Other lyrics, as /all/ the verses are more or less triumphal Yankeeism. I don’t recall the details, though; I read the article in /Life/ nearly 50 years ago, after all.
That’s fine, then say what you mean. The British went to Washington D.C. and torched the White House. From what I hear, the British commander and his staff even sat down and ate the President’s freshly-cooked dinner (so sudden that he had to vacate in the face of the British advance) and toasted the President with the President’s own wine. According to a history prof of mine, the content of the toast itself was such that none of the officers present felt it appropriate to record it for posterity’s sake. :rolleyes:
Don’t know if the French trained the US military (if there’s a cite for it, I’ll happily read it), though much of our land-based military is based on the French model (while our Navy is based on the Royal Navy’s model). There was a Prussian fellow named General Von Steuben who trained the Continental Army at Valley Forge, and managed to drill them into a force that would fight the British Army on even terms the next spring at the Battle of Monmouth.
Actually, I was saying what I meant. As someone who takes a longer view of history than most, I don’t find it problematic to state that the Canadians invaded Washington. I certainly wouldn’t suggest that it was the loyalists on this side of the border that did the damage, as they were involved in their own struggles. However, the intermingling of British/Canadian forces has a very long history. In fact, it wasn’t until WWI that Canadian troops were commanded by native-born Canadian officers. Even during WWI the Newfoundland regiment was under British control, as it hadn’t yet joined confederation (although now it is seen as a Canadian effort). The way I view it, the government of the territories repelled the attacks and went into the US, it seems to be a bit of hair splitting to suggest one group is Canadian, while the other is simply British.
The mingling of Canadian and British forces also has a long history here. Previous to WWI Canadians participated in the Boer War as well as committed troops to the Crimean War (again British troops as this was pre-confederation). We also participated under British control in the Spanish Civil War (the McKenzie-Papineau Brigade). Many Canadian pilots also served in the British RAF such as Billy Bishop and Screwball Beurling. It is also an interesting point to note that les Canadien repelled an invasion during the 1775 invasion. Now were these Canadians defeating American troops, or French troops repelling British? It could be said that they were even British repelling British. Similarly, when did the US officially begin? Was it in 1775 when they set out to defeat the British and invaded Quebec? Was it 1776 when the ‘Declaration of Independence’ was signed? Perhaps it was 1781 when the main troops of Britain surrendered, 1783 when the treaty of Paris was signed, or perhaps 1789 when the government of George Washington finally took power?
I’ll see if I can dig up a reference on the training of American troops by the French. Unfortunately, these were from my class notes, but your point about a German training some of the troops is true as well. The Germans were involved in many conflicts as mercenaries on North American soil. As well, there seems to be a great fascination with German warfare in the US military schools. There is a huge preoccupation with Clauswitz as well as the school of ‘blitzkrieg’. If only Douhet was German then it would be a perfect trifecta. 
Doesn’t seem like much hair-splitting to me. Like I said, whenever I looked it up, on more than one occasion, the forces involved in the burning of the White House were primarily forces from England and Europe, not forces from North America, even if they were all part of the British Empire. Kinda like how you don’t have guys from Oklahoma talking about how hard they fought at the Rapido River in WWII, which was a battle primarily involving Texan soldiers (not to mention being a bloody defeat and a fiasco for numerous reasons, leaving the 36th Infantry Division out of the war for quite a while to recouperate and regroup).
On a sidebar, how weird is it that as late as the mid 20th century, you still had battles fought primarily by soldiers from one state in the US? Not sure if that kind of thing still happens anymore.
I’d say that, depending on where you are, at least from this side of the pond, the Brits became Americans whenever they started fighting against the British government. Even then it would depend on which guys you’re fighting. You’d have militias from the colonies that were very much Englishmen, fighting for the Crown against the rebels. From what I understand, in England everyine involved was considered to be an Englishman (I’d like someone knowledgable in history from England to confirm this, but had yet another history teacher make the claim that George Washington was one of the most respected English generals throughout the American Revolution).
The Canadians have lots of proud military history. Normandy, repelling two American invasions in the American Revolution and the War of 1812, the Raid at Dieppe (even though it was a failure, it helped lay the foundations for the later successful landings at Normandy). There’s just no need for them to lay claim to other peoples’ victories. Moreover, it annoys some of us Americans (especially the history geeks) when one group of people that we’ve fought against claims to have beaten us on an occasion where it was in fact someone ELSE who cleaned our clocks there. 
(Interestingly, the battle where the burning of the White House occured was, as someone pointed out earlier, was an American victory, the British having to retreat soon after burning the White House because the British Navy failed to defeat Fort McHenry)
Well, we study German army stuff, and British navy stuff. I think it’s cause those are the two nations that have put up the most consistent fights for us in history. The Empire of Japan kicked the tar out of us for 6 months, but after that it was more a question of how long it would take us to beat them than a question of could they win. Even then, Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto is an interesting historical figure here.
Speaking of countries we’ve fought, I’ve also hear that the reason the Brits and the Americans get along so well is because we can (mostly) understand what each other is saying, and we’ve beaten eachother up a few times.
So then, blueyonder, were those Canadian troops running away in New Orleans?
Don’t think there was much running that day.
I’m not sure if people in those states would say that, or not as I’ve never asked them. However, I’m sure I’ve never heard anyone in any US state talk about the revolution as if it was a foreign war, yet the colonies were a very tiny part of the present US. Heck, the Louisiana purchase (~25% of the US) wasn’t until 1803, and the purchase of Alaska (~1/5th) was purchased in 1867.
I don’t believe that it happens in the US anymore, but we have a regiment (3 batallions) composed almost entirely of French speaking members. I believe that 90% of that regiment is from Quebec.
There are a few small problem of using this definition, what about those who didn’t fight? I’d love to dig out a reference I had about the revolution that was talking about how many actually wanted one. Not suprisingly, most people were neutral (apathy is a human tradition) and there were quite a few that were loyalists and waged battles in the south during the beginning of the revolution. Also, why limit this to only Brits, what of the many Germans who had immigrated here?
You seem to know a lot about Canadain history, which is a great thing. I think few people actually know anything about their own history, let alone someone elses. I would also like to point out that some of our greatest achievements occured in WWI were the Germans referred to us as “The finest troops on the Western Front”. Have you read of the battles of Ypres, how we took Vimmy Ridge, or the “Hundred days”? It’s facinating history.
As for the claiming someone else’s victory, I’m sure that you’ll agree that hisitory isn’t so linear and there a lot of it is based on view points. As was pointed out already the US didn’t enter WWI until 1917, and in fact, didn’t actually send much in the way of troops until the summer of 1918 (took a long time to amass and send). By that time the Germans had been hammered in their Spring offensive and were well back on their heels. One could easily argue that the US was really just a mop-up force that came in at the opportune time, like a tag-team partner that comes in fresh after an hour-long match. Believe me, I know more that a few British and French military members that hold this view.
I would also like to know if you would think it improper for the Germans to take credit for the defeat of the Romans and French? After all their country didn’t official exist until the late 19th century?
There is some interesting history involving the interference in the Anglo-Japanese alliance from the US. They didn’t want the treaty and convinced Britain not to renew it. I wonder what would have been the outcome of WWII if this had not been done. The US also directly involved itself when it refused to supply Japan with oil and raw products so that it could maintain its war effort. Then Hitler did the most unthinkable act of stupidity (and he did quite a few) by declaring war on the US after the US declared war on Japan. Just more proof that truth is stranger than fiction.
I think there is some truth in that. I also think it is much like our two countries own relationship. We have a common language, culture and history. Unlike a lot of Canadians I don’t see us as two different cultures, but rather one large culture with regional differences. I’ve lived in several parts of Canada now, and travel extensively in the US. I find there to be less difference between Ontario and New England as there is between Ontario and BC. I also find there to be more differences between a lot of the states than there are between our countries in general. Going from the Pacific NW (btw one day someone has to explain American geography to me ;)) to Tenesse is like going to two different countries, while going from Southern Ontario to the New England states doesn’t seem to be that big of a change.
Re; a certain idiot who claimed that the star-spangled banner was the only thing standing, and who shall remain unnamed since he was me:
:smack: Yeah. :smack: Yeah. :smack: Yeah. I should know this from our ancient 1962 World Book Encyclopedia . Not to mention my own previous citation of the Sage of Baltimore and Defenders Day. Anyway, in the interest of maintaining an unsurly respect for the strangely intractable facts, and not exhausting the supply of smackers, I’m going to head over to the mysteriously levitating shower curtains. Understand, however, that this is only a strategic advance to the rear.
PS: I havent mastered the multiquote yet, but the above contributor who mentioned northern battles being mostly fought by southern soldiers reminded me of an episode in the 50s comic *Frontline Combat * that dealt with the War of 1812 and the battle in which Tecumseh was killed. It actually begins with a panel-by-panel listing of the American units involved and I’m going to check if the cartoon corroborates the idea (might take a while). Editor Harvey Kurtzman did have a reputation for doing good research on the FC series (the story, by the way, ends with the native narrator being scalped by one of the American “long-knives” Hmm!)
It can be even narrower. Niagara-on-the-Lake is practically a little bit of England.
Adams estimated that the population of the thirteen colonies in rebellion were divided in thirds, with equal portions favoring independence, favoring union, and not really caring. He has been quoted frequently on the topic despite the fact that he never conducted an actual poll in the nature of Harris, Gallup, or Zogby.
The Loyalist battles in the South occurred later in the war. On the other hand, Loyalists figured prominently in battles in New Hampshire/Vermont, in Connecticut, and in Pennsylvania in the first few years of the war.
Regional divisions were common up until WWII. During WWI, several regional divisions were combined as national divisions in order to get a fighting force up to strength quickly, then the need for more troops, combined with the draft, caused all later divisions to be built without a regional character. After that war, some of the regional divisons survived–as did some of the national divisions. That experience was repeated in WWII when regional divisions, (often state National Guards mobilized into the regular army), formed the initial core (not corps) of the Army, following which massive infusions of draftees diluted the regional outfits. Following WWII, the standing army kept for the Cold War further reduced the number of regional outfits. (Only a few of the units in Korea were truly “state” units.) This pattern continued through Viet Nam. The Army reorganized, again, in the 1980s, using a lot of National Guard units as specialty forces as reserves for the regular army. During the First and Second Gulf Wars, the Army was forced to rely very heavily on these “support” troops to accomplish tasks and we now see a lot of “state” units (mobilized National Guard) all over again.
Yes, that would be one of the references I was thinking of, but I’d seen other explainations that claimed it was more like 50% didn’t care. However, these also took into account the colonies that didn’t join (Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, St. John’s Island, and Upper and Lower Canada)
Ouch, my memory failed me. I was thinking that the northern battles were just minor scrimishes that chased the loyalists into Lower Canada and Nova Scotia, and that the southern ones were sooner.
What you are saying about the National Guard is very true. This is the same situation with our reserve units in that they are made up from very specific regions. However, my understanding was that these units were fully integrated into the regular force units when they are in Iraq. I may be confusing how we do it with the way things are done there as I don’t deal much with National or State Guard units.
Well, THAT is slightly different, since we’re talking about American victories and not Texan victories (incidentally, had Texas been a colony, no doubt we would have taken care of the Brits in quick order and spread the love of country music and smokehouse barbecues all over the Empire.
That said, when refering to things that took place long before I existed, I refer to the US in the third person rather than to “Us”. Since, as far as I know, I wasn’t anywhere near the Battle of Cowpens, even if it is one of my favorite battles to talk about.
I suppose that would depend on how the German colonists were considered amongst the other colonists. ie: Were they Englishmen because they lived in English colonies and thus were supposed to be loyal servants of the Crown, or were they just a bunch of Germans living in the English colonies?
You have Paul Gross and Paul Haggis to thank for that. My interest in Canada arguably started with watching Due South on TV with my family. I was vaguely aware that Canada had some exploits in WWI, since Paul Gross is producing a movie or a miniseries about that (he’s really big about promoting Canadian history, as well as having the stated goal of lulling the Americans into a false sense of security before the Canadians launch their World Domination plot )
One thing that amuses me about military history is our long tradition of borrowing naval developments from the British. A LOT of the stuff associated with Aircraft carriers (including steam catapults, angled decks, visual landing aids, and even dedicated aircraft carriers) were first developed by the Brits and later expanded and/or improved by the US navy. Also, we all came very close to calling Dreadnoughts “Michigans”. Both the Brits and the Yanks thought the same idea up independently, both started building their ships in secrecy. The Americans started work on the USS Michigan first, but the Brits built HMS Dreadnought faster.
