How would the American Revolution changed if the Continental Army had been able to hold Quebec City?

Even if they held off the British, I have a very hard time seeing it as anything other than a Charleston situation in reverse. The town itself can be held but there's no ability to reliably project power over the rest of the colony.

Oof, perish the thought. I don't think those French Canadians up that way would have helped long term in America's future. Of some note that many miss, is that we did in some substantial way gain Ohio in the later peace negotiations, as part of the 'demands' for Quebec.

Ultimately, not focusing forces there and reinforcing a desperate Washington in New Jersey after the battles/campaign were clearly the right moves.

Quote:

---

A significant portion of the Continental forces at Fort Ticonderoga were sent south with Gates and Arnold in November to bolster Washington's faltering defense of New Jersey.
Conquering Quebec and other British colonies remained an objective of Congress throughout the war. However, Washington, who had supported this invasion, considered any further expeditions a low priority that would divert too many men and resources away from the main war in the Thirteen Colonies, so further attempts at expeditions to Quebec were never fully realized.
During the Paris peace talks, the American negotiators unsuccessfully demanded all of Quebec as part of the war spoils. Benjamin Franklin, primarily interested in the Ohio Country, which had been made part of Quebec by the Quebec Act of 1774, suggested in the peace talks that Quebec should be surrendered to America; only the Ohio Country was ceded.

---

What if we had nuked Hanoi?

What if England, France, other western countries let Hitler have all of eastern Europe? Would he just focus on going all out against Russia?

I guess eventually Italy and England would get into it over North Africa. But they where getting their ass kicked and needed Hitler to come save them.

Quote:

---

And the French were horrific colonizers, even the damn Spanish ended up with better results in the long run.

---

No doubt they screwed the pooch in Vietnam but as colonizers, saying they were worst than the Spanish is pretty stark, since the Spanish gave their North American colonies peonage and seemingly eternal poverty. The Indians liked the French in Pondicherry better than the British and their colonization of North America was way friendlier to the natives than anyone, except maybe the Dutch. Of course they screwed the pooch in Haiti too. But I suppose debating the merits of stealing from native peoples, is like looking for the tallest midget.

The Dutch were imho the worst European colonizers, though none could compare to the arab slavers.

Quote:

---

Of course they screwed the pooch in Haiti too. But I suppose debating the merits of stealing from native peoples, is like looking for the tallest midget.

---

Very apt points, well put. My vote for crappiest in the America's still goes to the French. Mainly, as you aptly point out, due to Saint Domingue, that was an epic, vile, lethal, and dehumanizing fiasco that to this day continues to bear poisoned fruit. And remember that the French demanded reparations for their losses there that were paid through 1947, seriously 1947 from poor ass, backwards Haiti (most of the European powers as well as the US supported this mind you).

The French presence in North America, to me, was not so much colonization as it was immigration with commissions. Their colonies weren't of long duration and largely didn't have the formal presence, governance, and structure that the Spanish or British ones did.

Don't get me wrong, I am not defending the Spanish by any means. The Economienda system was a blight that was and is a cornerstone of dysfunction in Latin America to this day. But the Spanish colonies were more lasting, and I guess one could say "successful" if that might be right, than the French ones. Equally the Spanish did mix with the indigenous societies in numbers large enough to develop the "Meztisaje" and "Criollo" culture that lasts to this day. The French treated the indians North America better, because they had to, they depended on them.

The French were just not good at colonies and the one they got producing riches, the most valuable colony in the America's at one time, devolved into an irreparable disaster.

To your point, maybe they weren't the worst, but the French the champions at failing.

nortex97 said:

---

The Dutch were imho the worst European colonizers, though none could compare to the arab slavers.

---

My favorite remains a scenario where Lindbergh wins the presidency, either vs. Roosevelt somehow, or if the latter had not survived assasination. Philip Roth's bestselling novel, The Plot Against America (2002), gives an alternate history in which Charles Lindbergh, trans-Atlantic pilot and all-American hero, becomes the Republican presidential candidate in 1940, defeating the incumbent Franklin Roosevelt. (HBO did a series on this, as well).

President Lindbergh, a white supremacist and anti-Semite, declares martial law, throws his opponents in prison, and allies with Nazi Germany in World War II. Lindbergh is remembered as a national villain in Roth's opinion, the reputation he deserves.

What if Hitler gets accepted to Art school or if English Private Henry Randel kills him in WWI (disputed).

What if Stalin had believed the warnings of an imminent German invasion in June 1941?

I don't think the Red Army would have stopped the Germans - the Red Army had way too many problems for that - but what if their troops had fully occupied their defensive positions, with ammo and supplies fully issued, heavy weapons prepared, air defenses on alert, planes dispersed on prepared dispersal fields, etc?

Again, I'm not saying the Red Army would have stopped the Germans - far too many of their divisions were only partially manned and equipped, their command and control systems were a disaster, and the Purges had gutted the upper echelons of the officer corps. But would they have been able to engage in something resembling an semi-orderly fighting retreat, avoiding the massive encirclements and surrenders, and possibly stopped the Germans a good deal further west, maybe at the Dvina-Dniepr line?