Did We Betray France?

Plutarch
Plutarch Members Posts: 3,239 ✭✭✭✭✭
edited May 2011 in The Social Lounge
I don't how many posters we have here who are interested in American history but what do yall think about America staying out of the French Revolution? When Americans were rebels during the American Revolution, France helped us beat Great Britain. Only 20 years later, the French Revolution happens and the French rebels fight for the same damn principles the Americans fought for, but we don’t do ? to help them even when they ask for our help. Was America wrong for that?
«1

Comments

  • BelovedAfeni
    BelovedAfeni Members Posts: 8,647 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited May 2011
    not sure i read up on this but it sounds like it fits the mold.
    america is wrong for so many reasons.
    however it is still a beautiful place.
    im sure they dont hold a grudge for it.
  • Lorenzo de Medici
    Lorenzo de Medici Members Posts: 5,739 ✭✭✭
    edited May 2011
    No. ? we look like going all the way to ? ' france to fight? France had an invested interest here, they owned territory in the americas and Canada. We had nothing invested in Europe. Think france did that ? out of the good of their hearts?
  • Plutarch
    Plutarch Members Posts: 3,239 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited May 2011
    not sure i read up on this but it sounds like it fits the mold.
    america is wrong for so many reasons.
    however it is still a beautiful place.
    im sure they dont hold a grudge for it.

    Agreed.
    No. ? we look like going all the way to ? ' france to fight? France had an invested interest here, they owned territory in the americas and Canada. We had nothing invested in Europe. Think france did that ? out of the good of their hearts?

    Point made. But it's about the principle. If America was purely "moral" (which it hasnt been since the revolution), it would've helped France to defend freedom and liberty in the world. I dont think I would even mind if America worked out some stake in French territories to get a foot in Europe at the same time.

    But you're right about France being an interested party. I think that they thought about helping Britian instead too. I know years later Napoleon either helped or wanted to help the Confederacy during the American Civil War just for the profit, they didnt care about the struggle of the slaves.
  • 2stepz_ahead
    2stepz_ahead Guests, Members, Writer, Content Producer Posts: 32,324 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited May 2011
    we took vietnam from them and got our ass whipped while they ran.....we helped take the foot out of their ? ...TWICE during WW1 and WW2


    fukkas could at least help me at the ? airport with directions.....fukk them an charles de gualle
  • janklow
    janklow Members, Moderators Posts: 8,613 Regulator
    edited May 2011
    Plutarch wrote: »
    Was America wrong for that?
    that was not a time where America was really in a position to do anything for them
    pralims wrote: »
    we took vietnam from them and got our ass whipped while they ran.....we helped take the foot out of their ? ...TWICE during WW1 and WW2
    all this is not exactly accurate
  • Plutarch
    Plutarch Members Posts: 3,239 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited May 2011
    Young-Ice wrote: »
    Didn't france overthrow it's own government?

    what is american gunna help the french lower class revolt against the rich french upperclass?

    Why would america help the poor defeat the rich?

    For the same reasons I stated earilier. Either to defend freedom and liberty (our founding fathers and those immediately after them, unlike our current political leaders, seemed to be very dedicated to those principles) and repay the French for defending thier freedom and liberty or to accomplish both of those feats and make some investments in France and Europe.

    I'm not exactly sure if it was a poor v. rich thing. I think that it was more about a monarchism v. republicanism thing. The "poor" you were talking about were in the same boat that the Americans were just 20 years ago.
    janklow wrote: »
    that was not a time where America was really in a position to do anything for them

    all this is not exactly accurate

    care to explain each? you don't have to but I'm just curious. I know we were a new nation and all but...
  • janklow
    janklow Members, Moderators Posts: 8,613 Regulator
    edited May 2011
    Plutarch wrote: »
    care to explain each? you don't have to but I'm just curious. I know we were a new nation and all but...
    01. the French Revolution started in 1789. the US had been around for about six years at this point; we only elected our first president in 1789. the US simply didn't have the ability/money to lend a hand to anyone in the manner the French had been able to do for us.

    02. we didn't take Vietnam from them; they left and that process was why it broke into North and South Vietnam (this is simplified, obviously). we didn't really get our ass whipped a) militarily or b) if you consider the fact that theoretically the war was about preserving South Vietnam. yes, it was a mess regardless.

    03. in WWI we didn't save them from getting whipped so much as we helped seal the deal; the French had legitimately fought hard and spent a LOT of blood in that war. i love to tease them, and in some respects (their leadership was not phenomenal) they still deserve it, but the French military didn't get beaten, it got caught in a stalemate with a serious military power

    04. yes, in WWII we saved their bacon, although their military prowess was mostly ? up by terrible, terrible pre-war scheming. Vichy France made them look like the world's biggest ? as well
  • tru_m.a.c
    tru_m.a.c Members Posts: 9,091 ✭✭✭✭
    edited May 2011
    janklow wrote: »
    01. the French Revolution started in 1789. the US had been around for about six years at this point; we only elected our first president in 1789. the US simply didn't have the ability/money to lend a hand to anyone in the manner the French had been able to do for us.