Just as well, “Dreadnought” sounds cooler. 
Yeah, but what a well timed mop-up we were. From what I learned in my US Military history class (granted, a class about American military history, taught by an American professor, to a largely American class in a conservative university in Texas) the US Marines won a few major battles in France, and we apparently led an offensive into Germany (though we may have just taken part in that offensive). That said, one of the big things for our delay getting into the war was that the European commanders wanted the American soldiers integrated into their units peacemeal to replace losses, and the Americans wanted to keep their forces intact, led by American officers (up until the higher-up command levels, which were mostly European).
Also, the US Navy was right up there with Japan in terms of time spent out at sea vs. time in port refitting, thanks to considerable time spent in the previous decades developing methods for minimising time in port (including doing engine overhauls while under power at sea), though I don’t think any of our larger ships got into any fights until WWII.
Well, I guess for the French it would depend on which time they were defeated. Germany was arguably centrally responsible for the defeat of France in WWII. I’m not sure how the Germans feel about the issue, but most history classes I’ve taken here in the US don’t refer to the guys who sacked Rome as Germans, but rather as the Visigoths, the Vandals, etc., collectively refered to as the “Germanic Peoples”
Yeah, the Anglo-Japanese thing is very intersting to me. Apparantly the Japanese learned quite a bit of what they knew about aviation and naval warfare from the British, and during WWI were very active combatants at sea, fighting U-boats in the Mediterranean and the South Atlantic, as well as building and selling ships to the French. I’ve heard theories that part of the reason the US took as long as it did to join the war was their animosity towards the Japanese and Russians, and concerns with leaving the Pacific ocean unsupervised with the Japanese while they went to fight in the Atlantic.
Also, the level of stupidity involved in Hitler declaring war on the US in 1941 is debatable. It has been argued that the US and Germany had been at war since as late as 1940, with the Neutrality Patrols actively tracking U-Boats, attacking them, or reporting their positions to the Royal Navy. If anything, declaring war on the US freed up the Kriegsmarine for more vigoursly responding (and during the first few months of WWII, they did just that, sinking hundreds of tonnes of allied shipping off the Atlantic and Gulf coasts). That said, it’s quite possible the US would have been obliged to pull much of the Atlantic Fleet to the Pacific Ocean to fight the Japanese, leaving the Atlantic shipping lines that much more poorly defended.
Hell, go from Texas to Oklahoma. That place IS another country… it’s like… Bizzaro Texas! I think for the most part, Americans look at Canada as our Little Brother. Sure, WE give you guys ALL SORTS of crap, but if anyone ELSE does, we’ll punch them right in the teeth. Now, whether or not Canada feels they WANT a big brother is another issue…
Is that not supposed to be “World Dominion”?
I don’t know about that, blue:
Robert V. Remini, The Battle of New Orleans, (New York 1999), pp. 147-150.
In the troops’ defense, it was an untenable attack into murderous fire. Prolonging the attack would have been suicidal. But let’s not sugarcoat it; there was definitely some running going on that day.
So fair is fair. If you want to claim as “Canadians” the troops who attacked Washington, you have to accept as “Canadians” the troops who fled the field in New Orleans. 
The British had certainly hoped that the Southern colonies were full of loyalists. Their “Southern strategy” depended on it. But it turned out the cracker rebels held sway, and drove the British army out of the Carolinas and up to Yorktown. Recommended reading: The Road to Guilford Courthouse: The American Revolution in the Carolinas.
Well, it is possible to gig me for overstating my case, as well.
There were early efforts by Loyalists in Virginia and North Carolina to assert their loyalty by saving those colonies for the Crown. Unfortunately, the group in Virginia was defeated and fled to New York and Nova Scotia by the end of 1775 and the group in North Carolina were similarly defeated (with several hundred taken prisoner) by early 1776.
When I think of battles involving the Loyalists, however, I tend to think of the bloody internecine warfare of the Connecticut River valley, their participation in the battle near Bennington, VT (which defeat contributed heavily toward the British defeat at the first battle of Saratoga), and the massacres of the Wyoming Valley in Pennsylvania. (There were similar depradations visited on Loyalists in other places, but the Wyoming massacres had several particularly horrific incidents.)
