|
0
Nerd-Its
|
|
blog (coffee shop)
by Our ancestors fought to free us from the domination of Great Britain. They were very brave to take on a superpower like that, and they succeeded, achieving our constitution and bringing democracy and freedom to the world.
But did we, meaning Americans, really win that war? Some say General Washington was holed up in up-state New York with his army deserting, waiting for the British to come and wipe him out when the weather warmed up.
Did the French Navy succeed in breaking a British blockade and getting into the Chesapeake carrying a French army? Did this army then lay siege to Yorktown and without much help from our Continental army force the British to surrender? Did the British government then give up the war because it could not afford the cost of another war with France? Do we owe our independence to France, and if so, what are the implications?
What would America look like now if we had lost?
Add a Comment (26)
Email This
Message Author
What about Spain and the Netherlands? They all jumped on the screw Britan band wagon after the battle of Saratoga. Don't make the French out to be something they are not. They were more interested in punishing the British than helping us. If they would not have helped.... we would have eventually broken away... and things would be much like they are now; However, If we would not have entered a couple of minor scuffles called WWI and WWII... The French would be speaking German right now. So.... who owes whom?
It was not a war of attrition like Vietnam because the outcome was decided in one battle. Sure, Spain and the Netherlands were there in small numbers, but like us, they had no impact in the decisive battle.
I suspect that the French would be speaking Russian now: not German. We might be also.
My point is that all that freedom fries nonsense was historically inaccurate as well as damn stupid.
I bet W now wishes he had listened to The French before committing us to Iraq.
I bet W now wishes he had listened to The French before committing us to Iraq.
The objections of France had less to do with an interest in peace and more to do with flat out bribery a la the Oil for Food Scandal.
The French know the Arabs much better than we do because they have a long history of being in north Africa and attempting without much success to rule them in places like Algeria, Morocco, and Lebanon. So their judgement of Iraq was bound to be better than ours. The oil for food thing was about corruption and IMHO quite irrelevant.
The oil for food thing was about corruption and IMHO quite irrelevant.
It was quite relevant because the majority of the UN's naysayers were all implicated guilty with involvement.
The French know the Arabs much better than we do because they have a long history of being in north Africa and attempting without much success to rule them ...
Therein lies the rub ... the European colonies failed because Europeans tried to rule them. YES, they had more direct experience with the culture. But I do not believe that was associated with their disagreement on the matter. Moreover, the experience was different because the Americans tried something else - to let them rule themselves.
Thus, history has shown us that they cannot be ruled from afar (thank you France & England). History has shown us they cannot rule themselves (thank you America). History has shown us they can only be ruled by oppression (thank you Taliban, thank you Saddam, thank you ....)
So was the right answer that they should have been put under martial law and forced into a system? Perhaps. It might have worked. But it would have failed miserably on the PR side of the house. On the flip, we've already failed miserably on the PR side of the house so that point is already moot.
Yes. I agree with all that, except I don't see how their guilt in the oil for food scandal negates their judgement about the wisdom of charging in to oust Saddam, or the presence of WMDs.
Letting them rule themselves may not have worked for Iraq, but it sure would have been better for the USA. Shouldn't that be the priority of our President?
Iran and Iraq and all the lands that made up the old Arabia have a history of rule by powerful dictators, often deposed by bloody rebellions and replaced by similar dictators. Religion and politics inseperable. That is a cultural thing, and in my view is best addressed by gradually, through TV, consumerism, and tourism, convincing them that there are better ways of living.
This is stupid. Whatever the French did was in their interest. They didn't help us to be good guys.
Americans defeated the Brits because just like in Iraq and Vietnam, a big superpower can't win on foreign soil if it can't convince every single person to give up.
If you want to talk about who really won what war, look at our ethnocentricity regarding WWII, where for every German killed by the Allies, eight were killed by our "allies" the Soviets (who were, again, acting in their own interest).
The US definitely made the difference for Western Europe, not to mention Japan, but Nazi Germany would have had much more success without Stalin throwing Russkie men at his eastern border.
What would America look like now if we had lost?
A much better question is what would America look like if the North had lost or not fought the Civil War?
The questions make no assumptions about the motives of the French. Who knows what they were? Thomas Jefferson probably; he had been in Paris for years begging them to come and help. They certainly didn't get much out of it other than the satisfaction of beating the British for once.
The fact remains that Washingtons' forces really were in terrible shape and would most likely have lost - not because they were inferior soldiers but because they were on short service enlistments and had better things to be doing back on the farm. The unpalatable fact is that the French won the final decisive battle of our revolutionary war. Not us. Yorktown was a convernional European-style fortress seige battle - It was an artillery affair with a naval blockade preventing a rescue and leading to a professional surrender before the soldiers could get at each other - nothing to do with American irregulars or their superior ability in fighting a revolutionary war in the forests of North America. That is folklore, and it is time we grew up and understood the adult version.