    02. we didn't take Vietnam from them; they left and that process was why it broke into North and South Vietnam (this is simplified, obviously). we didn't really get our ass whipped a) militarily or b) if you consider the fact that theoretically the war was about preserving South Vietnam. yes, it was a mess regardless.

    03. in WWI we didn't save them from getting whipped so much as we helped seal the deal; the French had legitimately fought hard and spent a LOT of blood in that war. i love to tease them, and in some respects (their leadership was not phenomenal) they still deserve it, but the French military didn't get beaten, it got caught in a stalemate with a serious military power

    04. yes, in WWII we saved their bacon, although their military prowess was mostly ? up by terrible, terrible pre-war scheming. Vichy France made them look like the world's biggest ? as well

    I had an argument in class with somebody over this point. He claimed that the memory of WWI was the sole reason why the French got their ass whooped in WWII.

    I didn't feel like going on and on about it....but u can't make an absolute claim like that as if Russia(the biggest example) does not exist.
  • shootemwon
    shootemwon Members Posts: 4,635 ✭✭
    edited May 2011
    The French Revolution was a populist uprising against the established French Government. That would be, the same government that helped America during our Revolutionary War.

    So.....
  • janklow
    janklow Members, Moderators Posts: 8,613 Regulator
    edited May 2011
    tru_m.a.c wrote: »
    I didn't feel like going on and on about it....but u can't make an absolute claim like that as if Russia(the biggest example) does not exist.
    well, i can, for the following reasons:

    01. i said "we," not "the US." "we" includes the Allies such as the USSR and the UK.
    02. my contention is that no one major ally (US/UK/USSR) can say "they" won the war. it was a tandem effort and we were all supporting each other.
    Young-Ice wrote: »
    the memorys of WWI prevented france from effectively fighting off the germans? wtf, were they still trying to use trench warfare tactics against the blitzkrieg?
    it might have something more to do with the massive amount of deaths fighting Germany in the previous war cost them.
    Young-Ice wrote: »
    I dont know why u guys expect so much from the french, historically, they've never been a strong military power. they lost to the british, they got beat pretty bad by the germans, they lost to haiti... they lost a lot.
    except that this is not actually true. Napoleonic France, while ultimately undone by a large anti-France alliance and some quality generalship, was an immensely strong military power. they were obviously strong enough to follow this up by seizing all those colonies. in WWI they fought extremely hard and, you know, won the war alongside the rest of us. WWII was a disgrace mainly brought on by poor leadership; it clearly makes them look bad, but they had legitimate military power at the time that they failed to man up. post-WWII conflicts ended poorly for them for reasons that were not as much military.

    obviously they've had some missteps beyond the concept of trying to hold onto all their colonies, but they've long been a strong military power. hell, they're probably one of the handful of countries in the world that can actually say that presently.
  • tru_m.a.c
    tru_m.a.c Members Posts: 9,091 ✭✭✭✭
    edited May 2011
    janklow wrote: »
    well, i can, for the following reasons:

    01. i said "we," not "the US." "we" includes the Allies such as the USSR and the UK.
    02. my contention is that no one major ally (US/UK/USSR) can say "they" won the war. it was a tandem effort and we were all supporting each other.

    I was tlaking about the dude making an absolute claim
  • janklow
    janklow Members, Moderators Posts: 8,613 Regulator
    edited May 2011
    tru_m.a.c wrote: »
    I was tlaking about the dude making an absolute claim
    ah
    Young-Ice wrote: »
    Vimy Ridge.
    what specifically is the issue here
  • OFWGKTA
    OFWGKTA Banned Users Posts: 1,202 ✭✭
    edited May 2011
  • Plutarch
    Plutarch Members Posts: 3,239 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited May 2011
    shootemwon wrote: »
    The French Revolution was a populist uprising against the established French Government. That would be, the same government that helped America during our Revolutionary War.

    So.....

    So.....that may be irrelevant when you consider the fact that America was founded on the same principles that the populists were fighting for. And the established French government seemed to be a spitting image of the same British government that we had vigorously reacted against during the Revolutionary War. The boat that the populists were in was the same boat we had been in just six? years earlier.

    But...even though I believe in what I just said, it may be irrelevant because janklow has already persuaded me concerning the larger issue at hand.
  • Plutarch
    Plutarch Members Posts: 3,239 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited May 2011
    tru_m.a.c wrote: »
    I was tlaking about the dude making an absolute claim

    who me?
    OFWGKTA wrote: »
    ? France

    You might as well have said "? America" because there might not have been an America without a France.
  • Plutarch
    Plutarch Members Posts: 3,239 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited May 2011
    Young-Ice wrote: »
    i just wanted to bring up vimy ridge cause canada triumphed in that battle :)

    It seems to me that Canadians dont get the respect that they deserve for their significant contributions in war. I can't remember, but I think it was in World War II in which they were paramount to key Allies victories?
  • Plutarch
    Plutarch Members Posts: 3,239 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited May 2011
    sionb55 wrote: »
    Nah... did the Americans really need to stick their nose in something that would have gained them very little? The Americans under George Washington were going thru their own wars for independence, its foolish to fight battles just for mere moral cuz someone helped u out b4 - ? dont work like that in war. Besides who really wanted to go against Napoleon Bonaparte.... a man who single handedly revolutionized not just France but military strategy as well. The americans didnt have to interfere in the French Revolution & were smart not to. Had they have sent troops over there history would have been very very diff't. During that period France was the world superpower under Napoleon.

