is hilarious you really didn't read this at all before linking it did you

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Holy shit you’re a loser you should end your life

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              https://i.imgur.com/rP4MqxN.png

              Okay this is hilarious you really didn't read this at all before linking it did you

              It suddenly makes a lot more sense now why it reads like modern day schizo ramblings but with UN subbed out for the British Empire, because it is modern day schizo ramblings with UN subbed out for the British Empire to make it seem like this is part of some kind of prophecy that ~~*THEY*~~ don't want you to know about

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Wether the book existed and was banned or is a hoax is at this point heresay. McCarthy was on to the communist subversion plot which is playing out today.

      Also Carol Quigley wrote a book about them wanting to take back the US formally - which they did by securing the financial and intelligence services in the early 1900s.

      Finally don’t forget who created the Great Reset

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >it doesn't matter if the literature that is a cornerstone of my argument existed or not
        >just listen and believe okay?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Ah yes, Quigley and his "secret papers"

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Lyndon Larouche also spoke about this if you can find his old lectures.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          I've watched a lot of Lyndon LaRouche speeches and I can tell you that they're a waste of time. Webster Tarpley was the most skilled speaker in that crew so if you must research LaRouche stuff you're better off with him.

  11. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Anons here actually believe that America was completely isolationist before WW1

  12. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Grant.

    Everyone from the Confederate Generals to the Union Generals respected him and acknowledged him as the best General in the War and also the best horse rider of his time.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *