Why did America win the Revolutionary War?

It's hard to win a war your people consider to be unjust. Even Edmund Burke (about as slobbishly conservative, reactionary, and nationalist a politician as you could dream of in your worst nightmares) supported the American traitors. Burke saw the war as a German king using German mercenaries to destroy an uprising of Englishmen whom he has repeatedly injured, by ignoring their very reasonable requests for the reestablishment of home rule in colonial affairs and to not be taxed without at least having a vote in Parliament.

Essentially because the German on the throne couldn't understand the system of give-and-take between subjects and sovereigns that's standard in the British constitutional monarchy, and tried to rule his empire with absolute and sole authority, the Americans had a right to be pissed and leave the empire.

Also reminder that even as late as 1775 most Americans had no desire to leave the empire (with the exception of the far-leftists). They only said "fuck it" and cast the die the year after when they determined that the King was never going to lift his siege of Boston without the chance to "teach his violent subjects a lesson" first.

How did America lose the Vietnam war? In both cases, ultimately, the political goals couldn't be accomplished simply by beating the enemy on the battlefield. America had a huge amount of land area, and to occupy it at the rate that the British did when they locked down other small insurgencies would have taken around a million troops, well beyond what they could have projected to America.

It was too far, and too expensive, and above all, too much trouble.

>British
>more skilled soldiers

I give you they had the best navy, but their army was crap

>defeating the locals innawoods

Unlike the US in Vietnam, Britain was defeated on the field through conventional warfare
That being said, it had more to do with French and Spanish intervention than with ebin American skill

>Essentially because the German on the throne
Forgive my retardation, but you're saying the king of England at the time was German? Wouldn't he be English?
I don't know much about European political affairs during the American revolutionary war. That bit of history class was more or less just 'America kicked ass.'

>Unlike the US in Vietnam, Britain was defeated on the field through conventional warfare

It was coercively defeated, not conclusively defeated. There was absolutely nothing, beyond the lack of will, that would have prevented Britain from sending more troops to the colonies, had it wished.

>That being said, it had more to do with French and Spanish intervention than with ebin American skill

And you're calculating this how, exactly? Why is it that the war kept going for 6 years after open French intervention? At what point did it become decisive?

Not him, but all the King George's were from Hannover. I don't remember all the dynastic politicking that left them on the throne, but no, you had Germans as kings of Great Britain. One of the things that hampered the war effort was that George III had previously been caught at embezzling money from the British budged (Remember, Parliament is the primary arbiter of the funding) towards his concurrent fief in Hanover, because he had loyalties there. The resulting scandal led to much tighter control over the British purse, and most of the money spent on suppressing the American revolution came from the royal estates in Ireland, since those weren't under parliamentary remit.

>There was absolutely nothing, beyond the lack of will, that would have prevented Britain from sending more troops to the colonies, had it wished.

There were the French and Spanish navies
The reason why Britain stopped sending reinforcements in America after 1778 and lost once its army present on the theater got trapped at Yorktown

>There were the French and Spanish navies

Which combined, were smaller than the British navy, even after the loss at Chesapeake, which I should remind you, sank all of ONE ship; Chesapekae's only significance was in the short term, preventing resupply to Yorktown, it had no long term significance. The British would go on to go on the offensive in the Carribean, against the combined Franco-Spanish fleets. Funny that.

>The reason why Britain stopped sending reinforcements in America after 1778

That's simply wrong.

>and lost once its army present on the theater got trapped at Yorktown

Because again, it was too expensive and troublesome to raise a new army and continue, not that they somehow lost the capability should they have desired to do so.

And just to elaborate; remember, Cornwallis's surrender at Yorktown cost the British about 8,000 troops, or roughly 1/3 of what they still had up around New York City. They weren't eliminated from the continent.

King William from Holland died without a male heir so the crown went to his cousin/aunt? Then it went to her nephew after she died of old age a bit later

Because the French and British fought each other and colonists capitalised on that opportunity.

They would have lost if not for the French.

It's funny

In American schools we're taught that the Revolution was an epic battle between the free people of America and the dark legions of Britain and her fiendish allies

In my neck of the woods our folklore elevates George Washington to near superhuman levels

How do Britfags learn about it?

That it was a small civil war. And king george did a good job keeping things together afterwards.

It's this sort of thing that amuses me

My 9th grade history teacher told us that the British were raping children, looting churches, and burning farms en masse for the glory of their king

How can we trust anyone with history?

The British soldiers had no respect for the colonists. So out wouldn't surprise me if some of that were true

Because the British were expecting old fashioned line fighting. Instead they got "BRITBONGS GET OUT! fREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE- dom"

>We had France
You answered your own question. The French pretty much were Europe until after Napoleon. These were not cheese-eating surrender-monkeys, but a legitimate threat that were not only supplying troops, but were supplying officers, training, equipment, etc.

Also, the Brits had more Natives than us, Indian Sepoys, Hessians, Scot/Irish levees, a ton of freed slaves....

Die choking on a cock.

Not true, but an easy mistake due to the stretched logistics, and reliance on colonial levies and impressed native troops.

There was no such thing as Germany at the time. It was still independent principalities.

We were fucking terrorists who were getting away with near treason, and still wanted more.

God save the King.

There was, however, such a thing as Hannover, which was a German principality and you had people living there identifying as German. The lack of a German state had little to do with that.

Yes, but in the 18thC, agency of state was everything. Think if it like how the Ancient Athenians and Spartans identified as Greeks when it was convenient or needed.

Same reason you let a worthless OPM across the ocean with a 22k stack of rebels defect

Ye book to redpill me pls?

Recommendations for ye redpill of a book on this?

>Alliance with France (who pretty much fought the war on the High Seas for us)
>Largely foreign army fighting against a people who knew the vast American wilderness far better than they did
>Lack of support for the war in Great Britain
>3,000 miles of ocean separating decision makers in London and the battlefield (making it effectively impossible to coordinate the war properly)
>Losing Boston within the first year
>Even Cornwallis believed the war was unwinnable
>Failure of the British to gain solid support of the slave population (in part because they were nominally in charge of enforcing it)
>British severely underestimating American resolve
>Britain was already in severe financial trouble from the French and Indian Wars a decade prior and were ill prepared for an even larger war

And of course, the Overmountain Men

House of Hannover