Our motives for helping the French in the 20th century are much more suspect. If we had cared about the French in World War II we would have gone in with the British to help save it from invasion in 1940 - as we did in the last month of WWI. When we eventually went in 1944 it was to use France as a convenient battleground, not to save it from the Germans.
We can't stand the idea of owing our liberty to the French, but it is much more the case than them owing us for theirs.
I agree about the Russians having more impact in defeating Germany than the USA. Another unpleasant truth. However, a full assessment would show that The economy of the USA would have been decisive if the war had gone on much longer.
In the 1930s communism appeared to most thinking people to be the only force capable and willing to defeat facism. Many decent Americans took this view, and were later persecuted by McCarthy. They were right. We were unwilling to start on the facists until Pearl Harbour.
Your quote:"They didn't help us to be good guy"[the french]
Of course no! But Americans went to save France during WW2 because they were good guys. Bravo! You are so innocent...
Was France saved? It was invaded, occupied, oppressed, divided, and eventually became a battleground. The war could not have been much worse for France. Eventually the Germans were pushed out by the allies including the USA, but that was largely because of the pressure of the Russian front and the collapse of the German economy.
What still amazes me is that France came out of it all as a major UN power after fighting the allies in Syria and Morocco.
What still amazes me is that France came out of it all as a major UN power after fighting the allies in Syria and Morocco.
Really? This is something I didn't know ... are there any particular links or names to google to read more about it?
On top of which are the allegations of collaboration with the Nazis during the war. Having to surrender is bad, but actively taking part or even condoning the government actively taking part in collaborating with the Nazis is worse by far.
I reckon you would have to live under Nazi oppression to be able to speak with authority about collaboration.
A large part of France joined the facists and were permitted to control half of France. I would not call that collaboration. I would simply regard Vichy France as one of the Axis powers. They were an enemy nation. The Brits fought a major campaign against them in Syria before we joined the war.
Well, I assumed that the French made up a large part of Vichy France and also France after the war. So saying they were not collaborators but all-out allies with the Axis powers amounts to the same thing in my book. Either way the country went from enemy to friend. Not to say the efforts of the Free French Resistance weren't genuine, but I am talking about recognized (by many of the allies, mind you) government entity for the country as a whole.
I think we are essentially in agreement there.
It has been assumed by many that I am a Frog lover because I truly believe that they won the American War of Independence. Not so, I just think that is a fascinating aspect of history because the heroic Continental army and the militiaman tradition are given so much credit for it in our folk lore. It says a lot about the way American History is taught in our schools.
I have spent a lot of time in Paris and Lyon, and I do admire many things about the French character, culture and their beautiful country. Their pride and determination to preserve their culture is often misinterpreted as arrogance, but they do have a lot to be proud of.
However, I also believe that too many of them were on the wrong side in WWII for them to deserve a permanent place on the Security Council of the UN.
Try http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council
France became a permanent member of the security Council of the New United Nations along with the real winners USA, UK, Russia.
There are many questions to answer on this topic, I will try to be concise. First of Britain at the time was a country will a Madman on the throne, who still had a lot of constitutional clout. Therefore we were not a true democracy. That aside, we were at war or being threatened with war by a number of European states namely France and Spain. Plus trying to hold onto a number of foreign interests in other countries. Oh plus the Jacobites and Irish were also playing up at this point. The British were spread incredibly thin on the ground.
Also the British army at the time had not adopted or learnt modern warfare tactics and still preferred to walk up to the enemy and fire. However as successfully used against them time and again the Americans and Boars in South Africa used strong firepoints concealed ambush and guerilla tactics to enourmous success. The main officer core of the Redcoats had also bought commisions and not risen up via experience and intelligence therefore they had no notion of how to fight a concerted campaign in the US. Now that is not to say we did not have any officers of merit, we did and this would prove our saving grace in France against Napoleon. But we still did not improve on our tactics.
So could the war have been prevented...? Well I think so by rights the US should of had their own parliament to dictate laws and set taxes. Money gained from commerce should have by rights helped to increase the new nation, building schools, roads etc. However self interest won out and money was funneled to the UK coffers.
Australia is a prime example they set their own laws and are by rights still subject the british crown albiet in name only.
I feel that the lessons learnt from the War of Independance have not been taken on board. Iraq is all about Oil the US and Europe are pulling the resources out of these countries just the same as the Uk did to the US.
Maybe if we all pulled together and sorted out the Isreali and Palastine conflict we would not have the hell that our boys are in at the moment.
Anyhow I digress I believe that the winners were the British, why because we got Australia and that is by far the better prize. Mind you I am biased I live there.....!!!
Iraq is all about Oil the US and Europe are pulling the resources out of these countries
Absolutely true, as I was able to fill my car up with 25 cents a gallon gasoline, what with all the oil that wasn't already on the market thanks to the Oil-for-food-or-money-for-Saddam-and-the-UN that we're siphoning out of the country. Iraq isn't at all about trying to build a stable Arabic democracy in the heart of the Middle East where none exist. Nope, just oil, that we are currently awash in. We have so much Iraqi oil that we water our plants with crude! We swim in it like Scrooge McDuck.
I am always amazed how ideology blinds even the smartest people.
Simply amazing. A post that long and your only response is to an off the cuff comment about Iraq-Oil. At least deign to answer or comment the other parts as well. Sure that comment was way out of place, but those kinds of comments should be ignored not used as a spring board to change the discussion.
Simply amazing. A post that long and your only response is to an off the cuff comment about Iraq-Oil. At least deign to answer or comment the other parts as well. Sure that comment was way out of place, but those kinds of comments should be ignored not used as a spring board to change the discussion.
Been to this site often? Fine, let me reply to the rest of the post: a sound, insightful historical analysis. Boring, huh?
It is not ideology that is blinding me. Rather, it is smoke from the White House. The smoke is clearing now and more of us can see through it.
Bringing a stable democracy to the middle east is merely the smokescreen. It makes our troops and their parents feel better about giving their lives to secure the oil assets and infrastructure.
Dilly has swallowed the whole turkey. He had to. He was there as a soldier.
Cheney is not about getting cheap oil for American motorists. He is about making money for the shareholders of Halliburton and his Oil buddies. That requires different tactics. First, secure the infrastructure and get it under American control. Second, control the government. Third control the market. Keep them using US$ to buy oil.
This thread is about American comprehension of the role of France in its history. Denial!
The french played no part in the Independence in the end Britain only retreated and gave up because if you actualy look at the wars Britain was involved in at the time, They were in no more that 11 wars. Now if that was today that would cripple any army!! So count yourselfs lucky you have a great country but a pathetic outlook at the rest of the world.
Not true at all.
The American War of Independence was decided at the siege of Yorktown. Up until then Britain was more or less in control and would eventually have cornered the fragmented Continental army and wiped it out.
Yorktown was a very European style of battle. No brave militia or heroic frontiersmen. No hiding in the forests or walking up in lines. It was a text-book professional fortress siege supported by a naval blockade to isolate the besieged from external support. Then it was artillery that forced the surrender. The artillery and naval blockade were all French, and a Frenchman made all the decisions.
You are quite correct about all the other pressures on the British army. For that reason the PM Lord North and Parliament thought it wiser to abandon the 13 colonies to the French. No doubt the Brits thought that the French would be a much worse colonial master, so the rebels would be punished in the long run.
However, France gave the USA its freedom.
Suck it up. Its true.
I think that not enough people appreashiate how much the British had in WW1 and WW2, they were right in there every single time fighting againest supreshion and dictatorship, dying to defend freedom, a right that they invented and spread across the world. they took the full force of the nazi's, and they stood tall againest it. And after the war, no-one rebiuld there economie, yet they got back on there feet and continued to burn through the ages as one of the true superpowers of the world.
as for the american war of indipendence, i don't think anyone can blaim them for defending there land, hte general idea of democracy was already invented years befor hand, and the war only really came around because the Americans realised that it would make more economic sence to become indipendent from Britain. The French didn't have any vested interest in freeing the american collonies from British rule, only for getting back at the British after they defeated them countless times in the wars that had been going on between them for hundreds of years.
I agree that the British effort in both world wars is not appreciated by most Americans. They are a very courageous people who fought alone with their backs to the wall (before we arrived after being kicked by Japan) and they never gave up. Their contribution was more critical and timely than that of America, even if it was not as lavish. This includes the former British colonies and Dominions - Canada, Australia, New Zealand, India and South Africa.
The point here about the real winner of the American War of Independence is to show that the 13 American rebel colonies did not win that war independently. In fact they would have lost it without the magnificently successful intervention from the French - which we had been begging them to do for years. After that, the French could have made those states its colonies - BUT FRANCE DECIDED TO GIVE THE NEW USA ITS INDEPENDENCE.
There is a growing view in this country that the French are cowardly "cheese eating surrender monkeys" This is total bullshit, reflecting American ignorance not only of France but also of its own origins.
RSS
The French by Anonymous :: NR0 :: on 08 May 2007
Owe us! The topo would be the same and culture would resemble England. Point is, they didn't win. Re-write the history anyway you want, Wasington is dead. What Hudson river?