First Invasion: The War of 1812

This "documentary" is closer to propaganda. It paints a picture of patriotism and American success. I'm retired from the military (USAF 20 yrs) and extremely patriotic, but that doesn't mean I'm in favor of rewriting history. The war of 1812 was a lesson on how NOT to fight a war. We had severe internal strife between the Federalists and the Republicans (no, not those Republicans), we had poorly trained officers some of which were more in favor of seeing the British win rather than the Republicans under Maddison and we had very few "regulars" with which to fight. We lost far more battles than we won, were terrified of the Indians supporting the Brits, and our logistics were a disgrace. Soldiers didn't have food, weren't paid for months, and resorted to destroying and pillaging local farms and orchards to feed themselves. Which didn't exactly endear them to the locals on either side of the border. We didn't have a clear goal to achieve, and goals we did have were poorly communicated to the generals fighting the war. We were lucky that the Brits were so consumed and focused on France and Napoleon for most of the war. Had the Brits not been worriedaboutwar with France or actuallyfightingthe French and focused all their attentionon us we'd be speaking English today...but with a funny accent. By the time we entered into peace talks in Gent we had less bargaining power than we did at the beginning of the war. If it hadn't been for issues going on at the Congress of Vienna and another potential war with France (ultimately the 100 days war under Napoleon again) we would have lost our shirt. Yes we won a big battle in New Orleans but that actually occurred after the peace treaty had been agreed to...although not yet ratified. That final battle led by Andrew Jackson left a far more positive spin on the war than I think it deserved. In most respects, it was a monumental failure.

This "documentary" is so ridiculous it's laughable.

I don't need to go over what other people obviously already did but I just have to say I agree with them 100% I literally thought at one point while watching this documentary early on (I tuned it after it already started) that I was watching some kind of a comedy sketch.

The U.S. was acting in self defense when it invaded another country? On top of that, they were outnumbered and out-muscled by a small British expeditionary force and Canadian volunteer farmers with no military experience? And then on top of THAT, they won the war? (It's true that after Britain wrapped up their major war in Europe they sent battle-hardened troops to North America to fight this war, but that was already well after war broke out with the U.S. invading Canada - not to defend themselves but to try to take it over.) How do you have your capitol burnt, some of your territory occupied, so many of your troops captured, your country blockaded and only one major victory - occurring AFTER the war was over - and consider yourself the winner? It makes no sense at all. I guess you have to be American to understand it.

I cannot understand why the current rating for this is so mediocre. Perhaps it's because the war itself wasn't much of a war--but this is all the more reason to love and appreciate this long and extremely rich documentary. That's because VERY FEW films have ever talked about this war--so few that I would venture to say that a huge percentage of Americans know absolutely nothing about it.

Using the usual great narration, photos, recreations and music, the film spins a fine tale. It also re-frames the story as not just a war between an upstart America and a world-class super-power (Britain), but goes so far as to say it was like a second war for independence. I loved this film from start to finish but particularly admired how one long gunman (whose identity is cloaked with the ages) who actually turned the tide after the horrible loss of Washinton, DC to the Brits. Well worth seeing--and well worth seeing again.

I enjoyed this docudrama. I am now 80 and went to universities for my degrees back in the 1940/50 era. At that time we had more class coverage in history of the early days of the US. I do remember the War of 1812 being covered, but not as much as given in this presentation. Now as I read the comments of the Canadian, it is apparent that his emotions are getting the best of his judgment and feelings for understanding the realities. Of note is the attrition of the forces in the line charging and slaughter of the front rows as they advance. Modern armies would never do that sort of charging, at least not since the British tried charging the German lines that way, almost, in the Great War (known today as World War I). Historical events are now past, emotions for the most part are healed. Taking sides to belittle any part in the events past is ridiculous and will never change what happened.

I agree with you on a couple of the points you had made, and am very disappointed that the History Channel would make something of such a poor-quality. However I do think that you are a little over-zealous in your patriotic nitpicking of this movie. You may not have meant to do that, but to a uneducated on the subject reader you may come across as a zany Canadien (which isn't all bad). The video states that America is the underdog. You disagree and we must agree to disagree. The War is divided into two sections commonly; the first phase, in which Britain sent a few blockades now and gain but nothing special, and the second phase after the war with he French in which they concentrated all attention on America. Now remember at the time Britain's Navy was the greatest in the world, had the arguably best Army as well. (After defeating one of the greatest military minds of his time in Napolean I agree) Now, because Britain is overseas from the United States, there must have been naval battles out there. Now take in mind that America's Navy at the time consisted of 15 rickety old ships already not in the best of shape after a brief war with Tripoli (spelling?) was all that was mustered, and that the U.S. army was cut by Thomas Jefferson, while the Embargo Act was drastically cutting funds, and Britain had allies in and Native American tribes, so almost it was like 1 on 2 how can you even consider the U.S. to not be underdogs. The country we were attacking was, Canada yes, but it wasn't the only country attacking, and also the British could, and did, reinforce after the war with the French. (Napoleonic Wars) Now your notion that the History Channel claims that America won the war is true, it does, and not at all subtly. But most historians do not agree on the victor. For one, the purposes of the war were expansion into Canada, which failed, so chalk one up for the British. But also it was because of the impressment of American soldiers into British service (By the way, your point on the fact that the British merely requested soldiers be returned to them is somewhat ridiculous, why would British soldiers fight in American armies for one?) Which ceased after the war, chalk one up for America. Also the war was a result of Britain attacking U.S. merchant, which stopped. Chalk one up for America. In my opinion though your best point by far was the one about the Canadians fighting off American forces, and because of this Briain won the War. Props for that. Chalk one up for Britain. So as you see it is undecided. Overall good movie. Also in response to that last paragraph of yours, I do not think that young viewers will think of America being invincible because of the current war in which 1-4 men can destroy cities. (Super-Terrorism is a horrible thing) But also this movie can't be that horrible as you say (in my opinion it was tasteful yet lacking in some areas, mainly informational areas), because it was nominated for a Emmy.