American-British War
- Thread starter Seraphiel
- Start date
RamscoopRaider
Donor
Most likely over Venezuela, UK wins but the US does not lose much
As a result there is no great rapprochement and next time the UK enters a major war the best they can hope for is true US neutrality, which means there is a good chance they are boned
As a result there is no great rapprochement and next time the UK enters a major war the best they can hope for is true US neutrality, which means there is a good chance they are boned
I have seen this issue debated in a number of threads and opinions vary greatly. I think in a protracted war involving only the USA and UK during the time period, the USA would eventually end up taking most of Canada minus areas that British naval superiority could protect like Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, PEI, and Vancouver. However, the Royal Navy would cause serious damage along the eastern seaboard. The later the war is the better it would go for the United States. The economic toll on the two countries would be enormous if not crippling.
RamscoopRaider
Donor
Of course you're assuming the war would be protracted, I think a short war is more likely
WeisSaul
Banned
Any conflict between the two would likely be fought over something in North America/Caribbean or the Pacific/East Asia.
The US became the world's largest economy in the 1890s and was the leading industrial power by that point as well. As such, due to it having massive amounts of raw materials, being geographically closer to wherever the conflict is fought, and having its industries closer to the field of battle (making resupply far more efficient for the United States).
Meanwhile, the UK not only has to fight the industrial machine that is the United States, but it also has to maintain the entire British empire. This is an empire that requires massive numbers of men to maintain and has to use massive parts of its navy to secure its sea lanes and fight pirates, meanwhile the US can afford to focus all of its efforts on fighting the British in its backyard.
The US would win such a war, but I doubt that it would try to annex all of Canada, there are too many people loyal to the British Empire who would see the annexation as an occupation.
The US would take the Bahamas, British West Indies, British Guyana, British Honduras, St Helena, the Falklands, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, Bermuda, the Maritime provinces, Newfoundland, British Colombia up to the 52nd parallel, and British North Borneo and Sarawak. The US would probably want some sort of British territory(ies) on the east Atlantic as naval bases. Likely Gambia, Sierra Leone, or maybe even Gibraltar.
Quebec would be established as an independent republic. It would be loyal to the United States.
The Spanish American war could play out...differently, but I'd think that with the Roosevelt Presidency the US and British Empires could come to a point of reconciliation, especially considering trade between the two is so important, and a strategic alliance would benefit both.
The US became the world's largest economy in the 1890s and was the leading industrial power by that point as well. As such, due to it having massive amounts of raw materials, being geographically closer to wherever the conflict is fought, and having its industries closer to the field of battle (making resupply far more efficient for the United States).
Meanwhile, the UK not only has to fight the industrial machine that is the United States, but it also has to maintain the entire British empire. This is an empire that requires massive numbers of men to maintain and has to use massive parts of its navy to secure its sea lanes and fight pirates, meanwhile the US can afford to focus all of its efforts on fighting the British in its backyard.
The US would win such a war, but I doubt that it would try to annex all of Canada, there are too many people loyal to the British Empire who would see the annexation as an occupation.
The US would take the Bahamas, British West Indies, British Guyana, British Honduras, St Helena, the Falklands, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, Bermuda, the Maritime provinces, Newfoundland, British Colombia up to the 52nd parallel, and British North Borneo and Sarawak. The US would probably want some sort of British territory(ies) on the east Atlantic as naval bases. Likely Gambia, Sierra Leone, or maybe even Gibraltar.
Quebec would be established as an independent republic. It would be loyal to the United States.
The Spanish American war could play out...differently, but I'd think that with the Roosevelt Presidency the US and British Empires could come to a point of reconciliation, especially considering trade between the two is so important, and a strategic alliance would benefit both.
The USA won't win unless it spends a lot of time and money beforehand building up a fleet to protect both coasts... otherwise, the RN will blockade and raid at will...
Overall, I see the war as going something like this. The RN imposes a blockade, but facing the largest blockading effort ever attempted in history with a fleet already overstretched by maintaining the Empire and fighting Piracy, struggles to enforce it. In the Pacific, an RN task force backed by Royal Marines takes Hawaii. Wanting to put pressure on Britain, the US invades Canada, but is bogged down by fierce resistance. The US Army counts its advance by miles, and is unable to fully conquer the country. In whatever land taken, US troops face a brutal and aggressive guerilla campaign by the locals. The USN, already a formidable force, begins aggressively challenging the British blockade, which gradually gives way as US industrial capacity rapidly builds up its fleet. As the blockade gives way, the USN secures merchant shipping to and from American ports, and the economy is revitalized.
