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?

Quote:

---

It's even possible that Ho Chi Minh might have turned to the US, instead of Russia, for an ally

---

It is well documented that Ho sought out assistance from and relations with the US, dating back to the 1920's. The guerilla movement he led in WWII had active collaboration with the OSS, but he was immediately pegged PNG at the conclusion of the war.

Returning the French Asian colonies was a terrible mistake and should never have been pursued. I am a huge admirer of Truman, but the policies that took effect in regards to post WWII under his watch were not good. Given the cult of personality around FDR I don't think Truman was truly well versed on foreign political intrigues, and importantly I don't think he had the patience for them. Between his disdain/feud for and with McAurthur and what were basically subversives with agenda's in the OSS then CIA being the top decision maker in late 40's early 50's America was not an easy task.

Truman and Eisenhower were both fed a lot of skewed information which was really dis-information. The supporting of supposed "anti-commies" and those actors "status-quo" caused a lot of future problems and death and cast the US in role that totally played into the CCCP's world view; namely Iran, Guatemala, and Vietnam.

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

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.