After the early defeats in Virginia and North Carolina, the Loyalist participation in the South was fairly low key until the entire war moved to the Southern theatre, after which they were heavily involved in several battles–notably Kings Mountain.
A bit of interesting timing here on that subject. I heard on the news today that Eva Longoria stated that Texas IS another country because they fly the state flag as high as the US one. But let’s not leave out the spreading of Texas religion - football.
That part I’m not really sure of. To be sure, Germany and England were very big allies in those days and I’m not sure how citizenship worked back then. BTW WWI was pretty much a big family dust up when you look at it. With the exeption of France, the major European participants were ruled by the grandchildren of Queen Vic. Apparently Belmoral wasn’t a fun place when little Willy was there.
That was a great show. I’m glad it inspired you to learn about our history. Our countries are so intertwined that learning about both gives a very good appreciation of why things are the way they are.
I have to agree that the ‘Dreadnought’ really has a cool factor attached to it. BTW were you aware that the name came from a poem. I can’t seem to find it online and my class notes are history ;), but one of the line was “Trust in God and dread not”.
It’s not surprising that a lot of the US naval maveouvers had British roots. The British were the best navy in the world. Ever since he fled Egypt, I think Napoleon had a fear that Nelson was going to come to Paris personally to whip his butt.
To be sure it was a great mop-up. Sort of like having your big brother come in and start laying the boots to the school yard bully after you’ve been in a nasty dust up. A lot of historians would credit the thrashing that the Germans recieved in the Spring offensive to the fear they had about having a few hundred thousand fresh American troops coming after them. Heck, you guys didn’t even have to show up, you just had to say ‘meet me at the bike racks’ and the Germans were jumpy.
The US Navy also had an interesting ship called the Liberty ships. I think they built these things in about 20 mins out of tinfoil and string. In all seriousness, they could build these ships quicker than they could be destroyed. They were cargo ships, but they sure helped to ensure the supply lines.
My appologies, I was referring to the Napoleonic wars with regards to the French. And the Roman battle I was thinking of was the battle of Teutoburg Forest, where the Romans lost 3 legions. Herman the German kicked the tar out of the Romans and they never tried it again.
The US certainly didn’t care much for the Russians after the revolution, but I haven’t heard about the sentiment about the Japanese (although racism was quite prevalent back then). Of course history is always surprising. One thing I found interesting about WWI was how it was almost comical how Germany got the Russians to surrender. Hindenburg used the railroads to shuttle his troops around so quickly that the Russians swore that they were vastly outnumbered by them. I guess if you can confuse you enemy you can win.
It’s actually a bit funny about how people view Hitler. One of my history courses was taught by a former Lt Col. whose family was on the wrong side of WWII (he grew up in a prison camp). He was of the opinion that Hitler was crazy and lucky - the worst thing in his opinion. Although he did have signs of brilliance (such as assembling the panzer divisions) he made so many blunders that it was unbelievable. In fact he could have avoided the war if he waited a few weeks because he was going to get the Polish Corridor. It seems at this time he was so used to winning that he forgot that he may lose.
Well as long as you aren’t picking on us because then we’ll have to tell mom. I really think that most people up here think of the US as part of the family. Of course that leads to some minor annoyances, but its based on the familiarity of our relationship rather than the stereotypes that much of the world operates on. Believe me, a lot of my military brethren are standing shoulder to shoulder in afghanistan with your military, and I think there are few countries we would actually want to do that with.
I was actually referring to the fact that they were killed or captured. There were 8K men and 2K were killed, wounded or captured. sigh I guess that irony doesn’t really come through well on the Internet. And yes, I consider them as much to be part of the Canadian troops as those that burnt down Washington.
The outcome wasn’t much of a surprise as it was merely more of the same from the American revolution. The US was unable to capture the northern teritories, but was very good at defending its own teritory from attack.
