Called the Seven Years War by almost the entire world

it was taught to me as the American side of the war being called the French and Indian War while the part of the war fought in Europe was called the Seven Years War

I thought it was called Queen Anne's war

And the REAL kicker? The Seven Years' War resulted in Britain having huge war debts. They decided to pay these debts by raising taxes on the colonies, seeing as how the war had been fought partly for their benefit. The colonists got super butthurt at being taxed without their permission, however, and, well... you know the rest.

It wasn't really tax raising as it was cracking down on smuggling rings.

Why should we call it the Seven Years' War? It was fought for longer than seven years here.

Queen Anne's War was the War of Spanish Succession.

>blaming George Washington for Injuns scalping French
Shit, he told his men not to attack and the Injuns, who spoke no English, just romped through and tomahawked the shit out of the French who started shooting which led to a firefight.

>tomahawked

Opinion discarded.

Why? It's true.

Most Russians call WW2 "Great Patriotic War" since they mostly teach Russians only about the Eastern front. In the 90s there was even a poll that found a slight majority of Russians think WW2 began in 1941.

Well, cuz' the french and indians were the enemy.

It's really just that simple, I'm not all sorry that you're quite unable to grasp that.

The lands fought over in the old world were not at all a factor in our naming of that conflict.

>American War of Independence
>"Revolutionary War"
>American War of Seccesion
>"Civil War"

TRUE FAX

French-Canadians inflicted George Washington's only defeat

And when did it start according to you?

Washington had plenty of defeats.

I recently met two Russians who refused to believe that England joined the war in 39. These were smart, educated, well travelled people. Interesting stuff.

1939 is the most globally accepted year.

Yeah I met Russians who believe some completely outrageous things even though they weren't dumbasses. Russia has a weird series of national mythology, for example a large majority of them believe the US signed a treaty with the USSR about not expanding NATO eastwards, which is absolute horseshit.

So it just arbitrarily ignores the Asian theatre and one of the major powers that ended up getting a seat on the security council.

Every history book is guilty of nepotism.

t. komissar Kung Pao

Japan-China war didn't kick off a global conflict, Germany attacking Poland did

>1939 is the most globally accepted year.
> most
By what metric, sir? There's over a billion people in east Asia that would contest that year.

...

It's the start of a theatre that brought in every major power in the world. I reject your axiom that it needed to draw them in an immediate fashion.

Nonsense arbitrary line drawn in the sand.

No, it was completely irrelevant to the conflict in Europe.

Pacific theatre was irrelevant to europe?

Are you daft?

Not him, but I always thought 1931 to be the most accurate, given that's when Japan started up with their wars.

Yes it was. It became important to Europe only after Japan attacked Britain, which happened only after the European conflict started.

It was already extremely important to Europe, it was part of the reason that the Soviets signed the Molotov-Ribbentop pact, due to their fears of having to possibly confront Japan.

Which happened as a result of the fighting in china, which threatneed India and almost cut off Australia and new zealand.

It was in no way irrelevant to Europe and again, the idea that it had to all happen at once is nonsense.

250? I am pretty sure the war lasted 7 years.

Thats who we were fighting thats what we called it.
Get over it faggot

>Russians
>FEARING Japan

Haha oh wow

Those are French, not Canadian, and George Washington got rekt in almost every battle he was in. There's another where he surrendered and was taken prisoner by the French.

>a slight majority of Russians think WW2 began in 1941.
To be honest, most Americans think the same.

They'd gotten the piss kicked out them by the Japanese a mere two generations early, and there were Soviet-Japanese skirmishes throughout the middle 1930s, only ending in '39 after the Soviets signed a pact with the Nips after if became clear that they had Saurkraut to fry. What the fuck are you even talking about?

This

Ever heard of Khalkhin Gol?

By your autistic definition.

There's a consensus that it started in 1939, your tantrums over it change nothing

They brutalized the Japs at Khalkyn Gol when the zipperheads tried attacking Mongolia, how would some crap from 30 years prior be even relevant? Fucking Asians and their revisionism, holy shit.

>Khalkhin Gol
Yeah, which happened in 1939, just like when I said they signed the Pact with the Bear-fuckers and let the glorious Niponese go on to rape China some more. Look man, if you can't even bother to read my posts then just kindly fuck the hell off.

You mean War of Northern Aggression?

Americans cared more about the people or things involved in a war than how much time it took, because apparently euros love nothing more than naming wars after how long they were fought.

War of- LEE DID NOTHING WRONG!

