WI: The British do slightly better in the AIW and keep some of the colonies

The way I see it, if the British are powerful enough to hold both NYC and Upper New York by the end of the American Revolution then that would be more an indicator of an overall US cause for independence that's probably in a bad way. If the British have that much of an advantage, I doubt they'd even want to negotiate at all and decide they have a realistic shot of finishing off the rebels and bringing them back under the British flag.
 
As for the US (not that that really exists yet) not allowing the Brits to hold those islands (Long, Manhattan, Staten), what can they do about it? Declare war again?

Would they be happy with the situation? No, of course not. Would they have any real choice if Britain decided to keep them? Not really.

Britain can hold on to the city, but I don't see why they'd want to. It would be an enduring point of contention with the US and require a permanent military presence. That could be justified for a highly strategic location like Gibraltar but New York isn't quite that. And while it's a large city for the region, its population at this time is like 30,000.

Now Georgia and South Carolina, OTOH, would make a lot more sense for the UK to keep if it can.
 
Last edited:
Britain can hold on to the city, but I don't see why they'd want to. It would be an enduring point of contention with the US and require a permanent military presence. That could be justified for a highly strategic location like Gibraltar but New York isn't quite that. And while it's a large city for the region, its population at this time is like 30,000.

Now Georgia and South Carolina, OTOH, would make a lot more sense for the UK to keep if it can.

If Georgia is still British, a port like NYC would be valuable to hold for economic reasons and it would be a nice waypoint to Georgia. A garrison of 3K should be more than adequate during peacetime. And given it's hugely loyalist population (before they all evacuated in OTL, which they won't if it's still British) it really shouldn't be a point of contention.

Funny, assuming Hitler isn't butterflied by a 1780s POD (and he should be butterflied), then I think they are going to have to give it up just to get the Americans to supply their manpower for their troubles in Europe.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
Funny, assuming Hitler isn't butterflied by a 1780s POD (and he should be butterflied), then I think they are going to have to give it up just to get the Americans to supply their manpower for their troubles in Europe.
Yeah, no, a 1780s PoD probably butterflies Napoleon let alone Hitler.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
Napoleon, probably not unless the British decide to give $$$ to the guys who caused them trouble. Hitler, almost certainly
You misunderstand.
What I mean is that Napoleon's rise to being Napoleon (i.e. Emperor of France) was highly contingent on events - just as one example, if Nelson had been a little slower he'd have intercepted Napoleon on the way to Egypt and so much for that. Napoleon really had some impressive luck, and while it's entirely possible that someone becomes a French military strongman in the early 1800s it's not at all certain to be Napoleon Bonaparte.
 
Top