Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: dahunan
What would have happened if France didn't love us in 1780?
Please. France didn't do what they did out of love. Their motivation was hate; specifically hatred of the British.
Why does it have to be all one and none of the other, especially since it's really quite impossible to analyze the motives of millions of the dead? I think you are just projecting who you are onto others. You will get SOME right that way, most likely.
What I'm projecting is well known history. The movtivations behind the French government helping the colonies is not any sort of secret.
There are times when need to drop your psychoanalytical wannabe bullshittery, Moonie, lest you come off looking like a fool. This is one of those times.
If it's history you want, it's history you'll get:
Wikipedia:
Public opinion in France was in favor of open war, but the governing body was reluctant due to the consequences and cost of such a war.
Following the Declaration of Independence of the thirteen colonies, the American Revolution had been well received in France, both by the general population and the educated classes. The Revolution was perceived as the incarnation of the Enlightenment Spirit against the "English tyranny". Benjamin Franklin, dispatched to France in December of 1776 to rally her support, and was welcomed with great enthusiasm, as numerous Frenchmen embarked for the Americas volunteer for the patriot war effort. Motivated by the prospect of glory in battle and/or animated by the sincere ideals of liberty and republicanism, volunteers included the likes of Pierre Charles L'Enfant, and the La Fayette, who enlisted in 1776.
The official reaction was more cautious. Louis XVI wanted to assist the colonies, but was constrained by the financial situation of his Kingdom and would only provide clandestine aid through Beaumarchais. The French foreign minister, Vergennes (in office from 1774 to 1781) was in favor of open participation by France due to the possibility of commercial and diplomatic gains. There was much prolonged consideration and analysis, as diplomats attempted to court allies (Spain through their Family Pact, and Austria), or at least ensure the neutrality of other powers (Austria, Holland, Prussia).
Still, many overseers of economy and the Navy in particular remained reluctant. The French Navy was described as still insufficient and unprepared for such a war, the economy would have been thrown into even further debt - as noted by Turgot and later Necker. Diplomats were less enthusiastic as Vergennes and Louis XVI, underlining the unique and isolated position of France in Europe on the matter.
The balance of peace and economic prosperity of the times opposed but the desire to defeat Britain in the North American sphere, and populist Enlightenment-era commitment to liberal republican ideals.
===================
Sad, isn't it, that my psychoanalytical wannabe bullshittery without a trace of historical knowledge just devastates your pompous assholery Historectumy with a single trip to Google. Part of the reason France came to the aid of the United States was Republican Idealism. Holy fuck, is wasn't just hate of the British, and it's right there in black and white in history. I, with my psychobabble, must be a fucking genius and you must be as dumb as a stump. Surprise. Surprise.
See bolded above.
Next time bother to read the crap you post. Don't just rely on a cherry-picked Wiki quote either. (Odd you didn't even bother linking to the entire article, but not surprising since anyone who bothers to read the entire thing will understan that my contention was correct). Besides that, the Wiki barely touches on the animosity between France vs. Britian in that time.
So your bullshittery remains as much crap as it ever was.
OK imbecile, let me lay it out where it's very clear. In response to, "What would have happened if France didn't love us in 1780?", you responded with:
"Please. France didn't do what they did out of love. Their motivation was hate; specifically hatred of the British."
Notice the blanket statement. Hate not love. Hate of the British and to which, with great delicacy and gentleness replied with a question, giving you every opportunity to dig yourself out of your stupid hole:
"Why does it have to be all one and none of the other, especially since it's really quite impossible to analyze the motives of millions of the dead? I think you are just projecting who you are onto others. You will get SOME right that way, most likely.
See how all I said was that there was a potential that other factors than hate were involved in the French action, not that hate wasn't a factor, but only not the only factor? See where I said it is really not possible in hind sight, to know the precise motivation of those dead two hundred years, specifically that their only motivation was hate of the British that somewhere among all those French who supported America there might have been at leas one who was idealistic? See how you are arguing something that is completely absurd, the absolute statement that the French supported America not out of love but out of hate, black and white, cut and dried, when even a child would know that among thousands of people, in this case the French of 1780, there was not one motivated by love or idealism? See how ridiculous you are?
See how my argument has nothing to do with psychology or any of your monkey nonsense, but is simply statistically factual and obvious to any not completely brain dead. We can know nothing about the dead or what motivated them because they are dead and all we have are our opinions, your being the fantastical notion that all those French had but one motivation, hate of the British. Statistically, given the huge numbers of French alive at that time, it would be impossible that each and every one who supported helping America did so out of hate of the British. There must have been at least two of them who stood to make some money, and maybe one or two pie in the sky idealists changing Go America, viva la liberte, or some such French shit.
But because you are defensive and stupid, and can never see yourself as wrong, you retorted that I was off in the clouds and history was on your side. So I Googled "why did the French help America and lo and behold, the question had been asked many times and there were several hundred thousand places to look up an answer, so took one of the very first from Wikipedia and voilà, what did that first look say, what was the verdict of history?
"Following the Declaration of Independence of the thirteen colonies, the American Revolution had been well received in France, both by the general population and the educated classes. The Revolution was perceived as the incarnation of the Enlightenment Spirit against the "English tyranny". Benjamin Franklin, dispatched to France in December of 1776 to rally her support, and was welcomed with great enthusiasm, as numerous Frenchmen embarked for the Americas volunteer for the patriot war effort. Motivated by the prospect of glory in battle and/or animated by the sincere ideals of liberty and republicanism, volunteers included the likes of Pierre Charles L'Enfant, and the La Fayette, who enlisted in 1776."
It seems you're the one who can't read. Watch my lips as I read it to you: Motivated by (Get that that, motivated by, and if the next words aren't hate of the British, you are fucked) (Oh no) the prospect of glory in battle and/or animated by the sincere ideals of liberty and republicanism, volunteers included the likes of Pierre Charles L'Enfant, and the La Fayette, who enlisted in 1776." God damn, two French motivated by the prospect of glory or sincere ideals, not hate of the British enlisted in 1776. Holy fuck, this is history that says you are full of shit. So hot damn, the French in how many untold numbers were not only motivated by but actually animated to action by, say it now baby, things other than hate for the British. It's fucking right there in history. It seems you didn't know as much history as you thought, which, again, was obvious from the statistical absurdity of your claim.
Facebook
Twitter