US and British ships turn to engagements at sea. The USN and RN attack each other's merchant shipping, with the USN being more successful and the RN stripping resources from elsewhere in an attempt to keep up. The USN is soon operating in the seas around Britain and Ireland. A US squadron retakes Hawaii. The USN and US Marines begins attacking small and generally defenseless British colonies around the world. The war ends when Britain sues for peace. Under the peace treaty, Britain relinquishes its claims to all colonies captured. The US withdraws from Canada, but in exchange, the British are forced to dismantle all their naval bases in the Western Hemisphere, and there is a complete ban on British troops in Canada.
US and British ships turn to engagements at sea. The USN and RN attack each other's merchant shipping, with the USN being more successful and the RN stripping resources from elsewhere in an attempt to keep up. The USN is soon operating in the seas around Britain and Ireland. A US squadron retakes Hawaii. The USN and US Marines begins attacking small and generally defenseless British colonies around the world. The war ends when Britain sues for peace. Under the peace treaty, Britain relinquishes its claims to all colonies captured. The US withdraws from Canada, but in exchange, the British are forced to dismantle all their naval bases in the Western Hemisphere, and there is a complete ban on British troops in Canada.
Last edited:
I think it must also be worth considering what the other nations do. If this war breaks out in the late 1890s could we see it coincide with the Fashoda Incident? With Britain fighting the US could France join the Americans to gain control of the Sudan or would Britain simply let them have it due to entanglements elsewhere. Maybe Russia could get in on it, traditionally an ally of the US and with the Great Game under way maybe they could join the Americans and possibly the French to wound Britain. But with France and Russia on the Americans side maybe Germany would see it a prime opportunity to strike and join Britain against them. Then you've got Austria and Italy and.....
Possibilities.
Possibilities.
67th Tigers
Banned
Simple - the UK has a massive navy and the US has virtually no navy. After destroying the USN the UK can reduce the greatly neglected US coastal defences at her leisure.
The only question is will the UK commit an army to defend Canada? Even if she doesn't the US Army is still using ACW era weaponry, and 100,000 Canadians with modern weapons can effectively hold off the poorly equipped Yankees for a long time.
It was last discussed here: https://www.alternatehistory.com/Discussion/showthread.php?t=139782
The only question is will the UK commit an army to defend Canada? Even if she doesn't the US Army is still using ACW era weaponry, and 100,000 Canadians with modern weapons can effectively hold off the poorly equipped Yankees for a long time.
It was last discussed here: https://www.alternatehistory.com/Discussion/showthread.php?t=139782
I agree - the Navy take Hawaii and the British Indian Army invades California, with 100,000 sepoys moving eastward on the railways (very kind of Uncle Sam to have built them).
Mean while HMS Warrior (or her daughter ships) bombard New York and Boston.
The Canadians move south from the Great Lakes taking the central states and wiping out American manufactoring.
Britain could not afford to fight the USA in a half hearted way, it would have to commit everything if it wanted to win. (Not another Boer War situation).
Of course since Britain was the major economic backer of the USA right up until about 1910 the best war would have been economic rather than physical. How would the Americans have coped if the Great Depression happened in 1880 rather than 50 years later.
Grey Wolf
Donor
The British have maybe a year of decent seapower advantage in any such war, as long as everyone else remains neutral. They can do to the USN what the French did to the Chinese, chase them to their base and fight their way up the estuary, bombard the crap out of them, then fight their way out again.
Without a navy, the US can't prevent Britain shipping its armies where it wants and as well as defending Canada, Britain can do to the US what the Union did to the Confederacy, seize the outlying areas.
Best Regards
Grey Wolf
Without a navy, the US can't prevent Britain shipping its armies where it wants and as well as defending Canada, Britain can do to the US what the Union did to the Confederacy, seize the outlying areas.
Best Regards
Grey Wolf
67th Tigers
Banned
No need to invade - it is not a US territory until 1898.
Warrior was very obsolete by the 1880's, being rerated an Armoured Cruiser rather than a Battleship. By the 1880's the Predreadnought was a reality - starting with the Admiral class.
Eurofed
Banned
Wasn't a problem during the Reconstruction, and Dixie was much more popolous and bigger than settled Canada.
Eurofed
Banned
Uhm, you mean a bunch of Canuck guerrillas freezing and starving to death far deep in the Big White North once the much more numerous and powerful Yankees grab and entrench their control of the narrow strip that is settled Canada.
The US will trounce Great Britain in any 'actual' war. Canada is completely indefensible by this time with the major industrial cities of Detroit and Buffalo (including their railheads) being, literally, right across a river in addition to a dozen more major cities being right across the lakes and the vast majority of the population and major industrial and transportation centers being likewise. Now, if the Brits had spent years of preparation and pulled off a Pearl Harbor type sneak attack they could/would do a metric ton of damage and greatly set back the US in any conflict in the short and medium terms, but it would only doom them further later on in such a war and makes absolutely no sense in any case.
What's more likely, though, is Ottawa deciding London has been smoking the wacky tabaccy and drops out of the Empire in any such 'actual' war.
