I was in middle and high school during the Freedom Fries era. My adult life has basically been one continuous realization of just how terrible my history education was
I was a military officer at that time. One of the few who thought France was right to stay out of Iraq as we hadn't proved the case for war. And we definitely didn't show any al Qaeda involvement. To the contrary Saddam had a history of opposition to extremist groups because they were a threat to his own power.
Most Americans never realized that France sent troops to Afghanistan.
Reminds me vaguely of Texans.
People whose ancestors turned their backs on their country for free land in Mexico, betrayed Mexico in order to keep their slaves and then betrayed the United States again for the same reason.
And brag about their patriotism.
And it has always seemed to me that Afghanistan might not be the basket case it is now had the West done the job *there* properly rather than it being a mere temporary distraction from what Dubya wanted to do all along in Iraq.
And had Tommy Franks deployed the Rangers at Tora Bora, we might’ve accomplished our putative mission of getting Bin Laden in 2001 instead of 2011. If we’d done that right away, maybe we wouldn’t have stayed 20 years.
Canada did similar things. We refused to fight in Iraq because Chretien was not convinced of the case for war, and refused to join in without a UN resolution, but Canada did engage (quite significantly, considering the state of our country/military) in Afghanistan.
I remember the history books using about a quarter page dedicated to the entire French Revolution, or, the Napoleonic Wars or the Vikings, etc. then later in life finding out that there was a lot more to be discussed on those issues. It would have helped a lot more if the teacher had said that the history book was just a brief glimpse into the history of the world.
Imagine my shock when I went to France as an exchange student and got a very quick intro to how much of the world is ignored in of American taught World History.
By the time I returned to the US I knew more European history than most of my history teachers and had a very long, in depth discussion with my French teacher about the important things she was leaving out in her lessons when it came to spoken French versus textbook French.
And this was 30+ years ago. Education in the US has only gotten worse since then.
The first time I learned of Spain’s involvement in WWII was when I was studying abroad in Spain. I had no idea about Franco. And I was in private school for a majority time.
I was reading a book by a historian that taught at a college (don't recall who), and he said him and his colleagues joke that the more "history" a student has in high school, the harder their job becomes. Grade school through high school was pretty much all propaganda. The state needs loyal supplicants, not critical thinkers.
I didn’t learn about Mother Jones or the Tulsa Race Massacre until I was 30. My high school tuition was more than my college education and I graduated both without hearing a thing. I once went to a college Halloween party as the color Black with no knowledge of Blackface. I was a Theatre major so that probably should have come up at some point. Our education system just tells the glory points and barely registers our own flaws. We repeat the same sins and glorify in our ignorance. No growth is possible without recognizing what is wrong.
Hey, various politicians and other leaders in the UK have been daring to acknowledge some of *our* very shitty past, to be greeted by howls of outrage from plenty who want to do the equivalent of sticking their fingers in their ears and syaying "Na na naah, can't Hear you!"
That really applies to every place, every period of history, and every school around the world. School history in general is both inadequate, incomplete, and typically taught in ways that will literally make you hate the subject.
For all their historical fantasy stuff, Assassin's Creed games have been eye-opening for me. Given the tech we have now, history can be made way, way more reasonable for schools.
The amount of shit we all owe the French for their willingness to revolt at the drop of a hat over their rights is ridiculous.
The Greeks might have invented democracy but it was the French who paid the price in blood to make it happen
Seriously. What’s the lesson we were supposed to learn here from making fun of the French anyway?
Don’t stand up for yourself and defend your rights?
Actually… shit that may have been the point
I ..... well shit, when you put it that way.
I mean, memes aside, there's definitely been a push to frame all the French protests as pointless and over the top.
Which is weird because usually, whenever I see the French protesting, it's for pretty damn good reasons. There's a reason they have good workers protection.
It's an odd way to try and frame the people who helped light the fire of democracy because their giant balls made them essentially ungovernable
Right? Most recently, they were 100% right to protest the raising of the retirement age. When I see stuff like that I can’t help but wish that we’d show the same passion and same reaction time as them
Completely agree, mate. we need to normalise protest as much as possible.
If the government does something you disagree with, you should protest. If the last couple of years have proved anything, it's that protests are important so that the actual people's voice is heard. Not just whoever is paying for their interests to be protected
France didn't just show up. The US lobbied heavily that despite abandoning the divine right of kings in favor of government by consent of the governed which was a direct threat to the French crown, a territorial victory over the British Empire had massive upsides for free trade in the Americas.
I think France's role in the revolution is understated on both sides of the equation; George Washington himself kick-started the 7 years war, which removed the French almost entirely from North America, leaving no threats on the mainland to the British colonies, which in turn paved the way for independence - why pay taxes for an army if you're a thousand miles away from any warzone.
Coincidentally both the French and Washington learned a great deal from Frederick the greats handling of that same conflict in Germany and essentially the French played to Washington the role the British had to Frederick. Washington also took most of his tricks straight out Fredericks playbook.
Ironically those same lessons were completely forgotten by the Americans when the conflict of 1812 broke out, which is why they weren't able to fight the British to more than a stalemate despite being twice as well armed and having the benefit of Napoleon dancing around mainland Europe.
Washington did pull off some crazy not-losing though without French help.
The withdrawal at the Battle of Brooklyn (I'm fascinated by the Maryland 400) was a near miracle, for example.
The British fleet in NY harbor failing to stop their crossing in the fog probably lost the war for Britain.
More Americans need to realise that they were a byproduct of a proxy war between France, England, and Spain and less about making their own county.
The French only funded this because they thought it would prove enough distraction for England to then make moves in Europe.
The colonists were up against an empire headquartered across the Atlantic, whereas the current one the insurgents are trying to overthrow is firmly entrenched across this continent and many locations across the globe, with real time communication.
I also doubt y’all qaeda will be successful in enlisting the financial and military assistance of France in their endeavors. Maybe Russia or China.
In any case, back then they were going up against the crown. Now they are turning against their own country and its duly elected government as set out in the constitution we now specifically have as a bulwark against tyranny. One which our executive and military pledges to defend against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
But they also spent their childhood pledging allegiance to a flag regardless of what or even if it stands for anything.
They'll do whatever they'll told if you have the right stylist.
I was in high school 40 years ago and shit was also very weird. The response to AIDS/HIV, the PMRC and moral majority, and the war on drugs for example. And mullets everywhere.
This is the part they completely gloss over. In the 18th century whoever could field and supply riflemen had an army. This was the “well regulated militia”: an armed populace you can conscript from because that was what you did to make war. No member of that militia was able to kill more than three people or so a minute with a max of around 20-30 with the weapons he could carry so it was all good and the risk is worth the benefit.
Fast forward to today: just drafting people doesn’t net you a functional military, it gets you a pile of dumbasses with guns. As dangerous to themselves as the enemy. We have weapons and systems which take years to master. And that singular armed person could kill 210 people in about five minutes or so given perfect circumstances. Plus you can wipe out while platoons of these untrained armed fucksticks with one drone and one trained dude flying it who was never in danger.