    There was nothing to gain other than a bigger & more powerful enemy.

    I'm pretty sure that you have a few historical inaccuracies there. For instance, had America intervened (presumably on the rebels' side, though I am just now thinking about the possibility of America joining the side of the French monarchy), the Americans would be fighting with Napoleon on his side, since he was a commander on the rebel side. Also, Napoleon's actual reign happened about 20 years after the French Revolution so he wasn't Emperor of France then. Also George Washington and America were done fighting their War of Independence before the French Revolution began.

    Still, I agree with you but for slightly different reasons
  • janklow
    janklow Members, Moderators Posts: 8,613 Regulator
    edited May 2011
    Young-Ice wrote: »
    i just wanted to bring up vimy ridge cause canada triumphed in that battle :)
    well, okay, that's cool
    Plutarch wrote: »
    It seems to me that Canadians dont get the respect that they deserve for their significant contributions in war. I can't remember, but I think it was in World War II in which they were paramount to key Allies victories?
    Canada always covers their percentage adequately
  • shootemwon
    shootemwon Members Posts: 4,635 ✭✭
    edited May 2011
    Plutarch wrote: »
    So.....that may be irrelevant when you consider the fact that America was founded on the same principles that the populists were fighting for.

    It's absolutely relevant since you began by saying "When Americans were rebels during the American Revolution, France helped us beat Great Britain" as one of the reasons we should have supported the French Revolution. You're now changing your argument to being about our core principles rather than your original point, that we owed it to France because of their help in the American Revolution.
  • Plutarch
    Plutarch Members Posts: 3,239 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited May 2011
    shootemwon wrote: »
    It's absolutely relevant since you began by saying "When Americans were rebels during the American Revolution, France helped us beat Great Britain" as one of the reasons we should have supported the French Revolution. You're now changing your argument to being about our core principles rather than your original point, that we owed it to France because of their help in the American Revolution.

    Yes, only one of the reasons. But I think you've misunderstood me. This is the full version of the quotation that you cited:
    Plutarch wrote: »
    I don't how many posters we have here who are interested in American history but what do yall think about America staying out of the French Revolution? When Americans were rebels during the American Revolution, France helped us beat Great Britain. Only 20 years later, the French Revolution happens and the French rebels fight for the same damn principles the Americans fought for, but we don’t do ? to help them even when they ask for our help. Was America wrong for that?

    I never changed my argument. Talking about the "core principles" was always a part of my original argument and was actually the main part of my argument, which wasn't simply limited to "America helped France so France should've helped America". There was much more to that. I'm not that naive. I know how politics work. There's no genuine morality in politics, there's just selfishness. It was the republican principles shared by both America and France that I was more interested in.
  • janklow
    janklow Members, Moderators Posts: 8,613 Regulator
    edited May 2011
    Young-Ice wrote: »
    ^ what does that mean?
    that Canada handles their percentage of the work in an acceptable fashion?
  • shootemwon
    shootemwon Members Posts: 4,635 ✭✭
    edited May 2011
    Plutarch wrote: »
    Yes, only one of the reasons. But I think you've misunderstood me. This is the full version of the quotation that you cited:



    I never changed my argument. Talking about the "core principles" was always a part of my original argument and was actually the main part of my argument, which wasn't simply limited to "America helped France so France should've helped America". There was much more to that. I'm not that naive. I know how politics work. There's no genuine morality in politics, there's just selfishness. It was the republican principles shared by both America and France that I was more interested in.

    Well alright. Also, I'm no expert but I'm pretty sure that France only helped America to ? off England. Kind of like how I cosign trolls to ? of janklow.
  • Sovo_Nah
    Sovo_Nah Members Posts: 2,216 ✭✭
    edited May 2011
    nobody has done us dirtier than pakistan. harboring him? really? They cut no americans no slack for that. why a arab country?
  • quiet1
    quiet1 Members Posts: 146
    edited May 2011
    France was right about Iraq so they might be ? but they got 100x the sense we do.
  • janklow
    janklow Members, Moderators Posts: 8,613 Regulator
    edited May 2011
    shootemwon wrote: »
    Kind of like how I cosign trolls to ? of janklow.
    yes, that makes a lot of sense... wait
    quiet1 wrote: »
    France was right about Iraq so they might be ? but they got 100x the sense we do.
    France also had Iraq owing them money for past weapon sales; it wasn't exactly an unbiased position