Probably not. The French are often portrayed in US history as only being involved in the Revolutionary War after the victory at Saratoga. In actuality it was much earlier than that and without their help, the war would've more than likely been lost quickly. I'm going to copy and paste a response to a similar question from a couple months ago, so pardon the laziness:

I'm typing from my phone so this won't be nearly as detailed as I would like, but here we go!

The French took a huge interest in the rebellion in the Americas because they knew how devastating it would be to the British economy. France had, after all, lost almost all of their colonies in North America after the Seven Years War (Or French and Indian War) so any way they could put a hurt on Britain would be good for them.

At the start of the war, the colonists didn't have the hard currency needed to field an army due to the Currency Act which made British silver in the colonies scarce so they sought aid from France. France at this time needed to appear neutral, so in 1775 a shell independent shipping import-export company was created between France and ally Spain (who felt their own colonies were potentially threatened by a British controlled Florida) called Roderigue Hortalez et Companie. It borrowed 3 million livres (1m from the French government, 1m from Spain, and 1m from French merchants) to cover start-up costs and to purchase and begin selling the colonists muskets, cannon, ammunition, tentage, and enough uniforms for 25,000-30,000 soldiers through neutral Dutch Caribbean islands. The idea was to sell these items to the colonists at low surplus prices, but then in turn purchase American tobacco and rice at a higher price with hard currency, which would then be sold through Europe by the merchants at an even higher price. This allowed 2 things: one was that this began giving the colonists a hard currency to begin funding a war and two it allowed the Companie to pay back the initial investors with the money acquired through selling American agricultural goods.

Early on, these supplies were critical for the Americans, who would have otherwise faced an early defeat in the revolution and also helped in the victory at Saratoga which gave France confidence to back the colonies officially in 1778 with the military treaty between France and America. At that point the Companie collapsed as the French government began supplying the colonists with far more equipment than the Companie ever could and were doing so directly instead of through vast shipping channels.

More information about the Companie and France's involvement: link

Edit: Hey! This blew up haha. There have been some great questions and I'm trying to get to all of them. I'm going to confess that I am not totally an expert on this, my research has been limited to some JSTOR journals and other things. So I have had to re-research some of it just for clarification's sake and to make sure I'm not passing on faulty information and I probably have over simplified some of the stuff. Also I've been up all night for work so excuse any incoherence lol. Any information that can be provided by other scholars is more than welcome.

It would be interesting to find out what was the American reaction to Louis XVI of France's execution?

With questions like this there are so many variables that could change the outcome of every event.

This scenario brings up a ripple effect of questions. If the French don't support the U.S. would the Spanish step up their support? Without France supporting the revolution would the Dutch be more willing to fund the rebellion just to be a thorn? If the colonies didn't receive full support from Spain or France would the Continental Congress circle the wagons and take decisive action to give Washington everything he requested in a timely manner? They knew their necks would stretch if this endeavor failed maybe a bigger sense of urgency could move everyone to decisive action. If the colonies didn't get outside support would Washington keep running away like a fox until the British gave up? Would the British face more defeats by sending armies into the wilderness of North America in a long shot attempt to corner Washington? In this situation who would have the longer endurance? If Washington couldn't be captured and the colonies were still rebellious what would a decisive British victory look like? How long would a continent remain ruled by an Island? Seems inevitable that the colonies would gain independence. What if King George had enough foresight to allow the colonies to have autonomy within the empire? There is a good chance the colonies would have stayed in the empire if they could elect their governors while the King determines foreign policy and remains the head of state. This brings up the final ripple question. If somehow the colonies stayed in the Empire how many more world events would change? Think about the French Revolution, American Civil war, WWI, the colonization of Australia, modern democracies.

Could the US have won the war of independence if Russia agreed to help Britain when Britain asked for help?

Were there ever battles between the French and English on European soil that could be directly linked to the American Revolution?