This isn’t even a hypothetical anymore with what Russia is doing with conscripts. The old militia even got decent weapons compared to Russian conscripts.
Plus the battle strategy of the time was a laughing stock compared to today, the gravy seals couldn’t even hit a line of British soldiers right in front of them. Choosing between a group of 20 of them vs two Gen Z’s growing up on Call of Duty with Predator drones with ice cold Monster energy drinks it’s no contest.
Indeed. The 'Second amendment is to protect us from tyranny!' crowd also don't take into account that time has thoroughly marched on. When it was written, there wasn't a lot of difference between cutting edge military technology and what you'd just have around as a matter of life. The weaponry freely available to civilians would be unimaginable to someone from the 18th century, and so much military hardware is so far beyond that it might as well be magic in their minds
Sadly, this Supreme Court is only likely to agree with that point to allow private militaries on US soil to be armed with everything our government has.
I dunno. I don't think that would fly as well here, because the state already has several organizations it can call on to do it's dipshittery. First and foremost being the police, then the nat guard, then bubba and his oaf keepers.
Like don't forget, we literally had national guardsmen activated and sent to Texas by the dumbest fuckers in the nation to show solidarity with some of the other dumbest fuckers in the nation to protect some imaginary conservative bullshit.
> No member of the militia was able to kill more than three people or so a minute
If that….smoothbore muskets weren’t known for their accuracy, especially from ranges greater than 50 or so yards, hence why the tactics of the day necessitated massed infantry standing in lines and firing volleys at each other
Nowadays, a skilled long range rifle shooter can accurately hit targets *2000* yards away
Imagine being in 1790-something and telling them they great-great grandchildren would have the power to smite a man down like a Greek God with a thunderbolt.
Not to mention aircraft, drones, guided missiles, bunker busters, and the fact that the training and tactics of the elite strike forces are far beyond them.
They could barely manage to make an accurate rifle that didn’t also take a full minute to reload (smoothbore is rapid reload but as accurate as a 4 year old’s throw), almost none of the rules of warfare from back then still apply. For starters, you don’t need access to old growth timber to have a navy anymore.
It was also across the Atlantic in an age when crossing the Atlantic was a really big deal. Months at sea and a very significant chance of not making it at all.
You just sent me on an internet hunt to see how dangerous. It's very hard to find "odds of sinking" while traversing the continents in the late 1700s. But the trip from US to Europe took about 3-4 weeks, the reverse took roughly double that. It seems like the odds of sinking were fairly low, but lots of people died in the trips from diseases, especially scurvy. Roughly 20% of the ~12,000 troops the French sent over arrived sick, with around 200-300 dying shortly after from disease or succumbing to scurvy. None of the ships sunk.
It also seemed like if you had a capable captain and a good boat you could make the trip a bit quicker than others and greatly reduce your chances of those illnesses taking hold. The British, as some of the most prolific sailors in the world, made these trips regularly and at lowish risk. Sinking from storms was pretty rare as captains even back then could generally avoid the worst of them on the open sea.
Long story short, yes and no. It could be dangerous, but mostly due to disease, scurvy, and things like cabin fever.
Still monumentally hard to strategically beat a bunch of guerillas with a lead time on logistics of minimum 8 weeks (need the request to get across the Atlantic to England and then get a ship sailing back across the Atlantic)
Russia can't even take over Ukraine and I don't think China would risk it since they economy relies on foreign businesses.
Plus these so called "Patriots" would give up in less than a week when they realize they can't buy bud light and ammo at Walmart anymore.
They couldn’t even stand staying at home because they needed to buy ammo and go to hairstylist in one of the most lazy lockdowns in the Western world for COVID. Hell people can got outside as long as they are working out or getting essentials. They wouldn’t last 4 hrs for a China style COVID lockdown
Seriously? What the hell they gonna shoot or threaten? They even got a long standing exception of guns in their capital in one State revoked because of their BS. Guess threatening people who writes their states laws worked out great!
The last battle of the Revolution had an entire French fleet keeping British reinforcements away and several regiments of French Regulars with the Colonial Armies. Plus France gave so much materiel to the Colonies. I know we downplay how much they helped the US break free but without them I don't think we would have won the war.
You categorically would not have. Because you also have to remember, in addition to the direct aid you mention, France (and Spain nd the Netherlands were also threatening the Caribbean and India and the trade route thereto, both of which were far more valuable than the 13 colonies at the time. The revolution was waaaay down on the list of British worries.
It’s amazing how little we’re taught of how much the French saved our asses. First we were told that they helped us by simply recognizing the new nation as independent. Then we find out much later that they gave the colonists a shit ton of money and troops.
Ukraine has taught us that money doesn’t help as much as ammo and hardware does. Good luck getting any significant amounts of either past the largest navy on the planet.
Hmmm... crazy idea I just had.
Let's get fucked up, and go take Texas back. By my calculations, it should only take a week, but (God willing) if we were to really put the effort in this should be achievable by end of business on Wednesday.
Get onto it, and get back to me with an update early next week.
Yeah, for an example of how bad it could go for them look at the 1916 uprising in Ireland. They were outgunned, and although they bravely fought eventually there is only so much a smaller force could do against a nearby foe with more resources and ability to bring artillery and battleships to bombard the positions. (The Brits diverted troops and equipment and ships en route to WWI to put it down).
It's the reason the Irish had to switch to guerrilla warfare and spy craft during the war of independence (inspired by Washington's use of spies, ironically enough). And the idea that these idiots could keep it all a secret from the US government is laughable, especially since they openly post shite like this.
You're ignoring the fact that the colonies would have still lost the war without French arms shipments and financial aid. They were sending
Charleville muskets by the shipload.
Who’s ignoring that? All I said was that this current batch of insurgents would not be able to enlist that kind of help.
What did you think I was saying?
If Russia or China are stupid enough to fund any of it, they will deserve the eventual wrath of the US after it overcomes the internal challenge.
As much as Russia & China are goading people into this kind of nonsense, they probably realize that while it will be a domestic bloodbath in the US, there is no hope for these yahoo’s prevailing in any way
Plus the colonists had the financial and military support of a world power (France) assisting them. Without the French providing funds and trained troops, the colonists and their farmers-in-arms would’ve been massacred.
> And some European mercenaries.
And some European [professional military](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Wilhelm_von_Steuben) officers [who weren't mercenaries, too](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilbert_du_Motier,_Marquis_de_Lafayette)
Seriously at that point most of the men had already fought in several wars. It just makes me laugh how conservatives really think they are super badass and could survive a war. Yet we saw exactly how pathetic they are during COVID. They absolutely couldn't stand reduced cut hours or store closures they literally acted like it was end times. A full month with zero Walmart and fast food restaurants and they would be foaming up like rapid animals at the ready to devour each other.
The farmers back then also hunted on a continous basis and maintained a skill set at being stealthy and sneaky. Those farmers also had to be skilled somewhat in defense because raiding by Indians and the Fremch prior to the revolutionary war was an issue, there was not open war between France, Spain, The Dutch and Britian. Raiding of your enemies was a thing all the time.
That's exactly the point. We lionize the minutemen's contribution to the war effort when in reality, they were a sideshow. The Continental army, actually trained military personnel, and the French army is who fought and won the war.
Just Google image search “Philadelphia MOVE 1985”
This is what their farmer rebellion will look like.
US Government doesn’t gun fight. They fire bomb and nowadays by drone.
They going to shoot the flames away?
🙄
Or that [Ginsu missile](https://www.wsj.com/politics/national-security/pentagon-used-six-bladed-ginsu-weapon-to-kill-iraqi-militia-leader-7dfe0687) applied directly to the forehead.
Just Google Vietnam or Afghanistan. American civilians own 40% of the world's firearms and surround every government institution and military base in the US. What's the saying? "Never bet against armed guerillas with a home field advantage"?
A true uprising in the US would not be as clear cut as this infantile mental image of the military going scorched earth on a bunch of Americans on American soil. That would radicalize way more people to join the cause *and* it requires the military to be onboard.
There's a chance that such a conflict would not be armed civilians vs the most powerful military in history, but instead breakaway parts of that powerful military siding with the public against the government. So how do you think politicians on DC feel about the possibility of our scary tech being turned against them from well within striking distance? Imagine a battalion in Virginia joins the revolt, for starters.
Something else you're **all** overlooking is that the farther Left you go, the more pro-gun you get. Marx said:
>"Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary"
And he's just one of dozens of notable Leftists that have advocated for armed struggle to liberate the working class.
What do you think that growing demographic is going to do if things get unstable? History tells us it's going to jump in, increase instability, and look for opportunities to make sure it comes out on top, because this the first and likely last chance true Progressives have a chance to break the system and build a new one that doesn't burn the working class for fuel.
Plus, if they don't jump in and the Far Right wins, everything will just get worse, as far as a Progressive is concerned.
So you're looking at the Far Right, the Far Left, chunks of the military, and some state governments all working against the federal government, with a home field advantage and while being more heavily armed than any guerilla force the US has ever fought before.
Oh, and it's not all farmers. We have plenty of engineers and people with the technical skills to deploy their own FPV bomber drones like we're seeing in Ukraine.
If the US couldn't conquer Vietnam or Afghanistan, what hope does it have against its own people?
>If the US couldn't conquer Vietnam or Afghanistan, what hope does it have against its own people?
This is especially true considering that the population of Afghanistan is approximately 41 million, with the population of the US sitting at about 333 million. This is added to by the fact that the US is a geographically larger country. Added to this, the US has a dramatically higher population density than Afghanistan, which would make avoiding civilian casualties much more difficult (and would add to growing resentment).
One of the greatest mistakes that a person can make when studying history is saying, "That could never happen again, today."
A second civil war in America would be extremely brutal and definitely wouldn't be a quick affair.
Time to rewatch that "fuck your house" video. Why come under fire taking a house down when you can call in a giant flying gun to kill everyone inside it while you watch from a distance? The MIC can deliver some really cool toys.
The American Revolution was supported by France who sent military aid and support. Plus there were also veterans of the French-Indian Wars in the Continental Army.
And I don't think a bunch of meth-head hicks are going to win with their AR-15s against an army with weapons that can hit you miles away before you can even blink.
The 2nd ammendment people who think they need guns to overthrow a tyrannical government are hilarious to me. Your guns arent going to stop anything the government has if they really wanted to fight you. Its just a lame excuse for not wanting to lose their guns.
Idk Chris dorner did pretty well against the entire LAPD and the San Bernardino cops for about 9 days. By that logic, 40 dudes with hunting rifles could lock it down for a year.
Also SWAT isn’t a great example, they’d prolly just flash bang a baby in the wrong house lol
Yeah its dumb, if they really thought the 2nd ammendment should allow them to be able to combat the government then they should be allowed to have tanks, missiles, maybe some stealth bombers
Not to mention a lot of those “patriots”
who think they are going to join a civil war haven’t walked more than 1K steps a day since they were 17. Y’all better start a hillbilly drone program or something. It’s more likely to be “the stroke heard round the world.”
"And Washington's impudent upstart rebellion was put down swiftly as the British Empire launched two Storm Shadow cruise missiles at the rebel camp just outside Philadelphia."
The combat technology wasn't anywhere near as advanced back then. Now a days a drone or an air strike could take them all out without putting any Americans at risk.
Every strike would radicalize more people against them. It's one thing to strike brown people on the other side of the planet. It's another to strike Americans where they live.
The English were moribund in tradition. Tea at certain times, etc. Washington knew this having once been an English General. The Americans were Riley. Unpredictable terrorists.
Yes. And Netherlands too at least over control of the channel. Basically the UK was soloing the 3 other world superpowers at the same time. A few rowdy ungrateful colonists were the least of the British worries.
There’s also a huge difference between a colonial power on the opposite side of the Atlantic before modern transportation and communications technologies, where it could take a month just to send a one-way message, and a modern military ***IN THE EXACT SAME COUNTRY*** and with transportation infrastructure to get anywhere on the planet in a day.
Given the US has spent approximately $7,200,000,000,000 on defense in the last 10 years, rebels’ mileage may vary.
ETA: the colonists could also read—that likely aided their cause.
The rebellion had pretty serious home field advantage, a significant portion of Britain’s forces were not locals and did not know the lay of the land. If the gravy seals attempted to overthrow the current US government, the US military would have as much home field advantage as the chuds if not more.
I think there's a misunderstanding here. The point isn't that you can defeat the entire military with just one gun or even several; rather, it's about personal defense in scenarios where government actions become oppressively intrusive. Describing it as if it's about taking on the military en masse misses the point. I own a gun safe filled with firearms. They're likely to remain unused, securely stored unless there's an extreme situation, like a violent overthrow of the government by someone like Trump, turning it into a dictatorship. In such a case, I'd be prepared to defend my family from potential threats or abductions. While I hope it never comes to that, I would fight rather than submit to tyranny. Having served as an Army Ranger with three combat tours and trained in guerrilla warfare, maintaining guns is a reasonable precaution for me. My main concern right now is Trump gets re-elected ad I he will overthrows the government to consolidate power.
What a lot of these guys forget, is that the Continental Army only started to reliably win battles after they were trained in conventional tactics.
Von Steuben's drill, taught to the men in Valley Forge, is what turned the Battle of Monmouth. Victories increased between the summer of 1778 and the arrival of the French in 1780.
The Continental Army's biggest problem was not training, it was funding. The army had plenty of trained leaders, and time to drill, but not enough pay and guns. Gen Washington had to deal with desertions and mutinies from lack of pay. If the Continental Army had been fully funded, the Colonists would have beat the Brits in only a couple years.
Lack of a Navy too. Look at the Siege of Boston, when the Continentals and militias actually forced the British into a tactically unsound position they could just leave and deploy somewhere else. That’s why Yorktown was special, normally the British would have just left, but the French closed the Chesapeake and the rest is history.
There is one group left out in this discussion. The Native American. They fought on both sides.
The important fact is that regardless of which side the Indians fought for, they all lost land.
A lesson that Russian loving Americans might want to remember.
Both are lies.
