ITT: Post people who started a world war

OP isnt talking about independence wsr my dear little brainlet. George Washington literally started the Seven Years War

no sane american thinks of autism island as their homeland.
america is our homeland, Europe can go fuck itself.

He was born in Britain, there was no country called "America" when he was born.

That's not what this thread is about. This thread is about the global war he started with France during the prequel. He was the good guy in this one.

To say he was born in Britain is misleading at best. Just say he was born a British subject.

He was born in Virginia which was and is part of the American nation. America and England are two different tribes and always have been

Most accurately said would be an overseas british province

kek

How so?

>Washington's military experience began in the French and Indian War with a commission as a major in the militia of the British Province of Virginia. In 1753 Washington was sent as an ambassador from the British crown to the French officials and Indians as far north as present-day Erie, Pennsylvania. The following year he led another expedition to the area to assist in the construction of a fort at present-day Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Before reaching that point, he and some of his men, accompanied by Indian allies, ambushed a French scouting party. Its leader was killed, although the exact circumstances of his death were disputed. This peacetime act of aggression is seen as one of the first military steps leading to the global Seven Years' War. The French responded by attacking fortifications Washington erected following the ambush, forcing his surrender. Released on parole, Washington and his troops returned to Virginia
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington_in_the_French_and_Indian_War

>calling autism island your home even though you were born on a different continent with leaders thousands of miles away
are the brits really this delusional?

fr*gs shouldn't've been stealing our land

if its any consolation, they sold the rest of it off to us.

Well, other colonial powers like Portugal literally said the colonies were just an extension of the country itself, so it isn't as strange as it looks.
Still looks pretty retard to call the Thirteen colonies britain.

>mfw faggy George surrendered to surrender monkeys

>He was born in Britain
a transient moniker, unstable and never really meaning much, not even in its several containment island constituents of today, subject to calve off at any moment

iirc he surrendered to the natives more than anything

>Washington starts a massive war
>The British crown has to raise taxes in the aftermath of said war because of the huge expenditures it caused
>Washington mounts a revolution against said taxes

This guys was such an asshole

Nah, the natives were French led
He'd never have surrendered to uncivilized natives alone, as this could very well mean death

Europeans at least respected each others and the "rules" of war

If he was born in Britain then why did he get taxation without representation?

Even worse
>gets into huge debt to london merchants because hes enthralled with english culture and fashions, along with most virginians
>virginians are “coincidentally” the most vociferous opponents of the british and become the leaders of the movement

when you're hopelessly fugged nothing more sensible

Taxation without representation is the most infuriating argument ever. None of the other colonies had that, and neither did most of Britain itself. The right to vote was explicitly and entirely left in the hands of the aristocracy. Changes weren't made until the 1832 Great Reform Act, and that still left a lot to be desired. The rest of Europe, if not the globe, was no different to this. The American colonists basically threw their toys out of the pram as they had their taxes raised to pay for a war they started, and had the arrogance to believe they were being shat all over, when the same had occured to the British people as well.

None of them would have had that if not for the American Revolution. It had the same effect as the Italian Social Wars. It isn't the Americans fault the British couldn't actually achieve a victory. These things happen every once in a while in history, act like you've done this before.

>Taxation without representation is the most infuriating argument ever.
The American elites wanted to be part of the British oligarchical government, wherein they sent representatives to Parliament representing a territorial entity. At the very least, all of Great Britain was covered by electoral districts and no matter what their voting arrangements each burrough could send somebody to parliament. Popular sovereignty at this time was not taken literally but more symbolically. And for all its hypocrisy in it MPs genuinely thought they spoke for the people of their district, even the ones that didn't or couldn't vote for them. No more hypocritical than a delegate of any sort today. (cont.)

>The right to vote was explicitly and entirely left in the hands of the aristocracy.
1/10 knowledge of british history, and I say this as an American. "Aristocracy" = a title of nobility given by the crown. This was a tiny, tiny amount of people, maybe several hundred families in all of Great Britain, Ireland and noble settlers in the US. To say the vote was excluded to these families is absolutely false. Voting was restricted usually by amount of land and taxes you paid, it had nothing to do with being a noble.

>Changes weren't made until the 1832 Great Reform Act, and that still left a lot to be desired.
This is false, but a common misconception. Great Reform act REDUCED the amount of poeple who could vote, or at best kept the number approximately the same. Depends on who you ask. Contrary to what most people are told, there was a huge variation in voting practices among burroughs, with "rotten boroughs" being the worst offenders on the one hand, and some districts having remarkably high franchises, with something like 30-50% of its male inhabitants eligible for voting. The only thing that the Great Reform act did was create a more "rationalize" electoral district, but even so after it passed only like 5 to 6% of the whole population could vote.

Played us like a damn fiddle

>The British crown has to raise taxes in the aftermath of said war because of the huge expenditures it caused
That would have been fine had we been treated like British citizens, with a provincial Governor of our choosing. But we weren't, and those taxes, especially the Stamp Tax, were deliberately designed to suppress colonial development. The crown could have played nice and retained the land of milk and honey that is the american landscape. But nah, we got sick of your shit. Eat a dick.

>Why did George Washington betray his motherland?
because the motherland betrayed their own standards of law. The British started the war when they tried to seize the arms of the Massachusetts militia. But OP is talking about the Seven Years war. It started because of something washington, then in the british miitary, did

Going back all the way to the 1600s, The British overlords would try to make the colonies their bitches and it always ended up with them telling the Brits to fuck off. Just like the Dominion of New England

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1689_Boston_revolt

...