anti British USA

[Syphon]

I had an idea and want some thoughts.

it probably wont be an asb thread but I'll post the idea here.

lets say after the war of independence washington decided to wright the washing doctrine in that the USA will never help GB in a time of war.

this escalates over time as the war of 1812, the trent affair and the pig war all goes horribly wrong reforcing the US government belief never to help gb,

so how would this effect Gb going forward form say 1865 onwards

 

[Daniwani]

If there's any way to keep the British more interested in North America perhaps? a more decisive victory in 1812 leading to a stronger Canada; continued conflicts and debates over territories leading to a strictly loyalist chestpounding British North America playing off it's not being America as a key point of it's identity (and I mean more then OTL Canada does ). I think that should be able to switch things up a notch, perhaps it Britain is given reason to see America as a more immediate threat as supposed to bathing itself in Eurocentrism and isolationism.

 

[Syphon]

what about GB interfering more in "American" affairs?

indirectly supporting the confederacy or simply using the RN to break the blockade for trade with GB.

of course this will bite the UK on the bum further don the track as the resources that the US possesses almost guarentees the USA will develop into a super power

 

[Yuelang]

of course this will bite the UK on the bum further don the track as the resources that the US possesses almost guarentees the USA will develop into a super power

Not really, British fully back the CSA (as ASB as it was, and yeah, originally this thread is in ASB), with Invasion to the North East, as well as taking the less populated western 'frontiers' will result in British North America gain the upper hand, at least resource wise. And if the populance refuse to be "British-ized" give them to CSA.

Couple that with more concentrated efforts to settle BNA with loyal British colonists (maybe subsidize land there).

If anything, back CSA and in the upcoming peace conference, make sure every states where there's seccession movement go to CSA, severely reduce US in territorial areas...

The side effects is, CSA could end up as the superpower instead, but hey at least they are not USA... which means slave owning, racist superpower who practically start as British dominion in all but name...

Oh well, this could only go right, amirite m8?
looks carefully toward the Draka

 

[Demothenes]

The British didn't have the army to conduct an invasion of the north east in the first place, with a population in that area which is equal to England. Not to mention the troops that are stationed in unruly provinces. They would have been fought off.

I think the best time for a plunge in US UK relations would be during WWI. If a less Anglophile president was in the White House, and didn't join the war, that would have been something. It would have been magnified if the US called for the repayment of war debts afterwards. That could have killed the British economy and lead to massive resentment towards America.

 

[wcv215]

Hmm, maybe Napoleon dies in Russia, freeing Britain to turn its attention on the US in 1812. What follows is...not pretty. While many in the British government are not comfortable with flat out crushing the United States flat (and occupation is out of the question) the US is forced to surrender much of the Northwest, including Michigan, etc. In addition, due to the theoretical alliance with Spain the US is forced to part with portions of Louisiana and "repurchase" the rest from Spain.

The humiliation pushes the United States toward a more anglophobic society, though one which has no illusions about its ability to fight the UK again, at least until its distracted elsewhere. So in the early or mid 1850s as an equivalent to the Crimean War begins the US jumps at the chance and declares war on Britain. Again it loses, but not as badly. This time while Britain manages some minor territorial concessions in the far west (annexing OTL Washington, or just pushing the border farther south) they are not able to actually defeat the Americans in the East.

A more hostile attitude between the US and UK leads to less investment in American industry, meaning the US is weaker going into the 20th century, but still the preeminent power in North America, and arguably Britain's equal militarily. So it is that when Russia and/or Germany decide to flex their muscles in Central Asia and/or Europe (depending on which power is the opponent) the US not so secretly sides with Britain's opponent, and after a time joins the war on their side.

snip

If we are looking at an 1860 POD, then no. In the American Civil War the United States ALONE raised an army of 2.5 million, mostly volunteers. British intervention almost certainly means Confederate victory, it does not mean the dismembering the Union.

 

[EnglishCanuck]

For a good POD you would need the British to push hard at the peace conference in 1814, setting up an alternate war of 1812 to go more in Britain's way isn't terribly difficult. That would probably end up with most of Maine, Michigan, and the most northern portions of New York in Britain's hands.

That of course is a sure fire way to make relations between the two nations sour.

I agree with wcv215 though that a second war sometime in the 1850s is probably necessary to make relations worse. Sometime after a Mexican War where the US feels militarily confident and hopes to hit Britain while she's distracted. That would probably help keep relations sour until the turn of the century.