This is one thing I really do like about this board, the fact that there are a lot of people that have a lot of facts. I’ve had so many discussion where people just have no clue what they are saying that this is refreshing. I can’t even begin to enumerate the number of times that I’ve heard people say that Columbus was the only one who thought the world was round and that he discovered the USA. As a military member it is also so frustrating to talk to Canadians who think that we are only peacekeepers. :smack: On a lighter note, I was speaking to a good friend of mine in CT last week. When I told here that it was Thanksgiving she was a bit surprised as she didn’t realize we celebrate it up here. She even asked if we had turkey and pumpkin pie. I said no, we have penguin and seal-flipper pie.
—apparently, sarcasm isn’t very becoming.
Heh, yeah, with the exception of France, the US, and maybe Japan, almost all of the leaders involved were related (even then, Woodrow Wilson was a distant relative of Winston Churchill, IIRC, thuogh I may be thinking of the Roosevelts)
Hehe, I’m still amused by Benton Fraser’s summary of the War of 1812 as being a conflict where “You boys invaded our country, and we sent you packing.” in his cheerful, non-confrontational, matter-of-fact way of speaking.
Minor quibble, I think the line was “Dread Naught”, where Naught IIRC basically maens “Nothing”.
Yeah, one thing you gotta say for the US, we steal from the best.
Apparently the Heavy Frigates used by the US Navy combined British tactics with superior engineering. The way they designed the Constitution, she was not only heavier and larger than her British foes, but also faster and more heavily armed. lots of little things ranging from a new frame layout to using the cores of four tree trunks lashed together for the mainmast instead of just one big trunk. They even designed it so that two of the four bowchaser cannons in the front of the ship could be easily wheeled back into the Captain’s cabin to be fired out the back windows as stern chasers if the need arose. Aside from all that, the American ships used only volunteer crews, which quite possibly had a morale benefit, especially if the conscripted sailors on the British ships knew they were fighting against people who actually wanted to do that sort of thing.
One thing the US Navy did differently from the Royal Navy. No rum for the sailors. Since Rum was all produced in the Carribean colonies, and the British were unwilling to sell it to the US during the War of 1812, American ships instead carried Bourbon (as far as I know, none of the sailors minded).
Yeah, the Germans were very much not wanting to fight the Americans, especially later in the war. Ironically, Germany’s efforts to keep us out of Europe directly instigated our entry into the war. The Zimmerman Note, asking Mexico to invade the US to distract us from Germany (in return for Germany helping them take Texas once they had dealt with the Allies), was the tree trunk that broke the camel’s back after a number of other greviances we had had with Germany, including the deaths of something like a hundred American citizens in the sinking of the cruise liner RMS Lusitania. (Mexico, in case you were wondering, declined Germany’s request, having already fought one war with us and being satisifed that they didn’t wish to risk losing the other half of their country to us)
Random sidebar on that thought, in WWII, Mexico fought with the allies, though in a very limited fashion. Escadron 201, the “Aztec Eagles”, was a squadron of the Mexican Air Force that was trained and equipped by the Americans in Texas, and flew P-47 Thunderbolt fighters under the 5th Air Force in the Philippines during the last year of the war. They were apparently the best dive bombing pilots at the USAAF’s disposal. Mexico joined the war because two of their oil tankers were sunk by German U-Boats in the Gulf of Mexico.
Oh yeah, the Liberty ships, those things are neat. I hear some of them were made largely out of concrete. Form the basic hull shape, fill in with concrete and let it dry. Mostly, IIRC, the trick was they were built in pre-fabricated sections on assembly lines, and the sections were welded together and all the wiring and plumbing connected during the final stages of construction. Not nearly as rugged or reliable as conventional ships, especially in rough seas (some of these ships simply broke apart and sank in storms), but given that the much stronger ships were being sunk by U-boats at a distressing rate, the numbers made up for it.
Also neat are the Jeep Carriers, aircraft carriers built on Merchant hulls. Very small, but able to throw up groups of hunter-killer anti-submarine planes. Wildcats would patrol around, looking for signs of the subs, and TBF Avengers equipped with periscope-detecting radars, 5 inch rockets and depth charges would move in for the kill. During WWII, the US built over 100 aircraft carriers, including these. The Japanese and Germans combined were only able to muster just under 20.
