為什么美國沒有贏得1812年的戰(zhàn)爭?(一)
Why did the US not win the war of 1812?譯文簡介
網(wǎng)友:這是一場奇怪的戰(zhàn)爭。一方面,你的國家想要戰(zhàn)爭,卻一無所獲。另一方面,你的國家不希望戰(zhàn)爭,也沒有損失。如果你去掉很多美國流行的關于這場戰(zhàn)爭的神話,毫無疑問,英國贏得了這場軍事戰(zhàn)爭。美國在這里和那里贏得了一場戰(zhàn)斗,他們對英國軍隊的勝利都沒有軍事意義。英國在海上和加拿大邊境的勝利對戰(zhàn)爭的結果產生了戰(zhàn)略上的影響......
正文翻譯
Why did the US not win the war of 1812?
為什么美國沒有贏得1812年的戰(zhàn)爭?
評論翻譯
很贊 ( 4 )
收藏
Why didn't the USA win the War of 1812? What did we do wrong?
This was a strange war. On the one hand, you have a country that wanted the war and won nothing. And, on the other hand, you had a country that did not want the war and lost nothing.
If you cut away a lot of the US popular mythology about the war there is no doubt that the British won the military war. Where the US won a battle here and there non of their wins against British forces was militarily significant. Whilst the British wins at sea and on the Canadian border had a war-winning strategic impact on the outcome of the war.
During the naval war, the US Navy won a few single-ship combats and took a few merchant ships. None of the losses inflicted by the US Navy however were strategically significant. The British had plenty of frigates and the losses inflicted had no strategic impact on The Royal Navy. The British merchant marine was huge and the losses inflicted, mainly by US privateers, were so insignificant that the US actions at sea did not cause the maritime insurance rate to fluctuate and had little impact on the British economy during the war.
為什么美國沒有贏得1812年的戰(zhàn)爭?我們做錯了什么?
這是一場奇怪的戰(zhàn)爭。一方面,你的國家想要戰(zhàn)爭,卻一無所獲。另一方面,你的國家不希望戰(zhàn)爭,也沒有損失。
如果你去掉很多美國流行的關于這場戰(zhàn)爭的神話,毫無疑問,英國贏得了這場軍事戰(zhàn)爭。美國在這里和那里贏得了一場戰(zhàn)斗,他們對英國軍隊的勝利都沒有軍事意義。英國在海上和加拿大邊境的勝利對戰(zhàn)爭的結果產生了戰(zhàn)略上的影響。
在海軍戰(zhàn)爭期間,美國海軍贏得了幾場單艦戰(zhàn),并占領了幾艘商船。然而,美國海軍造成的損失沒有一項具有戰(zhàn)略意義。英國人有很多護衛(wèi)艦,造成的損失對皇家海軍沒有戰(zhàn)略影響。英國商船規(guī)模龐大,造成的損失(主要是由美國私掠船造成的)微不足道,因此美國在海上的行動并沒有引起海上保險費率的波動,對戰(zhàn)時英國經(jīng)濟的影響也很小。
By landing military forces at will around the US coast The Royal Navy, with contingents of the British Army, tied most of the US’s military forces into a defensive posture. This meant that the US could not make significant reinforcements on the only front where they could hurt the British, the border of Upper Canada. An outright strategic win for The Royal Navy.
Indeed The Royal Navy’s campaign against the US was one of the most significant naval achievements during the age of sail. With the imposition of a year-round blockade conducted on a hostile coast, two and a half thousand miles or more from its home bases.
作為回應,英國皇家海軍計算了美國在海上的威脅,摧毀了美國的商業(yè)貿易。在此過程中,它將美國聯(lián)邦政府推向了貸款違約和破產邊緣。
通過在美國海岸周圍隨意部署軍事力量,英國皇家海軍和英國陸軍的特遣隊將美國大部分軍事力量束縛在防御態(tài)勢。這意味著美國無法在唯一能傷害英國人的前線——上加拿大邊境——投入大量增援。這是皇家海軍的戰(zhàn)略勝利。
事實上,皇家海軍對抗美國的戰(zhàn)役是航海時代最重要的海軍成就之一。在距離其基地2500英里或更遠的敵對海岸實施全年封鎖。
So what did the British gain from the war? Britain gained security for British North America. This meant that this colony was able to morph undisturbed by the US into the Canada of today. Making the Canadians the outright winners of the War of 1812.
What did the US gain from the war? The US’s one strategic victory during the war, over the Native North American Federation at the battle of Thames in 1813, opened up the west. This coupled with its failure at sea drove its industrialist and capitalists, whilst they were cut off from the world, to look to the west for opportunities and financial gain. This was the true foundation of the continental US and the true gain of the US from the War of 1812. Sadly this made the Native North Americans the outright losers of the war.