I'm going to go with yes, but keep in mind where I"m coming from: career military officer, degrees in History and Strategic Studies. While I use history as my "ammo," I"m not a historian. Here goes:

Most people take a look at the situation in 1775 and think that the Americans stand little chance. I beg to differ. The British had about 35,000 troops in North America at the time, but North America is a big place. Those 35,000 troops have to cover Canada, the Colonies, and the Caribbean and they cannot be shifted around quickly and easily. Augmenting and replacing them is both time consuming and expensive due to the Atlantic Ocean. While the Colonists don't have a military, they do have experience; large numbers of colonists either fought in the French and Indian War or were called up for service, trained, and then released when their terms were up. They're rusty but not all of them are rank amateurs. (Pardon the pun.)

Now look at the British. They're still in debt from the French and Indian War and while they control an empire, they do it (at this time) by virtue of their Navy. The British Army is not as good as everyone assumes. They barely won the French and Indian War and only because the Native Americans turned on the French. When the French Armies had Native Americans to do their scouting and skirmishing for them they wiped the floor with the British Army. The best army in the world at the time, pound for pound, is Frederick the Great's over in Prussia. Not the British.

Plus there are only a few ways the Brits win this war. Option 1 is to just overawe the colonists with extreme violence right out the gate. Say, burning NYC down. This was considered but the British generals wisely demurred. After the evacuation of Boston is clear that the Americans won't back down out of fear.

Option 2 is to flood the colonies with troops. But remember, the British can't really do that. They have a massive empire to police and England itself to defend from the French. This is why they sent mercenaries almost right away; the British Army was small. Oh by the way, there's even a limit to how many mercenaries they can deploy; they're broke.

Option 3 is to ignite a civil war in the colonies and make sure the Loyalists win. This is right out of the Colonialism 101 Playbook and, IMO, their best bet. The problem is they realize this too late when Cornwallis goes south. He went south with the express purpose to ignite this civil war and back the Loyalists. He does this, but there's a problem: the Tories lose. Bad. They only win some "battles" and only when the British are right there to back them up. (If you've ever been to the deep hills of West Virginia you can see historical markers of Tory settlements. This is where Tories fled after losing this civil war that we never want to talk about anymore.)

So while the French have been helping in one way or the other since the very beginning, it took a good long while to actually have an effect. Remember the French are also broke after losing the French and Indian War. Part of their involvement is trying to recoup those losses and they want to do it on the cheap. They don't really start to get their act together until 1781 when both the French fleet under de Grasse and the expeditionary force under Rochambeau are both in the colonies.

But by then the British are already on the ropes and there's not much else they can do to win. They already hold the major port and commercial center of NYC. They already kicked the Colonial Government out of their capital. They've beaten and routed multiple rebel armies and they've always reconstituted. Finally, they lost their civil war to secure political control at the local level. All of this and the American STILL haven't given up.

The only thing left is to either get Washington fired or to kill him. The first is unlikely; Washington's ONE JOB after Boston was to hold NYC and he failed but did not get fired. A political coup against him had failed. The troops love him so he's not going out by way of mutiny. And he was just too damned smart to let the Continental Army get beaten so bad that he gets fired.

We're down to Washington's death in battle but even if that happens his death may galvanize even more support for the Colonials. Besides that, the Continental Army has a deep bench at this point. Very early in the war it would have been a disaster for Washington to die but, and I hate to say it, he could be replaced at this point. Nathaniel Greene, Benjamin Lincoln, and Alexander Hamilton could have carried on long enough for the British to give up and they understood well from working for Washington that that is exactly what they needed to do. Hell, even Lafayette was no slouch in command by this point and his voice was probably still cracking from puberty.

What the French did do was give Washington an opportunity for a Ronda Rousey style KO, and he's a genius for recognizing it. The combination of the French fleet, the Continental and French armies, and Cornwallis' defensive crouch at Yorktown was an opportunity for a decisive win and Washington took it. Despite the risk of the British Army at NYC doing something in his absence. (They never realized he was gone.) If it wasn't for that, the Colonists still win: the economic, political, geographic, moral, and demographic cards are just too stacked against the British even before French assistance begins to really have an effect. But without them it's a win by submission when the British just can't support the war anymore.

Did the French help in important ways? Yes. Do we owe them a debt of gratitude forever? Yes. Could the US have won without them? Yes.