The Road to American Independence: John Adams' Observations - Page 2

galenrox · 07-06-08, 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PeteEU

First off this is not an anti American thread but I have no doubt the usual suspects will claim this.

The old sayings.. ones man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.. and the victor writes the history books.. is really important here.

If you look through out history, any group of people who use force beyond societies conventions and political correctness of society of the time, are considered animals, criminals and worse. Spartacus is a great example.

In today's world we have a term for them.. terrorists. People who use violence to further a political agenda or revolution. The word is relatively new, but the action is not.

When the American revolution happened, warfare had a set of rules that were almost set in stone. There was a way of doing war.. a civilized way. The American revolutionaries brought a new unheard of aspect into the fight, guerilla warfare. This tactic was at the time, so uncivilized, so underhanded and so despicable, that the "civilized".. world were shocked. If the American revolution had failed, I would not have any doubt that the people involved would have been treated the same way or worse as terrorists are treated today. They would certainly have been viewed as such in history books, instead of heroes.

It can easily be argued that guerilla warfare in the 1770s was a tactic of terror, on not only the military but also the civilians. Before guerilla warfare (and even after), warfare was a set place and time, usually agreed between the two parties quite a bit ahead of time and usually far away from civilian areas, and if near civilians then they would have been warned ahead of time. The American revolutionary tactics totally broke away from this principle of war.

In today's world we have also a set of rules of war. We don't target civilians, we don't target cities if it can be helped and so on. Terrorists, go against this principle, and we find them as horrible and shocking.. and have invented the word terrorist to cover this underhanded tactic that they have employed.

In 1770 blowing ones self up to hurt the enemy would have been not only unheard off, but religiously, socially and mentally impossible. Today that is not exactly true. May it be Japanese doing kamikaze, muslim brainwashed extremist blowing himself up on a bus, or some solider jumping on a grenade to save his mates.. that would simply have not been even contemplated in the 1770s. Yes the weapons of war are different and so on, but even if they had the same weapons, they would not have even contemplated it. Suicide was simply impossible especially if you were religious, which most were.

The same goes for guerilla warfare. Today we see it as a classic example to beat an enemy that is larger and better equipped than you. Back then, it was not so.. it was unheard off and shocking.

Hence the American revolutionaries were the "terrorists" of their time, as they used unheard off, underhanded and uncivilized tactics of war and violence to promote a political agenda. That we don't call them terrorists is simply because we don't see their tactics as "bad" as today's terror tactics, but relatively speaking, they were.

You're ignoring the distinction between attacking hard targets, military, government, etc., and attacking soft targets, civilians, churches, hospitals, open air markets, World Trade Centers, etc.

One's man terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, but there are a bunch of people who saw Hitler as a freedom fighter so we can conclude it doesn't make any difference whether someone's considered a freedom fighter to some without specifying who thinks the person is a freedom fighter and what they did in the pursuit of said freedom.

The American revolution went against British soldiers and British government officials, just like every war in history. They won the war primarily by attrition, not by repeated attacks of soft targets which is the primary identifier of terrorists in this day and age. So without making any statement as to whether or not this is an anti-American post, it is an inaccurate post.

PeteEU · 07-06-08, 03:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by galenrox

You're ignoring the distinction between attacking hard targets, military, government, etc., and attacking soft targets, civilians, churches, hospitals, open air markets, World Trade Centers, etc.

No I am not. I am doing a distinction between the time periods. When the US revolution started via the Boston tea party, that was a soft target.. hence a terror attack by your own difinition. When Washington's troops used guerilla tactics which were against accepted military tactics and morals of the time, then they were using terror tactics as the tactics were against seen as "horrible immoral" during the time.

