meatcleaver
Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: jlf1961
Actually, they did do some, but they did not get that involved until after we started winning battles, then it still took them some time to figure out a way to justify getting overtly involved.
The French did an awful lot to enable the colonists to win their independence, the British surrender at York Town was almost entirely down to the French and their naval defeat of the British. That being said, the British were badly led but the war of Independence was just a backwater skirmish in a larger war which Churchill called the first world war, between the Spanish, French and British empires. The Spanish being utterly defeated, the French retiring hurt and the British winning. The Independence war has been likened to Britain's Vietnam, little support at home for the war, no real strategy and no idea what to do with the place should they have won. Some battles are worth losing, which the independence war was one, the colonies had proved to be a huge drain on British resources, first protecting them from the spanish and then the french had bankrupted Britain which was why Britain thought the colonies should pay for some of its own defence. Britain was better without them and the irony was, colonists had to start paying taxes to Washington that they would never have had to pay to Britain. Though the real reason for wanting independence was the colonies had matured into a nation independent of Britain.
What this has to do with the topic in hand is beyond me however.
< Message edited by meatcleaver -- 12/28/2012 5:51:24 AM >
_____________________________
There are fascists who consider themselves humanitarians, like cannibals on a health kick, eating only vegetarians.
|
RE: Do Legal Visitors to The USA have "Freedom Of ... - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread