>>17810549
In order,
>1
The American colonies were taxed without representation, and beyond that, were intentionally held back via the Navigation Acts with various other acts too from industrial or demographic development; the U.S Colonies were used as resource-gatherers for the imperial metropole (Britain) and weren't supposed to get as large as they did, thus creating the conflict. The Americans asked for a seat at the table and were rebuffed.
>2
No one has ever said that George III was Hitler, just that he was a bad king. And he objectively went a bit insane in his later life.
>3
The troops which had been placed in Boston were put there after the British Parliament revoked the Massachusetts's founding charter, basically the colonies constitution, put it under directly military martial law, and then denied the right to a jury of your peers, a very ancient right with a long history in British jurisprudence, via seizing anyone sympathetic to the Sons of Liberty and shipping them to London to undergo essentially military trials despite being civilians
>4
The taxes weren't the point of the agitation. The point was that colonial legislatures were being overturned by aggressive High Tory policies that wanted to deny any semblance of self-governance to the colonies; it was a war over whether the colonies would have autonomy, or in absence of that, power sharing in London; the Tories vehemently denied both thus leading to the war.
>5
It wasn't entirely justified to retain soldiers in the land you specifically ceded in the Treaty of Paris, however, and then continuously board American merchant ships to impress Americans into service in the Royal Navy, which is what the British did.
>6
It wasn't yellow journalism. There are many specific cases that can be pointed to where this happened, they were not just going after Royal Navy deserters; this is basically just the "claim" made up by British historians hundreds of years later to cope with the fact they