The American Revolution was fought by Germans

a reply to: zazzafrazz

I am hinting at the possibility of fabricated wars. It is the idea that supposed 'sovereign' nations can be pit to war with each other due to a common control.

The actual war can be real in the sense that all parties involved in the war believe it is genuine, however the main cause (or control) of the war can be fabricated.

a reply to: BlueJacket

originally posted by: BlueJacket
Britain often used mercenaries. In fact most of Europe would purchase Hessians to fight their wars...it still goes on today reply to: valiant

While they are called 'mercenaries', it is not like the British went over there to hire these people off the street.

To get an army that large of 30,000 soldiers, you had to have cooperation from the highest levels of gov't.

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: proob4

originally posted by: TinfoilTP
Can you find the word Germany on this 1800 sovereign states map of Europe?

Map

No Germans existed yet.

Germanic people? Germs? And that leads me to think, during WWII they called them m Krauts? Why not "Germs"? Germs sounds nastier than a Kraut.

Because they ate sour cabbage that rotted in the ground? How would you like to share a foxhole with that?

Many of the most 'true blue' American of Americans. Yes, even those who used to watch 'Leave it to Beaver', 'Bonanza' and the 'Dukes of Hazzard', are German (of German descent).

Who for example?

Dwight D. Eisenhower, Babe Ruth, Ron Paul, Herbert Hoover, Amelia Earhart, John D. Rockefeller, General Norman Schwarzkopf, Evel Knievel..

All German..

"They comprise about 50 million people, making them the largest self-reported ancestry group in the United States, ahead of Irish Americans, African Americans and English Americans."

German American

a reply to: nOraKat

Thanks for sharing. As a Brit, i should really know more about the US Civil War than i do so this is actually new to me but i can't say i am suprised. Britain and Saxony were united at the time (House of Hanover), aristocrats often intermarried and at times of war in Europe, Britain and Prussia were almost always allied. There were plans to merge the nations, although they were abandoned (not sure why) - if that would have gone ahead the world would be a very different place today (France would have been the first target!).

a reply to: nOraKat

To get an army that large of 30,000 soldiers, you had to have cooperation from the highest levels of gov't

Cooperation was required. King George III was " Elector Of Hanover " so he had full authority yo call on whatever military he needed.

en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: alldaylong

When you check the Wikipedia page for Hesse, you find this:

The Landgrave Frederick II (1720–1785) ruled as a benevolent despot, 1760-1785. He combined Enlightenment ideas with Christian values, cameralist plans for central control of the economy, and a militaristic approach toward diplomacy.[4] He funded the depleted treasury of the poor nation by renting out 19,000 soldiers in complete military formations to Great Britain to fight in North America during the American Revolutionary War, 1776-1783. These soldiers, commonly known as Hessians, fought under the British flag. The British used the Hessians in several conflicts, including in the Irish Rebellion of 1798. For further revenue the soldiers were rented out elsewhere as well. Most were conscripted, with their pay going to the Landgrave.

Wikipedia: Hesse

a reply to: nOraKat

As well as the French navy, and the US Army was trained by and stood up with the help of a Prussian.

a reply to: butcherguy

They were also used in the English Civil War (1600's), i think by both sides.

English-German co operation goes back to the time of Aethelbuhrt of Kent and Chalibert of Germany (pre Charlemagne) and was strengthened by the Hanseatic League (and then Protestantism).

a reply to: nOraKat
Mercenaries from German territory were used because they were available, and they weren't available from more hostile countries.
You would be less surprised if you were aware of the historical context. For nearly a century, by that point, Britain had been finding allies in Germany against the combination of France and Spain. If they were fellow-Protestants, that helped. The Seven Years War (1756-1763) had been fought in alliance with Prussia. Canada had been won "on the banks of the Elbe".

This trend continued up to Bismarck's time, when the expanding Prussia began getting more aggressive in all directions, even finally becoming a threat to the British navy.
So it is hardly surprising (let alone "suspicious") that by 1914, which is a LONG time after 1776, Anglo-German hostility had replaced the previous co-operation.
The best way to understand history (like the best way to understand the Bible) is to get acquainted with the whole sweep of it, rather than pouncing on isolated details.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
What kind of mayhem would erupt if that happened today? Yeah, the mini-ice age and all that...but just think about the global mayhem that would erupt from it in light of the response to the annual noreaster.

It did a few years ago and everyone was bitching about how cold it was.

It was one of the few times since they Revolution that reenactors could not cross the Delaware.

a reply to: alldaylong

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: nOraKat

To get an army that large of 30,000 soldiers, you had to have cooperation from the highest levels of gov't

Cooperation was required. King George III was " Elector Of Hanover " so he had full authority yo call on whatever military he needed.

en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

Yes, that makes absolute sense.

The American Revolutionary War took place from 1775–1783.

'The Electorate of Brunswick-Lüneburg, colloquially Electorate of Hanover, was established in 1692 as the ninth Electorate of the Holy Roman Empire. ... With the ascension of its prince-elector as King of Great Britain in 1714, it became ruled in personal union with Great Britain.' - Electorate of Brunswick-Lüneburg

"George III ... was King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland until his death. He was concurrently Duke and prince-elector of Brunswick-Lüneburg ("Hanover") in the Holy Roman Empire until his promotion to King of Hanover on 12 October 1814." - George III of the United Kingdom

The time lines up exactly. Thanks for pointing this out. Austria / The Holy Roman Empire / Germany / House of Hanover / The United Kingdom of Great Britain / and The United States of America - is basically synonymous.

a reply to: DISRAELI

Actually, Britain backed Prussian expansion during Bismarcks time as they saw it as a counter balance to Russian and French influence in Europe. The problems really started when Wilhelm became Kaiser and promptly sacked Bismarck so he could embark on his own plans.

