Twenty minutes that changed the world http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/07/23/america-was-20-minutes-away-from-being-french.html
ben,
I don't disagree with your overall hypothesis. the problem is that it requires more than one POD. although Prussia OTL seems highly unlikely at the start, it did happen. Britain committed to an America first, while France committed to a Europe first. under those circumstances, America is lost for the French. their plan was to win Europe, then trade back for America. The problem is that France lost pretty much everywhere. Turning it into a scenario with the same general set of setups, but somehow France wins or ties in all or most of the OTL setups requires a lot of PODs.
now, if you make a single POD of Britain not adopting the America first strategy, you make America a stalemate, and completely changes the dynamics of what happens in Europe. having Britain go toe to toe with France on France's terms changes everything. then you can write any outcome you want.
a more accurate (although far less eye catching sensational) would be 'how 20 minutes sealed France's fate in the new world'. by the time of the battle France was pretty much resigned to being a minor colonial presence in America. the only thing the battle did was ensure they were going to be no presence.
If, though, the British lost the battle, the French are still fooked. they don't have enough manpower or resources to go on the offensive. the best they can hope for is continued stalemate in Canada, which would allow them to keep a small portion there. the Ohio valley and everything east of the mississippi is lost unless things go far better in Europe for the French. Louisiana is questionable. If Spain still jumps in, it's highly likely they're still as incompetent as OTL, and are still going to want compensation, and with Louisiana being cut off from Canada by loss of the Ohio valley, it's pretty useless to France. On the other hand, if things go better for France in the war, they may not pressure Spain to enter the war out of desperation. On the third hand, if Spain entered the war earlier (with all else being relatively OTL), maybe Carlos takes over sooner POD, even their incompetent military could swing things for their alliance in '57, 58, 59. Jumping in AFTER everyone else lost made Spain irrelevant to the outcome.
Shouldnt New France have increased it demographics a bit earlier, I mean that by the time of the 7 years war the difference was so big I doubt France could resister later wars easily. Maybe a POD in 1700 would help with that.I disagree. The british forces had not crossed the Appalachians. So if the french had won the 7 years war on the north american battlefield, the most probable outcome was statu quo ante bellum.
Although there remained the structural demographic imbalance with 15 to 20 times as many european settlers in the british colonies than in the french colonies. So the french needed to increase quickly there number of settlers if they wanted to loosen the anglo-saxon pressure. But stronger demographics on the french side may have definitely blocked anglo-saxon expansion and have contained the 13 colonies to their 1754 extension.
During the peace negotiations, the british let the french the choice between regaining their north american territories of their sugar islands.
The french chose the sugar island that was going to cease being profitable a mere generation later. The french elite were short-sighted.
A French victory on the Plains of Abraham might have allowed New France to remain French, and for that reason it is one of the decisive events in the history of North America. But it could not have caused the British colonies (future United States, in other words) to become French.
ben,
I don't disagree with your overall hypothesis. the problem is that it requires more than one POD. although Prussia OTL seems highly unlikely at the start, it did happen. Britain committed to an America first, while France committed to a Europe first. under those circumstances, America is lost for the French. their plan was to win Europe, then trade back for America. The problem is that France lost pretty much everywhere. Turning it into a scenario with the same general set of setups, but somehow France wins or ties in all or most of the OTL setups requires a lot of PODs.
now, if you make a single POD of Britain not adopting the America first strategy, you make America a stalemate, and completely changes the dynamics of what happens in Europe. having Britain go toe to toe with France on France's terms changes everything. then you can write any outcome you want.
a more accurate (although far less eye catching sensational) would be 'how 20 minutes sealed France's fate in the new world'. by the time of the battle France was pretty much resigned to being a minor colonial presence in America. the only thing the battle did was ensure they were going to be no presence.
If, though, the British lost the battle, the French are still fooked. they don't have enough manpower or resources to go on the offensive. the best they can hope for is continued stalemate in Canada, which would allow them to keep a small portion there. the Ohio valley and everything east of the mississippi is lost unless things go far better in Europe for the French. Louisiana is questionable. If Spain still jumps in, it's highly likely they're still as incompetent as OTL, and are still going to want compensation, and with Louisiana being cut off from Canada by loss of the Ohio valley, it's pretty useless to France. On the other hand, if things go better for France in the war, they may not pressure Spain to enter the war out of desperation. On the third hand, if Spain entered the war earlier (with all else being relatively OTL), maybe Carlos takes over sooner POD, even their incompetent military could swing things for their alliance in '57, 58, 59. Jumping in AFTER everyone else lost made Spain irrelevant to the outcome.
Shouldnt New France have increased it demographics a bit earlier, I mean that by the time of the 7 years war the difference was so big I doubt France could resister later wars easily. Maybe a POD in 1700 would help with that.
ben,
it's a little bit of hyperbole to say every native liked the french more than the british. both sides had their stronghold niches, but overall, most natives liked whomever was better at the moment. Plenty of natives liked the british better than the French. and plenty of them were more than willing to switch sides at a moment's notice.
additionally, ben,
I'm curious as to the logistics of the French going on the offensive in NY, when the St Lawrence, Acadia, pretty much the entire seaboard is in British control. how are these men and resources going to get to the army from France? how does France get the guns/trinkets/etc to pay tribute to the natives (which the prime reason the natives put up with the French - French paid tribute. after the war, the British didn't)? By this point in the war, the natives were abandoning France for various reasons, including lack of tribute. they didn't take up arms against the French, but increasingly, they weren't taking up arms for either.
no, by the end of 1759, with or without quebec, the only way French fortunes would revive is on other continents.
wasn't the whole issue of the Spanish succession that Austria wouldn't accept a Bourbon and France wouldn't accept a Hapsburg? kinda hard to avoid that.
I'm thinking that if Louis didn't get such a hard on for the netherlands that he engaged in 3 or 4 wars between 1668 and mid 1690's, he'd have had plenty of resources and men (including the million or so that died in the famine in the early 90's - can't butterfly nature, but you can butterfly the ability to deal with it) to send to the new world.