Today we see it horrible and immoral that attacking civilians during a war,.. although mostly if the enemy does it. When we do it, then its just war. But other than this hypocritical view, the idea of a "terror tactic" is when one part goes against the moral codes of warfare and their motive is political. Thats what the Palestinians are doing. They are fighting the only way they can, just as the American's did during the revolution. That the Palestinian tactic is seen as immoral and horrible, aka as terror, does not take away the fact that they see it as a war, and are fighting the only way the can. Just as the Americans did against the Brits. That the Palestinians are far far far more fragmented than the Americans were, does not change the fact, that the two are similar.... they want independence from an oppressive occupier (in their view). And it is here one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter comes in.. and is very true.

Quote:

The American revolution went against British soldiers and British government officials, just like every war in history. They won the war primarily by attrition, not by repeated attacks of soft targets which is the primary identifier of terrorists in this day and age. So without making any statement as to whether or not this is an anti-American post, it is an inaccurate post.

You said it yourself.. this day and age. Today's primary definition is attacking civilians and so called soft targets. However back then breaking the moral codes of civilized warfare was considered bad. Hell up to the first world war, things like using submarines was considered underhanded and sneaky and immoral in warfare. Was only when the Germans used them to such effect, that it was some what accepted, however the view was still it was an immoral act and against the code of warfare. Same goes for commandos in WW2.. the British generals refused to use commandos let alone train them up, because they saw them as immoral in the art of war. It was only when Churchill stepped in that they were forced to use them and look how that went.

Times change, what we see today as normal was seen as horrible tactics 100 years ago. And if we go back even 1000+ years plus, killing civilians during warfare was a norm, and required often, depending on where. In China it was normal for conquering armies not only to kill all captured soldiers, but also populations that did not bow to the new masters or they thought could not be trusted. Today such tactics would have been seen as horrible and immoral no? Sending assassins to kill leaders and their whole families is seen as immoral today, but long ago, it was the norm.. revenge was required by family members of slain leaders. .. hell that's practiced some what in eastern Europe still.

My point is and has always been.. in the time of the American revolution, the tactics of the Americans was seen as "terror" but not in those words. That we today do not see the tactics as terror, does not mean that they were not seen in such a light during those days.

bub · 07-07-08, 03:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Volker

Yes, these nice Chechen's went into schools, hospitals and theaters to kidnap or kill people, attacked civil airplanes and trains, and they probably blew up big residential houses in Moscow, how someone can dare to accuse these peaceful, friendly and relaxed mountaineers of terrorist activities will always be beyond me

Note the sarcasm.

yes but this is only a small part of the chechen war. Of course they are not gentlemens, but most of the fightings occur in Chechnya and target russian soldiers only.

Red_Dave · 07-07-08, 07:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by donsutherland1

Red_Dave,

I should have been more precise. The focus of the military campaign was against the British Army and not against civilians. General Washington's orders were to avoid harm to civilians. That some incidents occurred, including but not limited to the raid on Whitehaven where things went beyond attacking the merchant fleet, is correct.

In contrast, today's terrorist organizations mainly attack civilians and civilian objects.

No i agree. Comparing the american revolutionarys to Al Q is absurd.That said the Sandanistas were labelled by many as terroists for doing pretty much the same thing and the focus of they,re military campaign was against Somozas forces.

PeteEU · 07-07-08, 10:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Red_Dave

No i agree. Comparing the american revolutionarys to Al Q is absurd.That said the Sandanistas were labelled by many as terroists for doing pretty much the same thing and the focus of they,re military campaign was against Somozas forces.

I agree, Al Q is a whole other ball game. Only similar organisation that I can think off, that transcends national borders like Al Q, over different cultures is organised crime of various variations. One could easily claim that the Russian mafia is just as brutal and just as vicious as Al Q, but their motives are economical and not so much political and absolutely not religious. The Russian mafia have used car bombs or other methods and have rumoured to have used acid and other methods to get rid of bodies. Also they go after soft targets... kill or kidnap the family of a target to get said persons attention or silence.

