Discussion in 'Military History' started by W.G.Ewald, Apr 15, 2012.
George Washington named Britain's greatest ever foe - Telegraph
The greatest defeats of the British were inflicted by the least delectable of foes: a British farmer-turned-revolutionary (Washington), an African Iron Age tribal warlord (Cetshwayo Zulu), and a half-naked Indian protester (Gandhi).
Actually the greatest foe is Mahatma Gandhi he destroyed the British Empire not Hitler without even firing a shot.Poor Churchill he was unable to save the empire from Gandhi
No disrespect to Mahatma...but its the other way around. The WWII just bled England dry and sucked everything out of it. It's finances, defences, morale, capability to maintain overseas empire.
George Washington was no doubt a badass..
The Battle of Trenton and the winter encampment at Valley Forge showed he was an excellent leader.
He also had good generals like Daniel Morgan who decisively defeated the British and Loyalists at the Battle of Cowpens.
Service & Humility - George Washington
Many years ago, a rider came across some soldiers who were trying to move a heavy log of wood without success. The corporal was standing by as the men struggled. The rider asked the corporal why he wasnâ€™t helping. The corporal replied: "I am the corporal. I give orders."
The rider dismounted, went up and stood by the soldiers and as they tried to lift the wood, he helped them. With his help, the task was carried out. The rider was George Washington, the Commander-in-chief. He quietly mounted his horse and went to the corporal and said, "The next time your men need help, send for the commander-in-chief."
Once when George Washington was riding near Washington city with a group of friends, their horses leaped over a wall. One steed kicked off a number of stones.
"Better replace them" suggested the General.
"Oh, let the farmer do it," replied the friends.
When the riding party was over, Washington turned his horses back the way they had come. Dismounting at the wall, he carefully replaced the stones.
"Oh General," said a companion, "you are too big to do that."
"On the contrary," answered Washington, "I am the right size."
Source: inspirational stories for personal growth, health and positive change.
shows your ignorance.Even before WW II the righting was clear on the wall for the British
Why do you think so ? I'm genuinely interested. Before the WW the Brits were in a very sound position and Gandhiji's methods were not showing much results.
I tend to agree with Karthic here. I don't see how 'the writing was on the wall.' There was no writing, no wall, but only fruitless non-violence movement. Noble ideology, but ineffective, at least from my PoV.
Well, India would would have achieved dominion status - much like Canada or Australia.
The Labour party in England under Attlee would have come to power anyway. He was not an imperalist.A strong mass movement , something like Quit India, would have led him giving us dominion status.
He was an internationalist who wanted to strengthen League of Nations(precursor of UN).
At the Labour Party conference at Southport in 1934, Attlee declared that "We have absolutely abandoned any idea of nationalist loyalty. We are deliberately putting a world order before our loyalty to our own country. We say we want to see put on the statute book something which will make our people citizens of the world before they are citizens of this country".
Ahimsa as Gandhi had himself said was a tool. Now a tool is effective in solving certain problems, but ineffective in others.
Non violence is an effective tool - in cases where the opponent is a democracy- where the belief that individual rights are supreme and individual opinion should be respected even if one disagrees with it, where individual wills collectively determine the fate of nation.ex- Britain, America.
But Ahimsa is an ineffective tool against a totalitarian state i.e. where not the individual but the party or race is supreme, where decisions are taken to enhance party or race glory and individual happiness is placed at the bottom of ladder. Those rulers who do not respect the will of their own people would obviously not respect the will of others.ex- Nazi Germany ,Communist China.
Hence you have movements led by Gandhi in first half and Martin Luther King in second half of 20th century succeeding in achieving their end goals.
It would be interesting to note there were two stalwarts of Civil rights movement in America - Martin Luther King and Malcolm X.
While MLK was a disciple of Gandhi, Malcolm X wanted to use violence for Black liberation.Martin Luther with his Gandhi approach was able to attract a huge following among blacks and essentially shamed Whites about the moral nature of his cause.Today MLK is world renowned figure, respected at home, with a public holiday in his name , and within four decades of his death, a black man occupies White House.Malcolm X remains a footnote of history.
But in cases like Dalai Lama vs China, it didn't work - and the reason is the nature of Chinese state. It doesn't understand individual rights. It understands only weak or strong.So Dalai Lama is a weak and hence they give no quarter to him.A Gandhi type Jew in a Nazi Germany would have died in concentration camps.
Non violence works- but in certain environments.Against the British it was an effective tool.
@devgupt - yeah we got the most civilized of all the bastards to rule us....literally..
Separate names with a comma.