I feel like you're trying to be inflammatory just for the sake of it. There are good reasons why Poland and Polish people couldn't fight like Americans did against the British, it would turn into an essay if I wanted to list them all. But I think most importantly, that approach worked - we have harboured Polish culture wherever we could and now we're a major country of 50 million people.

Not to offend anyone, but Americans haven't really demonstrated any ability or will to fight for their rights as a nation in the past 100 years, this posturing I see all the time from Americans about freedom is like a peacock displaying its feathers, not having done anything to earn them - you were just born with them.

That is an overly simplistic analysis. The American colonies had strategic resources and positioning available to fight. Poland at the time did not.

Examine Hong Kong’s strategic resources at the moment and tell us how you would deploy them in a fight.

Also, distances were vastly bigger (maybe that's included in positioning?). England had to ferry troops and material over the Atlantic at a time when a ship voyage was long and could very well end in disaster. China could move troops over in a matter of days without any real risk.

America also had the financial and military support of France.

You act like the American revolution is the only instance of this. The French Revolution is another example of people fighting for change.

The French Revolution was largely fought internally. Hong Kong’s situation is more like occupation than civil strife.