Heh, also in the club of “People the Romans don’t like to screw with” are the Jews. Militarily, not so mighty during the times of the Roman Empire (they WERE conquered, and on two occasions large scale uprisings were put down rather brutally), but man they were INCREDIBLY scary people to fight. Like, religious fanatic scary. Jerusalem was the only city where Roman Legions would march through with their banners rolled up, because entering the city with banners unfurled would incite massive bloody riots because they were considered graven images by the Jews.
There’s also a story about when the Romans were fighting to sieze the Temple of Solomon, and the Jews fought fiercely to keep them out of the Holy of Holies (the secret chamber in the back of the temple where nobody except the head Jewish priest was allowed to enter, because it contained the Arc of the Covenant). The Romans, seeing that there HAD to be something very valuable there for the Jews to fight so hard to protect it, fought even harder to get it, and so on. Finally, all the Jews in the temple were killed, and Emporer Justinian (IIRC) entered the Holy of Holies to find… nothing. The Arc of the Covenant was gone, and nobody knows when it left or where it went to (exept maybe for the head priest, who was dead by this point).
A big part of it may have been racism, but ever since the Battle of Port Arthur, the Americans had looked apon the Japanese with a wary eye. Here was a mysterious very foreign power that had the ability to defeat Western powers in modern warfare. Also, by WWI, the Japanese were beginning to show some of their expansionist ambitions (IIRC, in 1910 they conquered Korea and various other territories), and the Americans didn’t want them expanding into the Pacific region because, well, it was THEIRS dammit. Both countries wanted the Pacific to be their new exclusive markets for trade, and neither one wanted the competition of the other. The War in the Pacific in WWII may have been inevitable, regardless of how things went in Europe. 
And yeah, it’s not so important WHAT you can do as what your ENEMY thinks you can do. If everyone knows for a fact that you can’t possibly be defeated in open warfare (and also, if YOU believe it) , it really doesn’t matter what the actual odds SHOULD be. It’s been said that the Royal Navy won so many times simply because they and everyone else knew that they won every time, and that the fighting before that was merely a violent formality leading up to that.
Hitler was apparantly a good tactician and a HORRIBLE strategist. Also, I find it interesting that he supposedly had his Epiphany regarding the Jews while suffering the effects of a Nerve gas attack in WWI. While making lots and lots of mistakes doesn’t make you a bad leader (George Washington made all manner of horribly stupid blunders in his career), it’s important to note that Hitler never seemed to LEARN from mistakes (the aforementioned George Washington could be said never to make the same mistake twice, which is a rare gift for a human being indeed). I have read that some things Hitler got blamed for, like the delays on the Me-262 development, weren’t actually his fault (apparently the same delays would have happened just because it took so long for BMW to make a jet engine that wouldn’t just explode at random to make the flight more intersting for the pilot)
Heh, speaking of Mom, did you know that in the 1930s, the US had drawn up war plans for war with Canada and the UK? They were done mostly as an academic excercise since it was politically incorrect to be caught drawing plans for a war with Germany. It seems that if the US went to war with the Crown, the first strategy would be to sieze control of the entrance to the St. Lawrence river to prevent the English from reinforcing and supplying the Canadians, and the bulk of the US Navy would be drawn in to protect the Panama Canal, the Carribean/Gulf of Mexico, and the Eastern Seaboard. It was a foregone conclusion at the time that if the Royal Navy wished to sieze the Philippines and Hawaii, we weren’t going to be able to stop them (depressing, huh?)
A war primarily with canada mostly involved launching early invasions accross the border to sieze the border cities and to cut off lines of reinforcement via the St. Lawrence river again. IIRC, durign the 1930s the US didn’t have the military capabilities to realistically persue either war plan if it came to it. I’m pretty sure war with Australia and New Zealand would have involved battleships firing kegs at major Australian cities so they would get too drunk to put up a fight. (Not sure how drunk you’d have to make an Australian so that he WOULDN’T fight you though…)
Not quite. The Jewish War was under the command first of Vespasian, then of his son, Titus. Justinian was quite a few centuries down the line. And the Ark (note spelling) had gone missing centuries earlier, when the Babylonians took Jerusalem. (There is a tradition that Jeremiah took it and hid it somewhere.) The Holy of Holies in the Second Temple had always been empty.
The story about finding it empty is usually applied to Pompey the Great, a century and a half earlier.