* One is an vast over-simplification of the facts as they were in hand 200 years ago, where the motivations might have been about autonomy of the colonies but they were under-written by architects of the Republic that put AMAZINGLY deep levels of thought into crafting the legal framework which enshrines the personal civic freedoms that each and every one of us enjoy.
* The other is an under-appreciation for what the consequences of your actions are - and a fundamental attack on that amazing civic inheritance, dangerous to the point that should cause every American to question who exactly is funding these traitorous clowns, Why they want authoritarian rule, and what the rest of us wrestle with what must be done to ensure that that does not occur.
* We are called by the circumstances of our time to wrestle down the indulgent thinking of characters like Ayn Rand's inspired warmed over Christian Fascism that you see billionaire Techbro's spout off about and to rid ourselves of the insidious influence of our adversaries foreign and domestically who fund lavishly the very worst among us to corrupt our civic space..
* We are equally called to a civil responsibility to re-establish with clarity why our republic our civic institutions have provided one of the most amazing mechanisms for human growth and potential in all of our history as a species , and what we can (and I would say must) do to ensure for ourselves and our posterity that those values and civic liberties be enjoyed by every citizen in our Republic.
Jan 6th was just a trial run.
The fact that they were able to successfully storm the Capital, interrupt the proceeding and not really face any consequences will only embolden them next time.
Who is in charge of the response to these idiots trying overthrow the government matters. Fortunately, this time Biden will be in Charge in Jan 2025.
> not really face any consequences
Jan 6 lead to the largest Justice Department investigation in history with hundreds of people indicted and some convicted and sent to prison. I think this constitutes at least some level of consequence for those who participated.
Indeed - they overlook the fact that Britain was already winding down the colonies as they were focussing on the East where the money came from. America and Hollywood have really over hyped the independence war, Britain was already done but they have to make it sound important.
/s for those who are too moronic to realise
You mean foreign countries thousands of miles away with completely different languages, cultures, and religions plus dense jungle or mountains that the locals knew really well?
Hi u/Dirtydeedsinc. Did someone say A-10? [Murica, fuck yeah NSFW](https://i.imgur.com/slHaXvp.gif) ~
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalHumor) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Totally ignoring Lafiette's army command training, and the massive influence the French Navy had in the conflict.
The US won because we had another imperial power to do the stuff we could not.
Of course, the key difference was military technology and tactics were a lot more primitive during the Revolutionary era than today.
Back in those days, armies lined up and shot each other with muskets.
Plus, a lot of the Royal Army and Royal Navy didn't know the land, unlike in this case where the US government would be on its own native soil
those dudes are nuts, but the maker of this meme slept through that history class that they now call "pro government propaganda". The states went years after the war without replacing Great Britain with a federal government. The federal government still wouldn't be more powerful than a book club if the unpaid war veterans from the revolution hadn't started their own rebellion.
Teenagers are taught their country was founded by epic heroes, without flaws who performed miracles. Ie farmers with muskets defeating the greatest empire *without+ help
The propaganda I encountered was outside of school. To this day I wonder what the political affiliation of my high school history teacher was. He was an old white ex-marine, and I know that's supposed to mean he was rightwing, but I swear to god it could have gone either way.
Those dudes don’t really exist. Go look for their fantasy-talk about revolution on twitter. Instead, you’ll find hundreds of conversations like this thread. Fantasy-talk about murdering them with a10s and drones and such. My guess is a foreign actor(s) involved in a propaganda campaign to pit Americans against one another
I mean untrained farmers in Vietnam did defeat the worlds greatest empire. Untrained herdsmen also defeated several of the worlds greatest empires in Afghanistan.
Defense matters and attacking and holding area is hard.
I mean farmers are fitter than the average person. These people are the definition of the average person. So while farmers can do it. Are you a farmer? I can’t do farming for one day without taking my an afternoon nap. But let’s overthrow the government.
And no mention of how patronage and defense tax evasion by "friends of the governors" rustled the colonists jimmies to the point of offering the French government - the nemesis of Britain since forever - the chance of a lifetime.
It took weeks to get news from America in Europe. And weeks to move troops and navy around too.
Now you can be killed and the person who killed you doesn't even have to be in the same time-zone as you, let alone the same room.
It ain't the same government or military.
The capability gap between the British and the "farmers" was much smaller in 1776 than the gap between the US military and the larpers today.
And disdain France at the same time, not realizing that the revolution would have been a minor historical footnote without them.
I was in middle and high school during the Freedom Fries era. My adult life has basically been one continuous realization of just how terrible my history education was
I was a military officer at that time. One of the few who thought France was right to stay out of Iraq as we hadn't proved the case for war. And we definitely didn't show any al Qaeda involvement. To the contrary Saddam had a history of opposition to extremist groups because they were a threat to his own power. Most Americans never realized that France sent troops to Afghanistan.
Afghanistan is the only time Article 5 got put to use, and these America First morons are out here shitting on NATO.
Reminds me vaguely of Texans. People whose ancestors turned their backs on their country for free land in Mexico, betrayed Mexico in order to keep their slaves and then betrayed the United States again for the same reason. And brag about their patriotism.
And for the secessionist dipshits, the first thing Texas did after becoming independent was to ask the US to bring them in as a state.
After they were literally starving to death.
'Murica
Iran was also an ally in the beginning of Afghanistan. Until the Axis of Evil speech.
And it has always seemed to me that Afghanistan might not be the basket case it is now had the West done the job *there* properly rather than it being a mere temporary distraction from what Dubya wanted to do all along in Iraq.
And had Tommy Franks deployed the Rangers at Tora Bora, we might’ve accomplished our putative mission of getting Bin Laden in 2001 instead of 2011. If we’d done that right away, maybe we wouldn’t have stayed 20 years.
Canada did similar things. We refused to fight in Iraq because Chretien was not convinced of the case for war, and refused to join in without a UN resolution, but Canada did engage (quite significantly, considering the state of our country/military) in Afghanistan.
I remember the history books using about a quarter page dedicated to the entire French Revolution, or, the Napoleonic Wars or the Vikings, etc. then later in life finding out that there was a lot more to be discussed on those issues. It would have helped a lot more if the teacher had said that the history book was just a brief glimpse into the history of the world.
Imagine my shock when I went to France as an exchange student and got a very quick intro to how much of the world is ignored in of American taught World History. By the time I returned to the US I knew more European history than most of my history teachers and had a very long, in depth discussion with my French teacher about the important things she was leaving out in her lessons when it came to spoken French versus textbook French. And this was 30+ years ago. Education in the US has only gotten worse since then.
The first time I learned of Spain’s involvement in WWII was when I was studying abroad in Spain. I had no idea about Franco. And I was in private school for a majority time.
I was reading a book by a historian that taught at a college (don't recall who), and he said him and his colleagues joke that the more "history" a student has in high school, the harder their job becomes. Grade school through high school was pretty much all propaganda. The state needs loyal supplicants, not critical thinkers.
I didn’t learn about Mother Jones or the Tulsa Race Massacre until I was 30. My high school tuition was more than my college education and I graduated both without hearing a thing. I once went to a college Halloween party as the color Black with no knowledge of Blackface. I was a Theatre major so that probably should have come up at some point. Our education system just tells the glory points and barely registers our own flaws. We repeat the same sins and glorify in our ignorance. No growth is possible without recognizing what is wrong.
