How different would the USA have been if France didn't give up on its colonies ?

How different would the USA have been if France didn't give up on its colonies ?

Attached: Nouvellefrance-V2.jpg (1530x1090, 1.04M)

It would include Canada because we wouldv'e conquered it all
Why do you think Canadians are so polite? Politeness is the only reason they exist

we'd all be posting in French

New-French.

Much better food, I imagine.

Would the US have been less capitalist/liberal/ war mongering ? more diplomatic ? More humanist/socialist ? Since american culture and way of life traces its roots in anglo culture.

yeah there would be a few differences but not that much imo
like leaf frogspeak is still very close to our language aside from a few weird words they made up

That big blue expanse looks impressive until you remember that at that time it was almost exclusively inhabited by natives with virtually no settlement by Europeans.

It'd be shit. All of the Anglo colonies like Canada, Australia, NZ, and the original Thirteen turned out fine. The closest any other country has to that is Spain's Argentina and Chile. The Anglo is far mightier than any French poof.

France could have never kept its colonies in NA, Napoléon just made some money of something that would have been inevitably grabbed by the americans or the english.
The real question is: what would have happened if Louis XIV actually sent people in NA instead of letting them unpopulated while the UK was sending truckloads of prostestants to reproduce like rabbits.

Québec is literally the only good thing in Canada.

There weren't many natives there either. Most of that shit was empty wilderness.

this

Attached: eb88b79a97ad.jpg (1622x864, 189K)

Quebec has been fucking over Canada for decades. The Canadians can't stand up for themselves due to the frog admixture and so the Quebecois get to run the asylum. It's why they have the godawful LEAF flag and anthem.
Trudea and his father are frogs.

Attached: 1280px-Canadian_Red_Ensign_(1957–1965).svg.png (1280x640, 59K)

this, if france didn't give it up, it would have just been taken with ease.

>All of the Anglo colonies like Canada, Australia, NZ, and the original Thirteen turned out fine.
What about South Africa, Zimbabwe, Egypt, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Guyana, etc.

Nothing would be different. Cultural Marxism is the reason for the degeneration of the US.

Probably would have wound up with another Haiti because France's idea of "colonisation" is to send a fuckload of niggers instead of building an outpost of European culture.

probably some creole

>his father
lmao
too niggery

There is absolutely no way that France would have kept control of North America; once the British flattened Louisbourg and established a naval blockade, the French were fucked. Montcalm could have been a tactical genius but he still would have lost. The strategic mismanagement of supplies, morale and troop composition saw to the campaign being decided in the opening months.

Not true. See Quebec and Acadia.

Attached: acadie.jpg (585x466, 79K)

>South Africa
Still one of, if not the richest country, in Africa. We have to manage our expectations - it is an African country after all and therefore has the problem of being full of Africans.
>Zimbabwe
What is Rhodesia?
>Egypt
Not as badly run as some other Arab nations. Not ever a colony either.
>India
For all the shit they get, they're ok. They have a parliamentary democracy thanks to us. 80% of all railways in India are British.
>Pakistan and Bangladesh
Shithole. Always was and always will be.
>Guyana
At least it's not Venezuela.
By the way, the Falklands are British.

We'd have more land once Napoleon sells al NA territories to us.

There would have been a lot more fighting. Americans would never have settled for allowing the route west to be blocked off by French territory so they would have at least had to fight for enough land to support further westward expansion. Even after accomplishing that, there would have decades of border wars and skirmishes before firmly establishing boundaries. On the flip side, there would have been no Civil War because we would have been too focused on New France for anyone to give a thought to crippling tariffs and abolition.

Yes true. See Haiti and the South Pacific.

seeBritain had the largest fleet on earth and effectively had the French fleet boxed into port. New France was done like dinner from the getgo.

it wouldve been night and day, no joke

France neglected its american colonies and did not send enough troops. The question here is what if it had won or at least, had more cultural influence on America than the English.

That's what i think too, but how in your opinion ?

they probably wouldn't have guillotined foreskins

>The question here is what if it had won or at least, had more cultural influence on America than the English
That would require more then just a few changes to the war, it would have required a dramatic change in how the French operated their military for over a century before the war even began. France couldn't match Britain's navy because it couldn't afford given its neighbouring competitors, but if we assume it could and in the 17th century did so, then there's a chance they'd have won on the American front enough to hold their territory. Had that happened what is today Eastern Canada and the area around Louisiana would be almost entirely linguistically and ethnically French, though there's no way in hell the US part of the Great Lakes region or the rest of the Louisiana purchase wouldn't have fallen into US hands eventually.