 

[MrGreyOwl]

For a good POD you would need the British to push hard at the peace conference in 1814, setting up an alternate war of 1812 to go more in Britain's way isn't terribly difficult. That would probably end up with most of Maine, Michigan, and the most northern portions of New York in Britain's hands.

That of course is a sure fire way to make relations between the two nations sour.

I agree with wcv215 though that a second war sometime in the 1850s is probably necessary to make relations worse. Sometime after a Mexican War where the US feels militarily confident and hopes to hit Britain while she's distracted. That would probably help keep relations sour until the turn of the century.

Good start. Humiliating defeat and lost territories is a sure way to create revanchism.

For a second war, you could have the US messing with British Caribbean and central american possessions: Jamaica, Belize, etc.

After that, you could have the UK officially neutral but secretly supporting the CSA during the Civil war by smuggling weapons, supplies, and "volunteers". It's not enough to makes the Confederacy wins, but the war last longer and is more destructive, giving Americans a new reason to hate the English.

 

[EnglishCanuck]

For a second war, you could have the US messing with British Caribbean and central american possessions: Jamaica, Belize, etc.

Well beyond the abilities of the USN in the 1850s. I'd figure trying to seize British Columbia (well Victoria and BC respectively back then) in some kind of Oregon war since the boundary dispute might be seen as a good way to strike back at Britain.

Would probably not end terribly well for either side due to the remoteness of the area, but it is plausible the US could win that fight.

After that, you could have the UK officially neutral but secretly supporting the CSA during the Civil war by smuggling weapons, supplies, and "volunteers". It's not enough to makes the Confederacy wins, but the war last longer and is more destructive, giving Americans a new reason to hate the English.

Well that's sort of what happened historically with legal loopholes you could (literally) sail a cruizer through until the British tightened their watch on matters in late 63. You'd probably want out and out intervention to make things worse.

 

[MrGreyOwl]

Well beyond the abilities of the USN in the 1850s.

With privateers, maybe?

I'd figure trying to seize British Columbia (well Victoria and BC respectively back then) in some kind of Oregon war since the boundary dispute might be seen as a good way to strike back at Britain.

Would probably not end terribly well for either side due to the remoteness of the area, but it is plausible the US could win that fight.

Definitely. And that border war could last, whatever the cost: the US will be hungry even for a symbolic victory, while the UK has a policy to cling to even the most remote strip of land, question of principle.

 

[EnglishCanuck]

With privateers, maybe?

That could harass British trade, but wouldn't seriously threaten their grip on the region. It might mean a larger British fleet in the area, which is something I would imagine the US being eager to avoid.

Definitely. And that border war could last, whatever the cost: the US will be hungry even for a symbolic victory, while the UK has a policy to cling to even the most remote strip of land, question of principle.

Precisely. The 1850s would be an excellent time for a war IOTL since Britain ended up fighting two major wars in that decade, they'd be exhausted and might not try as hard as they were willing.

But this is with butterflies since 1812, we might see a conflict in 1838 by a vengeful USA if the Upper Canada revolts touch off like OTL. That would certainly be interesting.

 

[Escape Zeppelin]

Based on a thread the other day, reducing Britain's success in India wouldn't hurt either. Without India they'd be looking for other colonial opportunities and might fight harder for Oregon and some western territories.

 

[jahenders]

As some have eluded to, the best bets are probably:
- Stronger UK victory in 1812, with a stronger Canada (vis-a-vis US) and some loss of US territory
- UK occupying some of the Louisiana as enemy land (not recognizing the sale)
- Occasional border disputes US-Canada
- Some UK backing of Native Americans in US areas
- More UK expansion in Canada and NW US
- Some level of UK support for CSA, perhaps pushing through some US blockades
- UK Canada incorporating Washington, North Idaho, North Montana, etc
- UK outbids US to purchase Alaska
- UK voices strong opposition to US "aggression" in Mexican War and Spanish-American War

Some combination of all of this would make the US less likely to support the UK with money/supplies in WWI, which would likely prevent German attacks on US shipping. The US might not get involved in WWI at all.

Alternately, the US might get involved on France's behalf even later in the war than IOTL. If the UK then treats the US as a bit player in Versailles (like they did Japan), that could be another affront to the US. This could be even worse if the Naval treaty limits the US somewhat.

If all this antipathy adds up, we might find that we have some common cause with Japan in the 1920s and early 30s.