Stalin feared fighting a two front war, he needed every troop possible to handle Germany. Hence fearing the Japanese attacking in the east

No you retard, your revisionist chronology doesn't make sense.
You said
> it was part of the reason that the Soviets signed the Molotov-Ribbentop pact, due to their fears of having to possibly confront Japan.
But they had already confronted the nips and beaten them back, protecting Mongolia. Even after Germany turned on Russia the nips never attempted to try again because they had already been pushed.

Not to mention the reason they signed the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was because they wanted eastern Poland, and it turns out you're just a sad, sad gook trying to change history

I didn't think it was physically possible for people dumber than ABCD retards to actually exist around here, but look at how my faith has failed me now.

You just have a selective hearing problem where hyphens and the word "old" don't register?

It's referred to as the French and Indian war because that's what it was to us. It was almost a seperate war in the us between native born colonist and French and Indian soldiers. It's completely justifiable. Besides, most serious history buffs call it the seven years war when referencing the combat in Europe. Stop being such a pedant.

Tldr: almost a seperate war, therefore seperate names

It was both

The seven years war was 7 fucking years .

It was actually 9 years long

Yurotrash cant even count

user, listen, this isn't complicated.

The duration of the war and how long ago the war was are two different numbers. For crying out fucking loud.

He meant it was 250 years ago you retarded high school faggot

I'm american

They said they wouldn't, but never signed anything.

>tfw

Canadians then.

No, Americans are taught that WW2 began with the Poland invasion. Meanwhile the USSR specifically taught that the war started only in '41 in order to paint themselves as victims while completely ignoring the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, carving up Poland and invading Finland. There were many older Russians born after the war who genuinely had no clue the Soviets invaded Finland until Gorbachev and Yeltsin, because it wasn't taught in schools.

These are the same people who think they won the War of 1812 despite having their capital burned, because they won a battle (in which they were helped by criminals) that happened after peace had been made

The American theater of the second hundred year war uses different names for its part of the action

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Hundred_Years'_War

>be british
>vastly outnumber a small force of pirates, smugglers, slaves, and militia
>get defeated

In California I was always taught it was the War of Northern Aggression.

Americans can't count to seven.

They were disconnected from the real world back then because all european powers were too busy fighting real wars in Europe to bother sending a real army to that backwater shithole called the English colonies in order to connect them to reality via a major btfo and plundering of their towns.

So a couple thousand colonists and brits fought a much smaller french force and thought of it as a big war unrelated to the european theater and felt like labeling differently.

Had the Prussians been finished off swiftly and thus the French had a free hand to deploy an actual army in Virginia, surely the colonists would have seen the relation.

The situation is similar to the relationship of the Chinese Civil War with WWII.

Apparently the "French-Indian War" is a name for the part of the war fought in the New World, kind of like how the "War in the Pacific" was part of the greater World War II."

Literally all I heard of it in school was that it cost the British a lot of money, and was one of the reasons for the increased taxation on colonies that ultimately led to independence. There was no further discussion of it besides "it's called the French and Indian war because it involved the French and Indians", and no mention was made of the seven years war.

>American education

God damn. Why have brits historically been so bad at war?

We started it. We get to name it.

Based George Washington.

Further evidence that idealistic young people are fucking dangerous and bear watching

And here in Quebec schools we learn it as "the war of conquest" because it's when we passed under english rule.

It was all part of his master plan

A little late to the thread but I read somewhere that the British typically named their conflicts after the king they were fighting for, and since King George's War had already happened they switched over to their primary aggressors, i.e. the French and indians. I have no idea why they switched over the Seven Years War (besides the obvious I guess).

OUBLIONS JAMIAS LES PLAINES D'ABRAHAM.

I have been to several places in Germany.

Twice I heard it called the War of the Petticoats, because Louis XV mistress, Empress Maria Theresa, and Czarina Elizabeth were all on the same side, so Frederick thought it was a meme that 3 whores were attacking him.

>I recently met two Russians who refused to believe that England joined the war in 39.

Well, seeing as how they didn't do jack shit until 1940, when the Germans kicked their ass...

> Yeah I met Russians who believe some completely outrageous things even though they weren't dumbasses.

Buddy dated a chick from Mariupol Ukraine who honestly believes Poland was plotting to invade and turn them all into mud farming peasants…

>Where the fuck do you people get off?
Wherever the fuck I want. You're saying I should adopt a convention just because the rest of the world does? You're a fucking boot-licking pansy.

They aren't. They've had a lot of fuck up a but that's because they've had more opportunities to fuck up. England has fought more wars than any other nation and has won more wars than any other nation so they aren't bad at war you're just being retarded on purpose

>War of Northern Agression
>Southern Rebels fired at Fort Sumpter first

Sorry you lost the war, senpai. Get over it.

Wtf? I put Senpai, not senpai.

Fuck this shit.