Lightdemon · 07-07-08, 12:16 PM

I'd like to comment on the "guerilla tactics" that are mentioned by Pete. It seems to me that there has been too much credit given to these tactics.

It is my understanding that it used to be taught in grade school that there were "sharp shooters" during the Revolutionary War, and that they were a very large influence in the outcome of the war. It is also my understanding that his is a common misconception, as well as an exaggeration.

During the Revolutionary War, the soldiers used muskets and musket balls. It was not until the Civil War did bullets first make it's appearance. This is important, as the musket ball has no real accuracy when fired out of a musket. To illustrate, think of throwing a large basketball, and compare it to throwing a elongated football. Which one do you think will go further? And which one would go straight and not spiral off course?

This point being made, it is my understanding that the Revolutionary War was not won because of guerilla tactics used against the British. It was the spiteful French who wanted revenge on thier arch-rivals. I do not have the exact numbers (at least not right now), but I remember from past knowledge that the French troops in the Revolutionary War doubled the size of American troops.

To sum up, I believe the French army and it's support had more influence than the supposed "guerilla tactics."

Red_Dave · 07-08-08, 06:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lightdemon

I'd like to comment on the "guerilla tactics" that are mentioned by Pete. It seems to me that there has been too much credit given to these tactics.

It is my understanding that it used to be taught in grade school that there were "sharp shooters" during the Revolutionary War, and that they were a very large influence in the outcome of the war. It is also my understanding that his is a common misconception, as well as an exaggeration.

During the Revolutionary War, the soldiers used muskets and musket balls. It was not until the Civil War did bullets first make it's appearance. This is important, as the musket ball has no real accuracy when fired out of a musket. To illustrate, think of throwing a large basketball, and compare it to throwing a elongated football. Which one do you think will go further? And which one would go straight and not spiral off course?

This point being made, it is my understanding that the Revolutionary War was not won because of guerilla tactics used against the British. It was the spiteful French who wanted revenge on thier arch-rivals. I do not have the exact numbers (at least not right now), but I remember from past knowledge that the French troops in the Revolutionary War doubled the size of American troops.

To sum up, I believe the French army and it's support had more influence than the supposed "guerilla tactics."

Maybe we should add the american revolutionary war to our list of french military victorys

American · 07-08-08, 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PeteEU

First off this is not an anti American thread but I have no doubt the usual suspects will claim this.

The old sayings.. ones man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.. and the victor writes the history books.. is really important here.

If you look through out history, any group of people who use force beyond societies conventions and political correctness of society of the time, are considered animals, criminals and worse. Spartacus is a great example.

In today's world we have a term for them.. terrorists. People who use violence to further a political agenda or revolution. The word is relatively new, but the action is not.

When the American revolution happened, warfare had a set of rules that were almost set in stone. There was a way of doing war.. a civilized way. The American revolutionaries brought a new unheard of aspect into the fight, guerilla warfare. This tactic was at the time, so uncivilized, so underhanded and so despicable, that the "civilized".. world were shocked. If the American revolution had failed, I would not have any doubt that the people involved would have been treated the same way or worse as terrorists are treated today. They would certainly have been viewed as such in history books, instead of heroes.

It can easily be argued that guerilla warfare in the 1770s was a tactic of terror, on not only the military but also the civilians. Before guerilla warfare (and even after), warfare was a set place and time, usually agreed between the two parties quite a bit ahead of time and usually far away from civilian areas, and if near civilians then they would have been warned ahead of time. The American revolutionary tactics totally broke away from this principle of war.

In today's world we have also a set of rules of war. We don't target civilians, we don't target cities if it can be helped and so on. Terrorists, go against this principle, and we find them as horrible and shocking.. and have invented the word terrorist to cover this underhanded tactic that they have employed.