美國在海上的失敗因其在陸地上的部隊的失敗而加劇。英屬北美從未真正受到美國軍方的威脅。美國入侵上加拿大的軍事企圖被擊敗了,這是美國唯一可以給英國造成損失從而取得戰(zhàn)爭勝利地方。
那么,英國人從戰(zhàn)爭中得到了什么呢?英國讓英屬北美獲得了安全保障。這意味著這塊殖民地能夠在不受美國干擾的情況下演變成今天的加拿大。使加拿大人成為1812年戰(zhàn)爭的絕對贏家。
美國從戰(zhàn)爭中得到了什么?美國在戰(zhàn)爭期間的一次戰(zhàn)略勝利是1813年在泰晤士河戰(zhàn)役中戰(zhàn)勝北美原住民聯(lián)邦,從而打開了西部的大門。再加上它在海上的失敗,迫使實業(yè)家和資本家在與世界隔絕的同時,向西方尋求機會和經(jīng)濟利益。這是美國大陸的真正基礎,也是美國從1812年戰(zhàn)爭中獲得的真正收獲??杀氖牵@使得北美原住民徹底成為戰(zhàn)爭的輸家。
The war of 1812 is perhaps the strangest event in the history of the USA.
Huge miscalculations abounded at the time and our present views are frxd by the fact that the USA is a now a dominate military and economic power , our ‘special relationship’ is with the UK and we think that French tanks have 4 gears in reverse none of which was at all true in 1812.
The USA in 1812 was economically well off and large in geography but sparsely populated, with neither a standing army or military tradition and although there was an embryonic Navy it was outnumbered something like 600 to 15 by the Royal Navy.plo
The casus belli for the US
First, the actions of the British Navy attacking American shipping to continental Europe and occasionally the US Navy itself. There were a variety of legal principles involved and serious animosity. The USS Chesapeake incident in 1807 most notably was an act of war perpetrated by British officers convinced that they could do as they pleased followed up by the Americans killing 32 British when they fired on the little sloop HMS Little Belt, The ultimate finding on that was the US was mostly harmless but only because Napoleon crashed in Russia.
1812年的戰(zhàn)爭也許是美國歷史上最奇怪的事件。
當時存在巨大的誤判,我們現(xiàn)在的觀點是基于這樣一個事實:美國現(xiàn)在是一個主導軍事和經(jīng)濟的大國,我們與英國存在“特殊關系”,我們認為法國坦克能調到4擋,這在1812年是完全不正確的。
1812年的美國經(jīng)濟富裕,地理位置廣闊,但人口稀少,既沒有常備軍,也沒有軍事傳統(tǒng),盡管有一支萌芽的海軍,但數(shù)量上超過了皇家海軍,大約達到600比15的比例。
美國的戰(zhàn)爭理由:
首先,英國海軍攻擊美國前往歐洲大陸的船只,偶爾也攻擊美國海軍本身。這涉及到各種各樣的法律原則和嚴重的敵意。1807年的切薩皮克號事件最引人注目的是英國軍官犯下的戰(zhàn)爭行為,他們確信自己可以隨心所欲。隨后,美國人向小型單桅帆船“HMS Little Belt”號開火,殺死了32名英國人。最終發(fā)現(xiàn),美國基本上是無害的,但這只是因為拿破侖在俄國戰(zhàn)敗。
Then there were Native Americans, at that time still numerically important and militarily more so. They often were in the same boat, thrown out of the US after 1781 and persecuted often with brutal force. The US was not known for good or even benign treatment of Indians, indeed one of the unmentionable causes for the American Revolution was colonists desire to steal more Indian lands than the Crown would allow.
Only French speaking Canadians could realistically be hoped to desire an association with the US an erstwhile ally of France and Napoleon in 1812 but the Quebecois had reached a working relationship with the British and they were well aware that the US was a protestant republic, in spite of claims of religious freedom, and it would be unlikely that an acceptable modus vivendi with Washington could be reached.
其次是美國渴望吞并加拿大。這種可能性是基于這樣一種信念,即大多數(shù)加拿大人會團結起來支持美國,這當然是瘋狂的。加拿大人有三大類。講英語,他們中的大多數(shù)人在革命結束時離開了13個殖民地,如果他們沒有被主動趕出去的話(與古巴革命相比,加拿大人在美國革命中可能有更多懸而未決的征用要求)。
然后是印第安人,他們在數(shù)量上仍然很重要,在軍事上更是如此,他們經(jīng)常同舟共濟,在1781年之后被趕出美國,并經(jīng)常受到殘酷的迫害。美國并不以善待印第安人而聞名,事實上,美國革命的一個難以言喻的原因是殖民者想要竊取比王室允許獲取的土地還要更多的印第安人土地。
實際上,只有講法語的加拿大人才希望與美國(1812年法國和拿破侖的昔日盟友)建立聯(lián)系,但魁北克人與英國人達成了一種工作關系,他們很清楚,盡管聲稱宗教自由,但美國是一個新教共和國,與華盛頓達成可接受的權宜之計是不太可能的。
So know that the war was not universally popular.
The attempts to capture Canada went as expected for a country without an army mounting a hugely unpopular invasion. . The Americans assembled an impromptu militia which collapsed when it discovered that Canadians were not only not anxious to become Americans but were quite ready to fight. The northern frontier was only stabilized when Oliver Hazard Perry mobilized industrial ship production in Erie due to the surplus of American sailors, supplies and ordinance because of the blockade of the American Navy and Ports, to overwhelm the opposition, a unique situation in this war but which foreshadowed the key to American success in the 20th century. (Also to the joy of crossword puzzle writers.)
1812年,看起來法蘭西帝國要么打敗英國,要么繼續(xù)占領它所有的軍隊和大部分艦隊。參戰(zhàn)方認為這是進攻一個衰落帝國的絕佳機會。很明顯,英國從來沒有把美國人的話當回事,沒有給和平黨派提供足夠的彈藥來實現(xiàn)他們的目標。參議院支持戰(zhàn)爭的投票只有19票對13票。
所以要知道這場戰(zhàn)爭并不是普遍受歡迎的。
對于一個沒有軍隊的國家發(fā)動了一場極不受歡迎的入侵,占領加拿大的企圖不出所料。美國人組建了一支臨時民兵,但當他們發(fā)現(xiàn)加拿大人不僅不急于成為美國人,而且已經(jīng)準備好戰(zhàn)斗時,這支民兵就崩潰了。由于美國海軍和港口被封鎖,美國水兵、物資和彈藥過剩,奧利弗·哈扎德·佩里動員伊利生產工業(yè)船舶,壓倒了反對派,這是這場戰(zhàn)爭中獨特的情況,但也預示了美國在20世紀取得成功的關鍵。(填字游戲作者也很高興。)
After successful walk overs destroying The government buildings in Washington DC the British Army loaded up for New Orleans, a raid with no strategic goal, where the commander not only seriously underestimated the firepower he was having his troops walk into but disdained optimal use of his naval assets and their mobile artillery and succeeded in making Jackson a hero and being the only general to lose more men to guns than disease in a tropical campaign. Famously it was not even during the war.
這場海戰(zhàn)對雙方來說都是一場商業(yè)災難,對美國人的傷害程度比對英國人的傷害程度更大。例如,美國在太平洋的捕鯨船隊就被消滅了。與歐洲的貿易停止了。雙方都輸給了私掠船和各自的海軍,但到1815年,皇家海軍封鎖了整個美國海軍和美國港口的大多數(shù)私掠船,并占領了法國港口,有效地贏得了海戰(zhàn)。
在成功地摧毀了華盛頓特區(qū)的政府大樓后,英國軍隊把物資裝好向新奧爾良進發(fā),這是一次沒有戰(zhàn)略目標的突襲,指揮官不僅嚴重低估了他的部隊將要面對的火力,而且不屑于最佳利用他的海軍資產和機動火炮,并成功地使杰克遜成為英雄,讓其作為唯一一位在熱帶戰(zhàn)役中死于槍炮而不是疾病的將軍。眾所周知,即使在戰(zhàn)爭期間也沒有將軍死于槍炮。
Officially a draw
拿破侖戰(zhàn)敗后的政治現(xiàn)實是,英國和美國可能是他們相互最好的貿易伙伴,即使是戰(zhàn)爭一方的家鄉(xiāng)南部和西部各州也在和平中過得更好。倫敦沒有重新征服美國的愿望,而在美國,人們意識到征服加拿大只是一場白日夢。
官方的說法是平局
There are those who say that the US did win the War of 1812, which is quite amusing. They tend to talk about how the effects of the war benefitted the US over the long run. Yes, it's absolutely correct that the US did emerge stronger in the long run because of the war, but this does not mean the war itself was an American victory. Far from it.
Those who say Britain/Canada won the war point to the fact that Jefferson's assertion to Madison that the acquisition of Canada was "a matter of mere marching" was completely and utterly wrong. The US gained no ground, the colony was preserved, and out of that war began the bond between the colonists that provided a sentiment that would unite the future Canada. So as some in the US can state that they got some benefit from the war, so too can their neighbours to the north. At BEST, it was a draw for the US.