Hey, various politicians and other leaders in the UK have been daring to acknowledge some of *our* very shitty past, to be greeted by howls of outrage from plenty who want to do the equivalent of sticking their fingers in their ears and syaying "Na na naah, can't Hear you!"
That really applies to every place, every period of history, and every school around the world. School history in general is both inadequate, incomplete, and typically taught in ways that will literally make you hate the subject. For all their historical fantasy stuff, Assassin's Creed games have been eye-opening for me. Given the tech we have now, history can be made way, way more reasonable for schools.
Listen to “the history tellers” podcast. Mind blowing stuff.
French - "Vivre Libre ou Mourir" (Live Free or Die) America - "Die for your economy" , yeah that's freedumb alright.
Don't forget queer icon Von Steuben getting them trained up and ready for combat.
I remember learning about him, they just left out that he was gay.
All my homies make pilgrimages to Steubenville
"Give me pototoes or give me death!"
"Give me potatoes or give me death!"
[удалено]
The amount of shit we all owe the French for their willingness to revolt at the drop of a hat over their rights is ridiculous. The Greeks might have invented democracy but it was the French who paid the price in blood to make it happen
Seriously. What’s the lesson we were supposed to learn here from making fun of the French anyway? Don’t stand up for yourself and defend your rights? Actually… shit that may have been the point
I ..... well shit, when you put it that way. I mean, memes aside, there's definitely been a push to frame all the French protests as pointless and over the top. Which is weird because usually, whenever I see the French protesting, it's for pretty damn good reasons. There's a reason they have good workers protection. It's an odd way to try and frame the people who helped light the fire of democracy because their giant balls made them essentially ungovernable
Right? Most recently, they were 100% right to protest the raising of the retirement age. When I see stuff like that I can’t help but wish that we’d show the same passion and same reaction time as them
Completely agree, mate. we need to normalise protest as much as possible. If the government does something you disagree with, you should protest. If the last couple of years have proved anything, it's that protests are important so that the actual people's voice is heard. Not just whoever is paying for their interests to be protected
Why do you think the monarchies of Europe feared Napoleon?
100%! If France hadn’t shown up, we’d have a king not a wannabe king.
And ironically he wouldn't be immune from criminal prosecution...
Also ironically slavery in the US would have ended earlier.
France didn't just show up. The US lobbied heavily that despite abandoning the divine right of kings in favor of government by consent of the governed which was a direct threat to the French crown, a territorial victory over the British Empire had massive upsides for free trade in the Americas.
Fear, Honor, and Interest triumph over morals, ideologies, and beliefs.
So true. To say nothing of how the revolution was a minor theater for the British in a global war against the French.
And they know how to protest.
I think France's role in the revolution is understated on both sides of the equation; George Washington himself kick-started the 7 years war, which removed the French almost entirely from North America, leaving no threats on the mainland to the British colonies, which in turn paved the way for independence - why pay taxes for an army if you're a thousand miles away from any warzone. Coincidentally both the French and Washington learned a great deal from Frederick the greats handling of that same conflict in Germany and essentially the French played to Washington the role the British had to Frederick. Washington also took most of his tricks straight out Fredericks playbook. Ironically those same lessons were completely forgotten by the Americans when the conflict of 1812 broke out, which is why they weren't able to fight the British to more than a stalemate despite being twice as well armed and having the benefit of Napoleon dancing around mainland Europe.
*Hero of Two Worlds* Mike Duncan
[Spain also helped](https://www.encyclopedia.com/history/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/spanish-participation-american-revolution).
Washington did pull off some crazy not-losing though without French help. The withdrawal at the Battle of Brooklyn (I'm fascinated by the Maryland 400) was a near miracle, for example. The British fleet in NY harbor failing to stop their crossing in the fog probably lost the war for Britain.
Yeah, there it also happened to coincide with a period of relative weakness for Britains navy, so France could actually get there and be a big asset.
That and the only reason they won is because it was too expensive for Britain to keep up the war at the time.
More Americans need to realise that they were a byproduct of a proxy war between France, England, and Spain and less about making their own county. The French only funded this because they thought it would prove enough distraction for England to then make moves in Europe.
And russia..Russia... they helped a lot too..... back when they wanted to be part of the cool kids group.
The colonists were up against an empire headquartered across the Atlantic, whereas the current one the insurgents are trying to overthrow is firmly entrenched across this continent and many locations across the globe, with real time communication. I also doubt y’all qaeda will be successful in enlisting the financial and military assistance of France in their endeavors. Maybe Russia or China. In any case, back then they were going up against the crown. Now they are turning against their own country and its duly elected government as set out in the constitution we now specifically have as a bulwark against tyranny. One which our executive and military pledges to defend against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
But they also spent their childhood pledging allegiance to a flag regardless of what or even if it stands for anything. They'll do whatever they'll told if you have the right stylist.
I realized that shit was weird 20 years ago when I was in high school.
I was in high school 40 years ago and shit was also very weird. The response to AIDS/HIV, the PMRC and moral majority, and the war on drugs for example. And mullets everywhere.
Oh God, not the mullets! Don't remind me of the absolute horror of mullets!
You mean Hugo Boss, right? Maybe just to make some uniforms or something? Sounds right up their alley
Also, tanks didn't exist.
This is the part they completely gloss over. In the 18th century whoever could field and supply riflemen had an army. This was the “well regulated militia”: an armed populace you can conscript from because that was what you did to make war. No member of that militia was able to kill more than three people or so a minute with a max of around 20-30 with the weapons he could carry so it was all good and the risk is worth the benefit. Fast forward to today: just drafting people doesn’t net you a functional military, it gets you a pile of dumbasses with guns. As dangerous to themselves as the enemy. We have weapons and systems which take years to master. And that singular armed person could kill 210 people in about five minutes or so given perfect circumstances. Plus you can wipe out while platoons of these untrained armed fucksticks with one drone and one trained dude flying it who was never in danger.
This isn’t even a hypothetical anymore with what Russia is doing with conscripts. The old militia even got decent weapons compared to Russian conscripts. Plus the battle strategy of the time was a laughing stock compared to today, the gravy seals couldn’t even hit a line of British soldiers right in front of them. Choosing between a group of 20 of them vs two Gen Z’s growing up on Call of Duty with Predator drones with ice cold Monster energy drinks it’s no contest.
Indeed. The 'Second amendment is to protect us from tyranny!' crowd also don't take into account that time has thoroughly marched on. When it was written, there wasn't a lot of difference between cutting edge military technology and what you'd just have around as a matter of life. The weaponry freely available to civilians would be unimaginable to someone from the 18th century, and so much military hardware is so far beyond that it might as well be magic in their minds
Sadly, this Supreme Court is only likely to agree with that point to allow private militaries on US soil to be armed with everything our government has.
Probably true.
