George Washington named Britain's "greatest ever foe".

[Ceegen]

14 Apr 2012

The American was voted the winner in a contest run by the National Army Museum to identify the country's most outstanding military opponent. He was one of a shortlist of five leaders who topped a public poll and on Saturday was selected as the ultimate winner by an audience of around 70 guests at a special event at the museum, in Chelsea, west London.

In second place was Michael Collins, the Irish leader, ahead of Napoleon Bonaparte, Erwin Rommel andMustafa Kemal Atatürk. At the event, each contender had their case made by a historian giving a 40 minute presentation. The audience, who had paid to attend the day, then voted in a secret ballot after all five presentations had been made.

Dr Stephen Brumwell, who had championed Washington, said: "As British officers conceded, he was a worthy opponent."

Continue reading, here:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/9...-ever-foe.html

I love history. Just thought I'd share.

[rom826]

kind of surprising they did not name Hitler their greatest foe.

[Warrior4God]

kind of surprising they did not name Hitler their greatest foe.

Yeah, I agree considering that, well, Washington didn't invade England and bomb it back to the stone age and kill thousands of it's citizens like the Nazis did. My opinion is that Washington was named "Britain's greatest foe" out of a sense of bitterness that the colonies decided to break away from the snooty monarchy in England and form the United States. They are throwing a little temper tantrum because we gave the king the royal middle finger.

[ChristianCoffee]

Yeah, I agree considering that, well, Washington didn't invade England and bomb it back to the stone age and kill thousands of it's citizens like the Nazis did. My opinion is that Washington was named "Britain's greatest foe" out of a sense of bitterness that the colonies decided to break away from the snooty monarchy in England and form the United States. They are throwing a little temper tantrum because we gave the king the royal middle finger.

I think it had more to do with this:

Hitler was beaten.

Washington (while not the smartest cookie in the bag) beat England.

MAybe they were just acknowledging the fact that Washing led the troops in our independence, and after over 200 years they see what they could have had?

[dan]

Interesting.

How about Russia and it's allies?

Hungarian born Gyorgy Schwartz forced the Bank Of England to near bankruptcy. You may know him as George Soros. He now finances terrorist groups that have been harmful to all the West's interests.

The Russian Intelligence Corps has, on several occasions, made Britain a laughingstock in the intelligence community, killing scores. Many feel that Russian influence is affecting policy and lawmaking to this day.

China has, on several occasions, embarrassed England, killing scores.

As far as Washington not being the smartest, who cares?

You don't need to be the smartest when God is on your side.

[Vhayes]

I think they were weighing the merits of battle field foes; generals who were in the field strategists - hence Erwin Rommel and not Adolph Hitler.

[the rookie]

I think they were weighing the merits of battle field foes; generals who were in the field strategists - hence Erwin Rommel and not Adolph Hitler.

WHOA! Hey, stranger! Good to see you

[NHL Fever]

Washington was also very symbolically important. Independence marked the beginning of the end of the empire.

[Fenris]

kind of surprising they did not name Hitler their greatest foe.

Yeah seems like a weird choice. During just 9 months of "the Blitz" the German army killed 40,000 British civilians. During the whole Revolutionary War only 12,000 British troops were killed.

[Fenris]

Washington was also very symbolically important. Independence marked the beginning of the end of the empire.

I think "the Empire" survived until after World War 2.

[NHL Fever]

I think "the Empire" survived until after World War 2.

Hence the 'beginning' of the end. It was also the first major loss of sovereignty in their colonial history, and heralded an unrelenting and steady decline.

[Fenris]

Hence the 'beginning' of the end. It was also the first major loss of sovereignty in their colonial history, and heralded an unrelenting and steady decline.

As per Wikipedia (I know, I know...)

Following the defeat of France in 1815, Britain enjoyed a century of almost unchallenged dominance, and expanded its imperial holdings across the globe....

By 1922 the British Empire held sway over about 458 million people, one-fifth of the world's population at the time, and covered more than 33,700,000 km² (13,012,000 sq mi), almost a quarter of the Earth's total land area.

Hardly an empire in decline.