In 1770 blowing ones self up to hurt the enemy would have been not only unheard off, but religiously, socially and mentally impossible. Today that is not exactly true. May it be Japanese doing kamikaze, muslim brainwashed extremist blowing himself up on a bus, or some solider jumping on a grenade to save his mates.. that would simply have not been even contemplated in the 1770s. Yes the weapons of war are different and so on, but even if they had the same weapons, they would not have even contemplated it. Suicide was simply impossible especially if you were religious, which most were.

The same goes for guerilla warfare. Today we see it as a classic example to beat an enemy that is larger and better equipped than you. Back then, it was not so.. it was unheard off and shocking.

Hence the American revolutionaries were the "terrorists" of their time, as they used unheard off, underhanded and uncivilized tactics of war and violence to promote a political agenda. That we don't call them terrorists is simply because we don't see their tactics as "bad" as today's terror tactics, but relatively speaking, they were.

The usual suspects try to cover their hatred for America by claiming someone will see this as Anti-Americanism. Well we know it when we see, and we see it from you on a regular basis. You, knowing nothing about American history, overlook the pleadings from Congress and Ben Franklin trying to change the hearts in Britain prior to the declaration; and the fact that a body representing the colonies passed this resolution by a vote, and signed their names for all to see.

Tashah · 07-08-08, 01:14 PM

History is sodden with wars and battles that featured unorthodox tactics. Unorthodoxy in battle does not necessarily equate with terrorism.

PeteEU · 07-08-08, 03:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by American

The usual suspects try to cover their hatred for America by claiming someone will see this as Anti-Americanism. Well we know it when we see, and we see it from you on a regular basis. You, knowing nothing about American history, overlook the pleadings from Congress and Ben Franklin trying to change the hearts in Britain prior to the declaration; and the fact that a body representing the colonies passed this resolution by a vote, and signed their names for all to see.

Where in the hell have it talked about what Congress or Ben Franklin did? I could careless about motives or how it was done, as that was not what I was discussing.

I have only commented about the tactics used by the rebels in battle with the Brits and they could in those times be considered terror, as they were outside the accepted practices of warfare of the time. You did not practice hit and run engagements while having standing armies. It was not civilized warfare.

I understand fully you and others defence of your revolutionary heroes and I fully agree that they are heroes and I personally admire what they wanted to create.

But it does not take away the fact that, at the time, they were considered rebels aka criminals, and when they started using tactics that were not seen as morally correct, then if the world had the word "terrorist" in its vocabulary, then they would have been called it.

The term terrorist is new and hence many use the definitions of today and try to export them back in time.. and if it dont fit, then no they are not terrorists. If so, then terrorists have not existed until the 20th and 21st centuries.. and do you really believe that!?

No terror has been around since the dawn of time, and so has terrorists, we just called them by different names.. enemy, reds, vikings, barbarians, Hun, Mogols or what not. Their goal was always to strike terror into the civilian population either via tainting the water supply, burning fields, raping the women, murdering the children, or executing the men... all for a political or religious reasons. We just called it warfare and accepted it. When the Allies bombed German cities, was it for strategic military goals (considering very few bombs actually hit their targets) or was it to drive terror into the populations so they would give up or overthrow the Nazi government? I would claim a bit of both (and it failed too). It was unheard off bombing cities like the Germans and Allies did.. and has never been done since as most were and are ashamed of what they did... 50000 people burning alive in a fire bombing is shame full and it is terror, but we called it war.

That we today have invented this word terrorism and terrorist for people we not only do not agree with, but that go outside the "norms" of correct warfare is just that.. word(s).

When the Palestinians lob a rocket into Israel its terror, but when the IDF lobs a shell into Gaza or use attack helicopters to attack a car its not.. both terrorise the civilian populations, but we don't call what the IDF does as terror, but believe me for the civilians on the ground they feel the same terror as the Israelis hearing the air raid signal when a Palestinian rocket comes flying overhead.

Again it goes back to the victor writes the history books and one man's terrorist/rebel/criminal is another man's freedom fighter...