George Washington named Britain's greatest ever foe

Hitler was disqualified on a technicality (never led an army in the field against Britain), leaving:

George Washington
Michael Collins
Napoleon Bonaparte
Erwin Rommel
Mustafa Kemal Atatürk

I'd vote for Hitler and Napoleon.  They threatened Britain's existence.

I've never heard of Michael Collins (except the astronaut) but he sounds like little more than a terrorist.

Rommel is just Hitler's agent that is not disqualified.  Rommel and his armies being a threat to Britain is laughable.

In my readings Atatürk was a hero, something like Gandhi if Gandhi was a military badass and heavy drinker.  Much like Washington he beat the British in his own country with a ragtag army.  But it's not like he was threatening to invade.

Washington beat the British in his own country with a ragtag army too, when Britain was a superpower.  No taxation without representation!

andy190 wrote on Apr 15^th, 2012 at 2:30am:


Only a Cpl? In that case he was far more qualified than most contemporary polititians and potential warmongers. Most wouldn't know a military uniform if it jumped out of a bush and tickled them with a stick of wet celery.

1) George Washington?! Seriously?! Even though I am an American and very proud of that fact, I cannot agree with him being Britain's greatest foe. Heck the US after the Rev War posed no threat to Britain what so ever, the War of 1812 proved that. We got our butts kicked badly.

2) That said, Britain's greatest foe has got to be a tie between Napoleon and Rommel. Rommel because he scared the $hit out of so many Brits in North Africa, the man was a genius of modern warfare with huge brass balls between his legs and an iron devotion to his troopers. That is why he beat the snot out of the Brits time after time eventhough the Brits had on average at least 5x the tanks (including more powerful M3s), over 2x the aircraft, and depending how you count it over 5x the men...yet Rommel STILL beat them and beat them bad...no offense by the way  my friends across the pond...he beat the Americans bad too, and the French. Heck he terrified us all...

Now Napoleon, well that goes with out saying. The man wanted to conquer the British Isles for crying out loud! AND he was a military genius AND a darn good field commander with the resources to take advantage of it..Rommel lacked resources throughout the entire North Africa campaign and lacked them badly...So I would have to say Napoleon.

Washington was yet another rebel leader. As a military commander his greatness is marginal compared to other greats like Rommel, Manstein, Guderian (father of the Panzer corps), Patton, and Napoleon....HOWEVER, Washington as a LEADER of a blooming nation, he is unbeatable...just not so much militarily..

I tend to agree that while, militarily, Washington was little more than a rabble rouser to the Empire the same comparison could be made to Ho Chi Minh and the US.

The North Vietnamese never had a chance of defeating the US militarily in Vietnam, let alone launching an assault on American soil.  But America was defeated by a rabble rouser peasant with huge repercussions in American military policy - if and when America ever learns not to fight pointless wars halfway across the world.

The American victory over Britain destroyed a colonial policy that had worked perfectly for 200 years.  While it didn't affect Britain's existence its economic effect was devastating.

See: Was the American Revolution inevitable

Webb wrote on Apr 15^th, 2012 at 1:45am:


You have not read much history if you consider Atatürk a hero. Ask any Armenian about the horrors they suffered when Atatürk ignored the Treaty of Sèvres and invaded the lands allocated to what was left of the Armenian people after the Turkish genocidal attacks and purges. My wife's great-grandmother buried all but one of her children when the Atatürk-led military forces marched Armenians into the Syrian desert. Then she, too, died, from starvation and exposure, while Turkish troops gave no mercy or quarter. To this day Turkey denies there was genocide against the Armenians, and Turkish kangaroo courts did little after WWI to met justice. Armenian hit squads hunted down the most ruthless Turkish killers and put paid to their evil. Atatürk might be considered admirable only because he and his military compatriots put the "white Turks" into power, promoted a secular state, and forced his country more towards Western culture. In the meantime, the "black Turks" do everything they can to bring Moslem rule. The present Turkish president comes from the black Turk faction. The U.S. war in Iraq has swung the black Turks into a powerful political position. Atatürk must be rolling in hell, or at least pitching in his grave. A hero he was not.

andy190 wrote on Apr 15^th, 2012 at 10:50pm:


I know. My post was tongue in cheek!

Quote:


Is that what you call people fighting for the freedom of their own country? Terrorists?

So basically you’re calling the French Resistance Terrorists & even your own George Washington.

Webb wrote on Apr 16^th, 2012 at 8:38pm:


I think most people are quite sensible these days. As ever there are those who use religion and historical hatred to impart thuggery, violence and murder. Thankfully the past years of the IRA driving into British cities with truckbombs and the like are long behind us.