The most likely thing to happen in such a 'war' is that there are a few/some naval skirmishes which are won and lost depending on which side has more ships or better tactics and a few completely retarded schemes by one side or the other or both to take some relatively worthless piece of land with both sides agreeing to an 1812 or other minor transferal of property type of deal once the markets of both nations start demanding "End this war... NOW!"
^Very much this. Wannabe Canadian guerrillas can't simply 'go to ground' in any effective numbers once winter hits, the infrastructure simply isn't there and the climate won't support a cut off force no matter how much the "la resistance" crowd wants to seem to think it will and cites conflicts that occurred in tropical/subtropical/heavily populated areas.
What's more likely, though, is Ottawa deciding London has been smoking the wacky tabaccy and drops out of the Empire in any such 'actual' war.
The most likely thing to happen in such a 'war' is that there are a few/some naval skirmishes which are won and lost depending on which side has more ships or better tactics and a few completely retarded schemes by one side or the other or both to take some relatively worthless piece of land with both sides agreeing to an 1812 or other minor transferal of property type of deal once the markets of both nations start demanding "End this war... NOW!"
Eurofed said:
^Very much this. Wannabe Canadian guerrillas can't simply 'go to ground' in any effective numbers once winter hits, the infrastructure simply isn't there and the climate won't support a cut off force no matter how much the "la resistance" crowd wants to seem to think it will and cites conflicts that occurred in tropical/subtropical/heavily populated areas.
What kind of infantry weapons would we be dealing with in this hypothetical situation?
Were the americans still using the trap-door in this period or had the kragg been adopted? as well what of the british?
Were the americans still using the trap-door in this period or had the kragg been adopted? as well what of the british?
Grey Wolf
Donor
Personally I don't think these threads really do justice to the complexity of the issues.
On the one hand you have economic questions - the US will lose most of its fishing grounds, and most of its overseas trade. Its coastal trade will be affected over distance but probably not much locally.
Britain will lose whatever it imports from the US but this CAN be made up - that's what a global market is. It may cost more and cause some dislocation but it can be done.
There are lots of mountains, and also lots of forests and rivers. I think people do forget this and just look at a map and think "Right, they'll sweep through there" but too often you have to fight across the bottlenecks to get anywhere.
Fighting Britain means fighting the British Empire and the loss of the Canadian heartland to occupation won't break it. Any Canadian government that emerges under US occupation is not going to be seen as legitimate, whereas Britain can bring the forces of its empire to bear.
But above all the actual situation of HOW this war occurs will be vital for how it develops, and any generalised discussion by its nature omits this. Will the other powers stay neutral, will they side with one or other of the combatants? No clear answers can be given until its known WHY there is a war.
And what the other powers decide to do IS vital. If Britain has a European front to contend with as well as an American one it will obviously mean ships and men and money has to be spent nearer to home. But if the balance of favour is in Britain's favour, so to speak, then Britain has access to credit, to resources etc whereas a blockaded and disrespected USA has not.
Best Regards
Grey Wolf
On the one hand you have economic questions - the US will lose most of its fishing grounds, and most of its overseas trade. Its coastal trade will be affected over distance but probably not much locally.
Britain will lose whatever it imports from the US but this CAN be made up - that's what a global market is. It may cost more and cause some dislocation but it can be done.
There are lots of mountains, and also lots of forests and rivers. I think people do forget this and just look at a map and think "Right, they'll sweep through there" but too often you have to fight across the bottlenecks to get anywhere.
Fighting Britain means fighting the British Empire and the loss of the Canadian heartland to occupation won't break it. Any Canadian government that emerges under US occupation is not going to be seen as legitimate, whereas Britain can bring the forces of its empire to bear.
But above all the actual situation of HOW this war occurs will be vital for how it develops, and any generalised discussion by its nature omits this. Will the other powers stay neutral, will they side with one or other of the combatants? No clear answers can be given until its known WHY there is a war.
And what the other powers decide to do IS vital. If Britain has a European front to contend with as well as an American one it will obviously mean ships and men and money has to be spent nearer to home. But if the balance of favour is in Britain's favour, so to speak, then Britain has access to credit, to resources etc whereas a blockaded and disrespected USA has not.
Best Regards
Grey Wolf
An engagement in the 1895 over the Venezuelan border likely isn't going to turn into a total war, so don't expect an invasion of Canada (expecially under Cleveland). This will be a colonial engagmenent with most fighting being on the seas and in Venezuela. The small USN will be dealt with very quickly by the RN. The US army (if they make it to Venezuela) and the Venezuelans will be fighting far better trained troops which will likely hold the numerical advantage and will also be dealt with quickly. With the US blockaded there will be calls from all sides to make peace and end the war. The world after the war could go many different ways, I'm currently working on a TL that deals with this A Storm Unending.