Probably not. So, what's your point?
2007-09-03 08:34:03
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
I doubt it. Catherine the Great supposedly turned down King George's request to borrow her Cossacks to put down the colonials. If enough countries had ganged up, it would have been all over. But the British had been way too competitive with the French and Spanish to get any help from either of them, so they were forced to go it alone, and then face colonists aided by the French later. So it is doubtful that America could have won it's freedom as easily if not for other countries staying out of the conflict, and some actually helping the upstart colonials to defeat the British.
- The Gremlin Guy -
2007-09-03 15:39:51
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
That's hard to say. Many colonists, especially living in the maritime states still considered themselves loyalists, and given the the high costs of this 8 or 9 year war and the limited economic resources, and limited supplies, manpower, and political support for the war, attrition could have worn down the Continental forces. This would have been true if the British had won one campaign, and battle after another.
In a contest of wills, it is doubtful the British were going to stop on their own.
The English had a moral position with respect to the revolution that Americans were " biting the hand that fed them" .
The high cost of the war of 1757-59
should have been borne by the colonies as well. Maybe this war could have gone on for a decade more with out some major strategic Amreican victory.
Its hard to say.
2007-09-03 15:45:12
·
answer #3
·
answered by planksheer 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Consider how it actually went down at Yorktown. The British were trapped because the American forces were cornering them on a peninsula and the British had no way of getting re-inforcements because of the French navy. Strategically the French were key in that battle.
How the rest of the war would have gone without them is up for speculation. Don't forget the strategic help the American forces got from the Marquis de Lafayette too.
2007-09-03 15:41:51
·
answer #4
·
answered by Ophelia S 2
·
1⤊
0⤋
Im British, and I think that eventually the up and comming Americans would have got their way with or without French help. The issue of the French just accelerated the issue. Even King George said " If we loose the US we will loose the Empire".
2007-09-03 16:29:05
·
answer #5
·
answered by lee p 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
As much as I hate to admit it, I highly doubt it. The British had us backed up to the shores and outnumbered. We may not have survived if the French had not showed up just in time to turn the tide and defeat the British. funny how much things can change in a few hundred years. Britain is now one of our closest allies and the French don't seem to want to get involved in anything but hosting wars on their land. At least in WWII we returned the favor and liberated them from the Germans.
2007-09-03 15:41:45
·
answer #6
·
answered by Rick 5
·
2⤊
0⤋
no
the british were cut off from supplies by the french navy - they were starved into surrender - even 40 years later in 1812 when 10 000 veterans of the napoleonic war marched on plattsburg NY the yankees ran and washington burned courtesy of admiral cochrane of the royal navy. Not until world war two did america flex its might and made all powers small before her able supply both the soviets and british in fighting the nazis while fighting the japanese and the nazis themselves after december 7 1941
2007-09-03 17:02:09
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
That was when surrendering wasnt suave. When France actually had a set of Big Ones'. On this one occasion I will concede that the French were right . Geez......seems like a long, long time ago. I hear they are being taken over by Extremist and are going to surrender soon. I hope noone breaks a finger nail.
2007-09-03 17:54:53
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
a personal opinion i think that the americans would have won but then again the french could have helped alot but a personal opinion i think that the americans would have won by them selves without the french help.
2007-09-03 18:01:19
·
answer #9
·
answered by james 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
Probably not..the French Navy was a needed asset..otherwise the Brits would have over taken most ports and have a foothold on more ground.
2007-09-03 15:39:22
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
You know whats also a really good question to ask?
Would both France AND England still be here if the US didn't help them in both world wars?
2007-09-03 18:20:10
·
answer #11
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