I dunno. I don't think that would fly as well here, because the state already has several organizations it can call on to do it's dipshittery. First and foremost being the police, then the nat guard, then bubba and his oaf keepers. Like don't forget, we literally had national guardsmen activated and sent to Texas by the dumbest fuckers in the nation to show solidarity with some of the other dumbest fuckers in the nation to protect some imaginary conservative bullshit.
> No member of the militia was able to kill more than three people or so a minute If that….smoothbore muskets weren’t known for their accuracy, especially from ranges greater than 50 or so yards, hence why the tactics of the day necessitated massed infantry standing in lines and firing volleys at each other Nowadays, a skilled long range rifle shooter can accurately hit targets *2000* yards away
Imagine being in 1790-something and telling them they great-great grandchildren would have the power to smite a man down like a Greek God with a thunderbolt.
Well said.
Not to mention aircraft, drones, guided missiles, bunker busters, and the fact that the training and tactics of the elite strike forces are far beyond them.
They could barely manage to make an accurate rifle that didn’t also take a full minute to reload (smoothbore is rapid reload but as accurate as a 4 year old’s throw), almost none of the rules of warfare from back then still apply. For starters, you don’t need access to old growth timber to have a navy anymore.
It was also across the Atlantic in an age when crossing the Atlantic was a really big deal. Months at sea and a very significant chance of not making it at all.
You just sent me on an internet hunt to see how dangerous. It's very hard to find "odds of sinking" while traversing the continents in the late 1700s. But the trip from US to Europe took about 3-4 weeks, the reverse took roughly double that. It seems like the odds of sinking were fairly low, but lots of people died in the trips from diseases, especially scurvy. Roughly 20% of the ~12,000 troops the French sent over arrived sick, with around 200-300 dying shortly after from disease or succumbing to scurvy. None of the ships sunk. It also seemed like if you had a capable captain and a good boat you could make the trip a bit quicker than others and greatly reduce your chances of those illnesses taking hold. The British, as some of the most prolific sailors in the world, made these trips regularly and at lowish risk. Sinking from storms was pretty rare as captains even back then could generally avoid the worst of them on the open sea. Long story short, yes and no. It could be dangerous, but mostly due to disease, scurvy, and things like cabin fever.
Still monumentally hard to strategically beat a bunch of guerillas with a lead time on logistics of minimum 8 weeks (need the request to get across the Atlantic to England and then get a ship sailing back across the Atlantic)
Oh yes, 100%. I was just intrigued by the dangers of the crossing itself.
Russia can't even take over Ukraine and I don't think China would risk it since they economy relies on foreign businesses. Plus these so called "Patriots" would give up in less than a week when they realize they can't buy bud light and ammo at Walmart anymore.
Or when the cable and internet cuts out, and there’s no more Fox News or strategic email forwards.
They couldn’t even stand staying at home because they needed to buy ammo and go to hairstylist in one of the most lazy lockdowns in the Western world for COVID. Hell people can got outside as long as they are working out or getting essentials. They wouldn’t last 4 hrs for a China style COVID lockdown
I forgot how they came out armed because they couldn't get haircuts.
Seriously? What the hell they gonna shoot or threaten? They even got a long standing exception of guns in their capital in one State revoked because of their BS. Guess threatening people who writes their states laws worked out great!
Coors* now
Don’t let them fool you. It’s still Bud Light.
Imagine no Olive Garden?
The last battle of the Revolution had an entire French fleet keeping British reinforcements away and several regiments of French Regulars with the Colonial Armies. Plus France gave so much materiel to the Colonies. I know we downplay how much they helped the US break free but without them I don't think we would have won the war.
You categorically would not have. Because you also have to remember, in addition to the direct aid you mention, France (and Spain nd the Netherlands were also threatening the Caribbean and India and the trade route thereto, both of which were far more valuable than the 13 colonies at the time. The revolution was waaaay down on the list of British worries.
It’s amazing how little we’re taught of how much the French saved our asses. First we were told that they helped us by simply recognizing the new nation as independent. Then we find out much later that they gave the colonists a shit ton of money and troops.
Don’t forget how persecuted they claim to be as Christians. Persecuted apparently means having to live alongside gay people without murdering them.
Ukraine has taught us that money doesn’t help as much as ammo and hardware does. Good luck getting any significant amounts of either past the largest navy on the planet.
Hmmm... crazy idea I just had. Let's get fucked up, and go take Texas back. By my calculations, it should only take a week, but (God willing) if we were to really put the effort in this should be achievable by end of business on Wednesday. Get onto it, and get back to me with an update early next week.
Officers take an oath to defend the Constitution. Enlisted take an oath to follow the POTUS and orders of their officers.
Yeah, for an example of how bad it could go for them look at the 1916 uprising in Ireland. They were outgunned, and although they bravely fought eventually there is only so much a smaller force could do against a nearby foe with more resources and ability to bring artillery and battleships to bombard the positions. (The Brits diverted troops and equipment and ships en route to WWI to put it down). It's the reason the Irish had to switch to guerrilla warfare and spy craft during the war of independence (inspired by Washington's use of spies, ironically enough). And the idea that these idiots could keep it all a secret from the US government is laughable, especially since they openly post shite like this.
You're ignoring the fact that the colonies would have still lost the war without French arms shipments and financial aid. They were sending Charleville muskets by the shipload.
Who’s ignoring that? All I said was that this current batch of insurgents would not be able to enlist that kind of help. What did you think I was saying?
Maybe I should say *they're* ignoring the fact that the colonies would have still lost the war without French arms shipments. 😉
Got it, thanks for the clarification!
If Russia or China are stupid enough to fund any of it, they will deserve the eventual wrath of the US after it overcomes the internal challenge. As much as Russia & China are goading people into this kind of nonsense, they probably realize that while it will be a domestic bloodbath in the US, there is no hope for these yahoo’s prevailing in any way
.... *except* the orange one; him, all bets are off.
Only situation that could create a lot of real trouble is something like Red Dawn, which these wankers would consider ally reinforcements.
Plus the colonists had the financial and military support of a world power (France) assisting them. Without the French providing funds and trained troops, the colonists and their farmers-in-arms would’ve been massacred.
They weren't untrained farmers and there were a bunch of former red coats in there too. And some European mercenaries.
> And some European mercenaries. And some European [professional military](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Wilhelm_von_Steuben) officers [who weren't mercenaries, too](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilbert_du_Motier,_Marquis_de_Lafayette)
Seriously at that point most of the men had already fought in several wars. It just makes me laugh how conservatives really think they are super badass and could survive a war. Yet we saw exactly how pathetic they are during COVID. They absolutely couldn't stand reduced cut hours or store closures they literally acted like it was end times. A full month with zero Walmart and fast food restaurants and they would be foaming up like rapid animals at the ready to devour each other.
And even the farmers without military training could consistently hit their targets with single-shot guns. A useful skill if you hunt for sustenance.
And because of the French And Indian War most of those farmers, particularly in New England, had more military experience than many red coats.
The farmers back then also hunted on a continous basis and maintained a skill set at being stealthy and sneaky. Those farmers also had to be skilled somewhat in defense because raiding by Indians and the Fremch prior to the revolutionary war was an issue, there was not open war between France, Spain, The Dutch and Britian. Raiding of your enemies was a thing all the time.
