[Zyx]

“French loans had kept the new nation solvent and French military support was so extensive that at the decisive Battle of Yorktown there actually were more French soldiers than Americans fighting against the British”

This was in my American Foreign Policy text, and it doesn't seem so much discussed.

What does this mean for America?

Were this more public what would it mean for American culture and American self-perception?

What is often cited as reasoning for America's success against the British and, later, the Germans, and how does this effect that perception?



What I have heard was a justification of gun rights because otherwise the British would have won, but I think that detracts from the truth of the American Revolutionary War.

Thoughts?

[Thunderhawk]

Evidence abounds about the minimal impact (aisde from trucks) of Lend-Lease for the Soviets, and that the majority of the fighting in Europe was done by the Soviets. Yet, to this day, most Americans think they carred the war in Europe and that they defeated the Nazis.


Read up on WW1, and you see the deteriation of the German army, their morale, the German empire, etc.. See the outcome with no definitive and obvious victory, no Allied troops occupying the enemy nations. Americans contributed lives and material when the war for Germany was already lost yet far from over. Yet still Americans think their entrence was instrumental in winning the war against the Hun.


French help during the revolution is well documented. Some is a bit obscure (French Engineering help), but financial and military assistance is well known, half of DC is named after French citizens. Americans simply have no interest in acknowledging a situation where they are not "the" pivotal players. (Sparta & Alexander, anyone?)

[oppose]

What the hell are you doing? Watch your language and attitude. I am not going have this stuff in my forum section follow the rules.-TAL

[Attila The Nun]

Read up on WW1, and you see the deteriation of the German army, their morale, the German empire, etc.. See the outcome with no definitive and obvious victory, no Allied troops occupying the enemy nations. Americans contributed lives and material when the war for Germany was already lost yet far from over. Yet still Americans think their entrence was instrumental in winning the war against the Hun.

That's not necessarily the whole picture. It's also important to note the deterioration of the British and French armies as well, and a casualties were starting to dwindle both side's manpower, as well as deeply injure their morale, especially the French's, and German troops coming from the Eastern front the war could have been decisive. What the Americans did was supply the Allied armies, give them a morale boost that they would now have millions more troops fighting, as well as to literally give the Allies more troops to fight with. It also was a huge hit to the Germans with the realization that every month now new troops would be coming in for the Allies while the Germans could not do the same. US intervention in the Spring Offensive was extremely helpful for the Allies, and might have been the decisive force in the Allied victory at the Marne. The US also contributed much to the Hundred Days Offensive. Even if the US did not necessarily help decisively, then certainly their intervention eroded Germany's will to continue and the treaty of Versailles could have ended up being much more lenient to Germany than it was.

[Thunderhawk]

@ Attila The Nun

Americans contributed lives and material when the war for Germany was already lost yet far from over.

I was trying to keep it short. Americans helped, but by the time they entered the war, for Germany the war was already lost. Austria and the Ottomans already collapsed. You pretty much said so your self by saying that the treat of Versailles would still have occured, however more lenient.

[Thoss]

French loans had kept the new nation solvent and French military support was so extensive that at the decisive Battle of Yorktown there actually were more French soldiers than Americans fighting against the British”

This statement concerning the revolutionary war is, I think, accurate for the battle of Yorktown. However, while French Material support in the form of stores, finances, and weapons along side French troops in the southern campaign we substantial, we have examine this battle in the entire context of the war in America.

The Battle of Yorktown won the South and precipiatated the end of the war. It did not, however, lend victory to New England or the Middle colonies. The Continental Army, with the Whig militia acting as 'sand in the gears of the British Army' can claim rightful ownership of victory in the latter regions.

France formally intervined in 1778. The Royal Marine would first attempt to make opportunistic stabs at Britain in Ireland and the West Indies before Admiral De Grasse would move into Chesapeake Bay and direct support of the revolutionaries. The Battle of Yorktown was decided in Chesapeake bay with De Grasse forcing the withdrawl of Admiral Graves' fleet (something like 15 ships of the line). General Cornwallis, believing that he had been abandoned by the Navy, surrendered a few weeks later. The Seige was manned by both the French army and the Continental Army, however, the victory was due in large part to the actions of the Royal Marine.

Victory at Yorktown meant victory in the South, and thus, the negiotating table.

Were this more public what would it mean for American culture and American self-perception?

I think American self-perception in this case is somewhat justified since it was the Continental Army with frustrating talents of the whig militia that prevented the British Armies in the North from ever securing any region. The British may have won 2/3 of all battles against the Continental Army, but they had to win them all. The Whig militia ensured that even in Victory the British could not reap the fruit.

The French were instrumental in the South, particularly with a Naval presence, and certainly credit is necessarily due to French support of the entire war. But Americans ensured that New England and the Middle colonies (aside from New York) were lost to the British.

[Attila The Nun]

I was trying to keep it short. Americans helped, but by the time they entered the war, for Germany the war was already lost. Austria and the Ottomans already collapsed. You pretty much said so your self by saying that the treat of Versailles would still have occured, however more lenient.

I did not say that. I said even if the US did not have a decisive impact, they still made surrender by Germany far quicker and far easier. They might have had a decisive impact on such battles like the Second Marne, and it would have been a very different battle had the US not been there.

[Thunderhawk]

Even if the US did not necessarily help decisively, then certainly their intervention eroded Germany's will to continue and the treaty of Versailles could have ended up being much more lenient to Germany than it was.

Implies the Germans would still have lost.


I agree that USA aid and manpower sped up the end, and ultimately saved more lives I think, but IMO Germany had already lost the war before the USA entered. It was just a matter of time.

[Attila The Nun]

Even if the US did not necessarily help decisively, then certainly their intervention eroded Germany's will to continue and the treaty of Versailles could have ended up being much more lenient to Germany than it was.

I made it conditional if the US did not necessarily help conditionally. The war, while there could be no stunning victories, was still very much in the air.

[Far-Right Sage]

Well, if the United States didn't enter the war, Britain and France might have lost. If they didn't wreak vengeance on Germany, WWII might have been averted. Of course, we don't know whether or not the Central Powers would have prevailed.

[Zagadka]

What I have heard was a justification of gun rights because otherwise the British would have won, but I think that detracts from the truth of the American Revolutionary War.

Can't it be both?

First of all, many Revolutionaries had rifles for hunting game etc, and stockpiles of weapons had been prevalent since Britain/France/Natives started fighting, ending only a decade before the revolution.

Second of all, the French and Prussian mercenaries and volunteers were absolutely essential.

Third, Another major cause of Britain's loss was their long supply train. Not only food, weapons, and reinforcements, but also command decisions were left to lower-ranking officers in America. Additionally, this supply train - well, boat - was under constant attack by privateers.

Fourth, there wasn't a constant, all-around war. The Brits came in pushes every 1-2 years.

Fifth, the French supplied and loaned the US huge sums.

Sixth, Lafayettte's forces were what pinned Cornwallis and effectively allowed the war to end.

[Thoss]

Prussian mercenaries and volunteers were absolutely essential.

Prussians? Mercenaries for the Americans?

Or are you talking about the Hessians hired by the British?

[Zagadka]

Prussians? Mercenaries for the Americans?

Yes. They served in a role as trainers for the Continental Army. "Mercenaries" was the wrong word, sorry.

[Piano Red]

Sixth, Lafayettte's forces were what pinned Cornwallis and effectively allowed the war to end.

Actually General Nathanael Greene is largely responsible for that. As commander of the Continental Army in the southern campaign his pyrrhic victory at Guilford Courthouse and other battles are responsible for what drove Cornwallis north into Virginia, where he entrenched himself at Yorktown to wait for Clinton.

[Thunderhawk]

The war, while there could be no stunning victories, was still very much in the air.

Agree to disagree?

[Thoss]

Yes. They served in a role as trainers for the Continental Army. "Mercenaries" was the wrong word, sorry.

Oh you mean "Inspector General" Von Stueban. (He has like 10 names and I can't spell one of them)

As commander of the Continental Army in the southern campaign his pyrrhic victory at Guilford Courthouse and other battles are responsible for what drove Cornwallis north into Virginia, where he entrenched himself at Yorktown to wait for Clinton.

I agree. Nathanael Greene was the most capable commander Washington had.

[dannymu]

It was just the French fighting against the English just out of hatred.

[Attila The Nun]

Agree to disagree?

Meh, sure. It's kinda a hazy area.

When do PoFo debates ever end so neatly?

[Thunderhawk]

When do PoFo debates ever end so neatly?

Grey area, civlized debators, no extremists, no antagonists.. it isnt that much