[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k] [s4s] [vip] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/his/ - History & Humanities



Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.



File: BetsyRossFlag.gif (107 KB, 600x365)
107 KB
107 KB GIF
Let's be honest here, would they've won without France?
>>
>>2691486
nah I don't think we would have
>>
I don't know what role france played because I was never taught it in school
>>
>>2691486
Hard to say. Britain is ultimately a pragmatic sort of imperialist, and it was costing a hell of a lot more than the colonies were getting them to keep tens of thousands of troops there more or less indefinitely.

On the other hand, colonial resistance probably wouldn't have been indefinate, and certainly wouldn't have had the sort of open, direct confrontational and successful methods that the American revolution historically had. A lot of it comes down to things like commitment of individual polities, and even-sub polities, and that's hard to measure. There's also the very real possibility of both sides blinking, and some sort of deal wherein the Americans have some but not total self-rule.
>>
>>2691486
No
Speaking as an american, the only reason we won was because of french guns, french ships, french men, and some spanish gold thrown in there for good measure
>>
File: 1492426499913.jpg (101 KB, 999x678)
101 KB
101 KB JPG
>>2691486
>without france
Without France support or with peace between France and UK?
>>
>>2691502
I think it was more ammo than the guns itself. I remember reading something along the lines that 90% of the gunpowder used was brought by the french.
>>
File: images.jpg (14 KB, 275x183)
14 KB
14 KB JPG
I'd say no as a USA man myself. We remember and are grateful to our frog brethren for their assistance.


USA basically saved Europe twice so I'd say we are even.

Confidence that French are called frogs? I think not.

Praise be Kek.
>>
>>2691486
French naval power, including their blockade at the last battle, is what helped us secure our freedom.

Thank you eternal baguette and also Benjamin franklin for banging so many French women he singlehandedly turned French aristocratic opinion in our favor.
>>
>>2691739
Well in the second war the most we uns in europe was have some merchents supply guns and funds qhile the government fucked up the japanese hard enough that they stayed out of the soviets way
>>
Absolutely not.

We Americans like to tease them about being surrender monkeys but in reality they're like a sister to us
>>
>>2691499
Get a load of this retard.
>>
>>2691486
Yes, the war was won because the British leadership in America were a bunch of Whigs were were either sympathetic to the Americans/not enthusiastic about fighting them.
>>
>>2691486
No, French aid is vital and we recognize that to this day
>>
>>2691486
No. French supplies kept the continental army alive, and Britain may have been less keen on leaving without the prospect of the revolution turning into a general world war.
t. American
>>
>>2692139
It wants so much how many French slits he banged but who. He was fucking only the most important rotten toothed powdered hair/faced frogs and that's what counted in the overall scheme of things.

>quality over quantity
>>
File: 1492656198582.png (397 KB, 700x712)
397 KB
397 KB PNG
>>2691486
>based USA
>needing French help
The British couldn't even keep Africa, how could they keep America?
>>
>>2691486
independence? absolutely not. probably a negotiated peace that granted more autonomy but not independence.
>>
>>2691506
yeah powder was a real issue for the American army, they ran out in early battles.
>>
Honestly though, why wouldn't France support revolution in British colonies after the Seven Years War?
>>
>>2692480
If they listened to Turgot, the finance minister, when he pointed out that the kingdom could not afford to do it financially or socially. (And he was probably one of the most radical liberals in the administration at the time)
>>
>>2692318
Ben also gave good advice
Like why older women are better than younger women
>>
>>2691486
I believe so. Unless the British made even more blunders than they did historically.
That said no matter what you believe there is no denying the fact that France contributed greatly.
>>
>>2691486
On a military level the US would have been smashed without French support, but its not certain the Brits could have resecured the continent even then. British army was small and the 13 colonies were un occupiably lrge
>>
>>2691486
No.
They were losing in almost every pitched engagement without the help of French regulars (even failed an invasion of Canada in 1775).
Yorktown would've been impossible without the naval help of the Comte de Grasse in breaking the British blockade, letting them land 10,000 extra soldiers.
However, it is unlikely that even with a military loss the Patriots would've been brought to heel. The same war would've erupted later until independence was granted. Relations had deterioriated and the seed of nationalism had already taken root.
>>
>>2692172
This is true, however there was an election less than half a year after the Treaty of Paris that ushered in a strong Pittite majority. Pitt had Whiggish sympathies but he may have changed his tune had there been no war with the French and no Lord North to answer to.
>>
>>2691486
Yes, and the idea that Americans only won against Britain because of the frogs is communist European propaganda to make the Communist Revolution in Russia seem comparatively more successful. The revolution was only gaining traction over time, not losing it, and despite being somewhat under-equipped, the Americans would have eventually been able to defeat the British as Britain wouldn't have been able to continuously pour money into silencing civil unrest an ocean away. This isn't even to mention that the American leadership was significantly more competent against the Bongs.
>>
>>2693267

Yeah, but support for the revolution was not as widespread as school textbooks would have you believe. If the uprising failed it is conceivable that most colonists would be like, "Well, I suppose paying for our defence isn't exactly unreasonable."
>>
>>2692480
Fuck the anglo.
t.Louis XIV
>>
>>2691739
america did not save a shit in WWI, you only beat the shit out of a damaged country, leaving it grow in hate to become the real danger in WWII, also, the brits and soviets did all the fucking work.




Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.