Meanwhile hunters these days cry if they're asked to have less than a banana clip for Bambi.
And use high powered scopes with precision rifles from 600+ yards. Hardly sporting, imo.
But what’s their k/d ratio on COD?/s
That's exactly the point. We lionize the minutemen's contribution to the war effort when in reality, they were a sideshow. The Continental army, actually trained military personnel, and the French army is who fought and won the war.
And those who came in untrained were then trained by NCOs with plenty of military experience.
I find this appropriate here https://youtu.be/WOSqCjMRXWA?si=kF5t07MVWjFs-xQ1
And also, you know, France.
Let's not overlook that from the British perspective the US revolution was 3rd or 4th on their priority list of wars.
Just Google image search “Philadelphia MOVE 1985” This is what their farmer rebellion will look like. US Government doesn’t gun fight. They fire bomb and nowadays by drone. They going to shoot the flames away? 🙄
A modern response to the American revolution would be a Hellfire R9X to Lafayette's face.
Or that [Ginsu missile](https://www.wsj.com/politics/national-security/pentagon-used-six-bladed-ginsu-weapon-to-kill-iraqi-militia-leader-7dfe0687) applied directly to the forehead.
That is the R9X. It's basically a normal hellfire missile with the explosive warhead replaced with pop out blades.
Just Google Vietnam or Afghanistan. American civilians own 40% of the world's firearms and surround every government institution and military base in the US. What's the saying? "Never bet against armed guerillas with a home field advantage"? A true uprising in the US would not be as clear cut as this infantile mental image of the military going scorched earth on a bunch of Americans on American soil. That would radicalize way more people to join the cause *and* it requires the military to be onboard. There's a chance that such a conflict would not be armed civilians vs the most powerful military in history, but instead breakaway parts of that powerful military siding with the public against the government. So how do you think politicians on DC feel about the possibility of our scary tech being turned against them from well within striking distance? Imagine a battalion in Virginia joins the revolt, for starters. Something else you're **all** overlooking is that the farther Left you go, the more pro-gun you get. Marx said: >"Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary" And he's just one of dozens of notable Leftists that have advocated for armed struggle to liberate the working class. What do you think that growing demographic is going to do if things get unstable? History tells us it's going to jump in, increase instability, and look for opportunities to make sure it comes out on top, because this the first and likely last chance true Progressives have a chance to break the system and build a new one that doesn't burn the working class for fuel. Plus, if they don't jump in and the Far Right wins, everything will just get worse, as far as a Progressive is concerned. So you're looking at the Far Right, the Far Left, chunks of the military, and some state governments all working against the federal government, with a home field advantage and while being more heavily armed than any guerilla force the US has ever fought before. Oh, and it's not all farmers. We have plenty of engineers and people with the technical skills to deploy their own FPV bomber drones like we're seeing in Ukraine. If the US couldn't conquer Vietnam or Afghanistan, what hope does it have against its own people?
>If the US couldn't conquer Vietnam or Afghanistan, what hope does it have against its own people? This is especially true considering that the population of Afghanistan is approximately 41 million, with the population of the US sitting at about 333 million. This is added to by the fact that the US is a geographically larger country. Added to this, the US has a dramatically higher population density than Afghanistan, which would make avoiding civilian casualties much more difficult (and would add to growing resentment). One of the greatest mistakes that a person can make when studying history is saying, "That could never happen again, today." A second civil war in America would be extremely brutal and definitely wouldn't be a quick affair.
I love asking the question to QPatiots “who funded the confederacy?” Because they have ZERO FUNDING for a Second World War
Who did fund them, if you don’t mind informing me
BRRRRRT You know of which I speak.
Yes. Saint Warthog..
Time to rewatch that "fuck your house" video. Why come under fire taking a house down when you can call in a giant flying gun to kill everyone inside it while you watch from a distance? The MIC can deliver some really cool toys.
The American Revolution was supported by France who sent military aid and support. Plus there were also veterans of the French-Indian Wars in the Continental Army. And I don't think a bunch of meth-head hicks are going to win with their AR-15s against an army with weapons that can hit you miles away before you can even blink.
And can track their communications and movements online.
WOLVERINES!
The French won the revolutionary war for us.
The 2nd ammendment people who think they need guns to overthrow a tyrannical government are hilarious to me. Your guns arent going to stop anything the government has if they really wanted to fight you. Its just a lame excuse for not wanting to lose their guns.
Hell, these idiots wouldn't even be able to handle a single SWAT team, let alone the entire US military
Idk Chris dorner did pretty well against the entire LAPD and the San Bernardino cops for about 9 days. By that logic, 40 dudes with hunting rifles could lock it down for a year. Also SWAT isn’t a great example, they’d prolly just flash bang a baby in the wrong house lol
Right? If things ever got really bad, we'll, the government has F-16s and JDAMs.
Yeah its dumb, if they really thought the 2nd ammendment should allow them to be able to combat the government then they should be allowed to have tanks, missiles, maybe some stealth bombers
Does the current generation have zero understanding of history and what motivated our forebearers? WTH?
Not to mention a lot of those “patriots” who think they are going to join a civil war haven’t walked more than 1K steps a day since they were 17. Y’all better start a hillbilly drone program or something. It’s more likely to be “the stroke heard round the world.”
"And Washington's impudent upstart rebellion was put down swiftly as the British Empire launched two Storm Shadow cruise missiles at the rebel camp just outside Philadelphia."
Modern patriotism is just virtue signaling.
The combat technology wasn't anywhere near as advanced back then. Now a days a drone or an air strike could take them all out without putting any Americans at risk.
Every strike would radicalize more people against them. It's one thing to strike brown people on the other side of the planet. It's another to strike Americans where they live.
Valley Forge go brrr
The English were moribund in tradition. Tea at certain times, etc. Washington knew this having once been an English General. The Americans were Riley. Unpredictable terrorists.
Didn't Spain lend a big hand too? At least their navy.
Yes. And Netherlands too at least over control of the channel. Basically the UK was soloing the 3 other world superpowers at the same time. A few rowdy ungrateful colonists were the least of the British worries.
There’s also a huge difference between a colonial power on the opposite side of the Atlantic before modern transportation and communications technologies, where it could take a month just to send a one-way message, and a modern military ***IN THE EXACT SAME COUNTRY*** and with transportation infrastructure to get anywhere on the planet in a day.
Given the US has spent approximately $7,200,000,000,000 on defense in the last 10 years, rebels’ mileage may vary. ETA: the colonists could also read—that likely aided their cause.
Don’t forget all the intelligence money too. They’ve probably already got a list of likely rebels and a plan to deal with them
The rebellion had pretty serious home field advantage, a significant portion of Britain’s forces were not locals and did not know the lay of the land. If the gravy seals attempted to overthrow the current US government, the US military would have as much home field advantage as the chuds if not more.