Bismarck built up a very complicated and intricate network of alliances in order to preserve peace in Europe, not to create conflict. Wilhelm on the other hand.......well, he was really a poor little Royal suffering serious Empire envy.....

a reply to: Flavian
Perhaps we should distinguish between government policy and public opinion.
Public opinion as expressed by Punch was beginning to notice Prussian aggressiveness from 1864 onwards (the war with Denmark). Yet there were also mental barriers between Britain and France until at least Fashoda and even the turn of the century.
So the transition between one alliance and another was necessarily a gradual one.

Related article:

The American Flag is the flag of The East India Company

originally posted by: bjarneorn

originally posted by: Greathouse
a reply to: nOraKat

I would be blown away and even more ashamed of our educational system if the majority of the people on this site didn't know this .

I wouldn't pay as much attention to this crap as you are ... you don't know the half of it.

France went through Germany (Napoleon) and more or less erase the "Our Holy Roman Empire". What was left is only a sham, and the reason they became mercenaries in the British army (after waterloo).

And what you didn't reveal, is that in the 18th century, the "royalty" of Germany, were related to Queen Victoria ... who at the time, was the mother of all European royalty.

If you dig any deeper than this, you might discover that the actual scumbags of all these wars, are Brits, French, Hollanders and Americans.

Well apparently I paid enough attention to realize that your post is mistaken. Name one war the Americans started in the 18th century?


By the way the Swedish empire didn't end untill the 1720s .

originally posted by: nOraKat
Austria / The Holy Roman Empire / Germany / House of Hanover / The United Kingdom of Great Britain / and The United States of America - is basically synonymous.

This is not true. There are loose conections between several of these, but having loose connections is not the same thing as being synonymous.
Yes, the Holy Roman Empire was by that stage synonymous with Germany. Various portions of Germany, like Switzerland and the Netherlands, had dropped out of the Empire, but they were no longer being called "Germany" either.
But the so-called Empire had loosened up to the point of being a collection of states which behaved as sovereign powers in their own right.
Austria was one of them. A special case, since the head of the house of Austria was almost automatically elected Emperor. But that in itself had ceased to give him any real control over the rest of the Empire.
Hanover was a part of Germany, but a DIFFERENT part of Germany. Not synonymous with Austria or any of the others. Positively at war against Austria only a dozen years earlier.
In fact you might as well argue that Canada is "synonymous" with Turkey, because they are both members of NATO. That's how loose the connection was.

You're not going to understand history by the "jackdaw" approach, picking up bright and shiny details and carrying them back to your nest. Get hold of some real books and get some sense of the whole sweep of history, so that you can put these details in their context.

Hessian (soldier)


They were used buy and paid for by........Rothschilds.
Go figure:

a reply to: nOraKat

Might want to clarify in your post that they werent fighting against the Brittish they were mercs for the British.

Some interesting stories from this article:

Family records of Johann Nicholas Bahnert, one of the Hessians captured in the Battle of Trenton, indicate that back in Europe they were told they were needed to defend the American Colonies against Indian incursions. Only after they arrived, did they discover they had been hired to fight against the American colonists, rather than the Indians. The Hessians captured in the Battle of Trenton were paraded through the streets of Philadelphia to raise American morale; anger at their presence helped the Continental Army recruit new soldiers. Most of the prisoners were sent to work as farm hands.

So the Hessians were lied to by the British. They were told they were going there to defend the Americans (which included everyone in the states) from the Native American Indians, only to arrive and realize that they were going to fight against the colonists. I am sure the morale for the Hessians must not have been high, which explains why most of them were captured.

There was also bickering amongst the Brits and Holy Roman Empire soldiers:

The British common soldiers, much like the Americans, distrusted the German-speaking Hessians and, despite their military performance, often treated them with contempt.

The chaplain then recounts the case of a Jaeger subaltern who was assailed "by an Englishman in his cups" with the declamation: "God damn you, Frenchy, you take our pay!" The outraged Hessian replied: "I am a German and you are a #." This was followed by an impromptu duel with hangers, in which the Englishman received a fatal wound. The chaplain records that General Howe pardoned the Jaeger officer and issued an order that "the English should treat the Germans as brothers." This order began to have influence only when "our Germans, teachable as they are" had learned to "stammer a little English." Apparently this was a prerequisite for the English to show them any affection.

originally posted by: DISRAELI

But the so-called Empire had loosened up to the point of being a collection of states which behaved as sovereign powers in their own right.

I don't think anyone can say for certain if any country is truly 'sovereign', unless maybe if you are on the 'inside'. And even in that case, everything is so compartmentalized, who knows where the orders come from.

I am no historian, nor educated in political science. I only have these articles, and stories to go by. However there is definitely a trail of symbolism that is in use that can be followed.

When I made that statement (that the countries were synonymous), I mainly went by the fact that George III, "was King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain ...until his death." in 1820, and "concurrently Duke and prince-elector of Brunswick-Lüneburg ("Hanover") in the Holy Roman Empire until his promotion to King of Hanover on 12 October 1814." That was not a very long time ago.

I do not believe kings (and queens) really rule things, but I suspect there is a power structure that exists behind them, and they act as representatives much like our president.

Anyway, so up to 1820, because of King George III, I reason the same power structure ruled both The Holy Roman Empire and the United Kingdom of Great Britain. I can't imagine too much has changed since then. There's not very much time between 1820 and the 1900's. And we all know the connection between Great Britain and the United States. To me, I believe the entire western world has a common power structure.

To give an example, in media, while Canada, Australia, the UK and the United States seem to be very different places, I have witnessed with my own eyes a common control in their MSM channels and what is exactly said and projected by the news anchors. Whether we can attribute that to 'gov't', I don't know.