有人說美國確實贏得了1812年戰(zhàn)爭,這相當引人發(fā)笑。他們傾向于談論戰(zhàn)爭的影響如何使美國長期受益。是的,從長遠來看,美國確實因為戰(zhàn)爭而變得更強大,這是絕對正確的,但這并不意味著戰(zhàn)爭本身就是美國的勝利。遠非如此。
那些說英國/加拿大贏得了戰(zhàn)爭的人指出了這樣一個事實,即杰斐遜對麥迪遜的斷言,即獲得加拿大是“僅僅是行軍的問題”,這是完全錯誤的。美國沒有取得任何進展,殖民地得到了保護,這場戰(zhàn)爭開始讓殖民者之間建立了聯(lián)系,這種聯(lián)系提供了一種情感,將未來的加拿大團結起來。因此,一些美國人可以說他們從戰(zhàn)爭中獲得了一些好處,他們的北方鄰國也可以這樣說。在最好的情況下,這對美國來說是平局。
The first was to end impressment (although some argue this was an excuse to go to war, but let's put that aside for the sake of this argument). This obxtive was met, so the US 'won' on that front. (It should be noted, however, that impressment was ending anyway, but let's not deny the US a small victory here.)
The second was the eviction of the British from North America and the subsequent conquest of Canada. Anyone who doesn't think this was an obxtive of the war is ignoring history. Jefferson convinced Madison that invading Canada was the right move and that it would be easy. To say that they were wrong is an understatement. The Americans in Fort Detroit surrendered without a shot fired.
Sure, the US burned (and let's not forget looted and pillaged) York (present-day Toronto), but the British responded with the burning of governance buildings in Washington DC (note how the homes and residences in Washington were not torched, looted, or pillaged).
聽著,我們來分析一下。美國有兩個主要目標:
第一個是結束強制征兵(盡管有人認為這是發(fā)動戰(zhàn)爭的借口,但為了這個論點,我們暫且將其放在一邊)。這個目標實現(xiàn)了,所以美國在這方面“贏了”。(然而,應該指出的是,無論如何,這種強制征兵的舉動正在結束,但我們不要否認美國在這里取得了小小的勝利。)
第二個是將英國人從北美趕出去,然后征服加拿大。任何不認為這是戰(zhàn)爭目標的人都是在無視歷史。杰斐遜讓麥迪遜相信,入侵加拿大是正確的一步,而且很容易。說他們錯了是不充分的描述,底特律堡的美軍一槍未放就投降了。
當然,美國燒了(我們不要忘記搶劫和掠奪)約克(今天的多倫多),但英國人的回應是燒毀華盛頓特區(qū)的政府大樓(注意華盛頓的房屋和住宅沒有被燒毀、搶劫或掠奪)。
原創(chuàng)翻譯:龍騰網(wǎng) http://top-shui.cn 轉載請注明出處
As I have said in other posts about the War of 1812, the US really blew it. By being a hostile and pillaging (see: York) neighbour, they created a mindset north of the border that still largely persists today: a distrust of the American government. That distrust resulted in a united Canada years later.
Had the US been a peaceable and friendly neighbour, it's at least possible that some of western Canada might have joined the US. (see: British Columbia, which had to decide which country to join before deciding it was a better idea to join Canada in 1871.) At the very least, BC and Alberta - two rich provinces - might be American today by choice had the US acted less like a bad neighbour and bully.
Oh, and one last thing... the US backed Napoleon Bonaparte. The dictator and self-proclaimed emperor of France - you know, because freedom. Napoleon lost. The British would have been able to send over it's "A Team" to the war and then the US might have experienced an entirely different outcome. The US was fortunate to get a draw - their best at the time was being held off by Britain's numerically inferior "B-Team".
就入侵英國控制的“加拿大”而言,美國從戰(zhàn)爭中得到的唯一東西就是“星條旗”。腦子正常的人都不會說美國入侵加拿大是成功的。凈增地:0平方英寸。
正如我在其他關于1812年戰(zhàn)爭的帖子中所說,美國真的搞砸了。作為一個充滿敵意和掠奪的鄰居,他們在邊境以北創(chuàng)造了一種心態(tài),這種心態(tài)至今仍在很大程度上持續(xù)著:對美國政府的不信任。這種不信任導致加拿大在多年后實現(xiàn)統(tǒng)一。
如果美國是一個和平友好的鄰居,至少加拿大西部的一些地區(qū)可能會加入美國。(參見:不列顛哥倫比亞省,在1871年決定加入加拿大是一個更好的主意之前,它不得不決定加入哪個國家。)至少,如果美國表現(xiàn)得不那么像一個壞鄰居和惡霸,不列顛哥倫比亞省和阿爾伯塔省這兩個富裕省份今天可能會選擇屬于美國。
哦,還有最后一件事……美國支持拿破侖·波拿巴。法國的獨裁者和自封的皇帝——你知道,因為自由,拿破侖失敗了。英國本可以派遣他們的“精選部隊”參戰(zhàn),然后美國可能會經(jīng)歷一個完全不同的結果。美國隊很幸運地獲得了一場平局- 在那個時候,美國所能達到的最佳水平是被英國數(shù)量較少的“二流部隊”所阻擋。