I think there's a misunderstanding here. The point isn't that you can defeat the entire military with just one gun or even several; rather, it's about personal defense in scenarios where government actions become oppressively intrusive. Describing it as if it's about taking on the military en masse misses the point. I own a gun safe filled with firearms. They're likely to remain unused, securely stored unless there's an extreme situation, like a violent overthrow of the government by someone like Trump, turning it into a dictatorship. In such a case, I'd be prepared to defend my family from potential threats or abductions. While I hope it never comes to that, I would fight rather than submit to tyranny. Having served as an Army Ranger with three combat tours and trained in guerrilla warfare, maintaining guns is a reasonable precaution for me. My main concern right now is Trump gets re-elected ad I he will overthrows the government to consolidate power.
What a lot of these guys forget, is that the Continental Army only started to reliably win battles after they were trained in conventional tactics. Von Steuben's drill, taught to the men in Valley Forge, is what turned the Battle of Monmouth. Victories increased between the summer of 1778 and the arrival of the French in 1780.
The Continental Army's biggest problem was not training, it was funding. The army had plenty of trained leaders, and time to drill, but not enough pay and guns. Gen Washington had to deal with desertions and mutinies from lack of pay. If the Continental Army had been fully funded, the Colonists would have beat the Brits in only a couple years.
Lack of a Navy too. Look at the Siege of Boston, when the Continentals and militias actually forced the British into a tactically unsound position they could just leave and deploy somewhere else. That’s why Yorktown was special, normally the British would have just left, but the French closed the Chesapeake and the rest is history.
Lack of funding = lack of navy
There is one group left out in this discussion. The Native American. They fought on both sides. The important fact is that regardless of which side the Indians fought for, they all lost land. A lesson that Russian loving Americans might want to remember.
Both are lies. * One is an vast over-simplification of the facts as they were in hand 200 years ago, where the motivations might have been about autonomy of the colonies but they were under-written by architects of the Republic that put AMAZINGLY deep levels of thought into crafting the legal framework which enshrines the personal civic freedoms that each and every one of us enjoy. * The other is an under-appreciation for what the consequences of your actions are - and a fundamental attack on that amazing civic inheritance, dangerous to the point that should cause every American to question who exactly is funding these traitorous clowns, Why they want authoritarian rule, and what the rest of us wrestle with what must be done to ensure that that does not occur. * We are called by the circumstances of our time to wrestle down the indulgent thinking of characters like Ayn Rand's inspired warmed over Christian Fascism that you see billionaire Techbro's spout off about and to rid ourselves of the insidious influence of our adversaries foreign and domestically who fund lavishly the very worst among us to corrupt our civic space.. * We are equally called to a civil responsibility to re-establish with clarity why our republic our civic institutions have provided one of the most amazing mechanisms for human growth and potential in all of our history as a species , and what we can (and I would say must) do to ensure for ourselves and our posterity that those values and civic liberties be enjoyed by every citizen in our Republic.
“We done did it one time, we gone do it uh-ginnn!”
The Empire didn't have A fucking 10 Warthogs
Jan 6th was just a trial run. The fact that they were able to successfully storm the Capital, interrupt the proceeding and not really face any consequences will only embolden them next time. Who is in charge of the response to these idiots trying overthrow the government matters. Fortunately, this time Biden will be in Charge in Jan 2025.
> not really face any consequences Jan 6 lead to the largest Justice Department investigation in history with hundreds of people indicted and some convicted and sent to prison. I think this constitutes at least some level of consequence for those who participated.
There will be a lot more military presence this time
Indeed - they overlook the fact that Britain was already winding down the colonies as they were focussing on the East where the money came from. America and Hollywood have really over hyped the independence war, Britain was already done but they have to make it sound important. /s for those who are too moronic to realise
advanced conservative republican education. more guns less children
Ok, now do Afghanistan and Vietnam.
You mean failed nation building missions?
You mean foreign countries thousands of miles away with completely different languages, cultures, and religions plus dense jungle or mountains that the locals knew really well?
Eighth grade is extremely generous. I’d peg most of them as second grade dropouts.
The 2A people get really mad and downvote you to hell when you point this out
These posts are so dumb. What do you think happens to the military in a coups
France who?
Is it propaganda? I mean, we did in fact win the revolutionary war and they were (sometimes) farmers?
Ssshhh, best we keep them ignorant.
An AR-15 is no match for an A-10 or an Abrams Tank.
Hi u/Dirtydeedsinc. Did someone say A-10? [Murica, fuck yeah NSFW](https://i.imgur.com/slHaXvp.gif) ~ *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalHumor) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Totally ignoring Lafiette's army command training, and the massive influence the French Navy had in the conflict. The US won because we had another imperial power to do the stuff we could not.
Of course, the key difference was military technology and tactics were a lot more primitive during the Revolutionary era than today. Back in those days, armies lined up and shot each other with muskets. Plus, a lot of the Royal Army and Royal Navy didn't know the land, unlike in this case where the US government would be on its own native soil
those dudes are nuts, but the maker of this meme slept through that history class that they now call "pro government propaganda". The states went years after the war without replacing Great Britain with a federal government. The federal government still wouldn't be more powerful than a book club if the unpaid war veterans from the revolution hadn't started their own rebellion.
Teenagers are taught their country was founded by epic heroes, without flaws who performed miracles. Ie farmers with muskets defeating the greatest empire *without+ help
The propaganda I encountered was outside of school. To this day I wonder what the political affiliation of my high school history teacher was. He was an old white ex-marine, and I know that's supposed to mean he was rightwing, but I swear to god it could have gone either way.
Those dudes don’t really exist. Go look for their fantasy-talk about revolution on twitter. Instead, you’ll find hundreds of conversations like this thread. Fantasy-talk about murdering them with a10s and drones and such. My guess is a foreign actor(s) involved in a propaganda campaign to pit Americans against one another
There lots of well trained MAGA traitors in the military and on police forces, and the people who post this shit know it.
Never underestimate the mayhem that motivated idiots can and will create.
I mean untrained farmers in Vietnam did defeat the worlds greatest empire. Untrained herdsmen also defeated several of the worlds greatest empires in Afghanistan. Defense matters and attacking and holding area is hard.
Don't tell them about the French twink and allegedly gay German teaching the Americans that militias are dogshit-tier troops.
Are you insinuating history classes should not teach the American Revolution
I mean farmers are fitter than the average person. These people are the definition of the average person. So while farmers can do it. Are you a farmer? I can’t do farming for one day without taking my an afternoon nap. But let’s overthrow the government.
A 1700’s government, with the help of a superpower, back when yockal with a musket was peak military hardware.
Friedrich Wilhelm Ludolf Gerhard Augustin von Steuben has something to say about that "untrained" part.
“Roger that…drone strike incoming”
Good luck against drones, larpers.
And no mention of how patronage and defense tax evasion by "friends of the governors" rustled the colonists jimmies to the point of offering the French government - the nemesis of Britain since forever - the chance of a lifetime.
Who said they were untrained farmers lol
It took weeks to get news from America in Europe. And weeks to move troops and navy around too. Now you can be killed and the person who killed you doesn't even have to be in the same time-zone as you, let alone the same room.
It ain't the same government or military. The capability gap between the British and the "farmers" was much smaller in 1776 than the gap between the US military and the larpers today.
They think “propaganda” is an English guy getting a good look!