undefeated USA

[Melior]

I will give you an example.

WW1: earlier intervention of US will cause large casualties. WW1 is today accepted basically positive thanks to relative low losses USA suffered (compared to other nations involved from start).

butterflying US early ww1 intervention -> losses about 1 or 2 milion least, means stronger call for post-war isolationism (will not cause any population shortages as those would be replaced by immigration I belive, rather sociologic and political changes).

Generally strong isolationism could affect US - British relations pre December 41, meaning no or limited lend-lease program, and could even escalate in way that US, although supporting UK + USSR and joining war, turns all attention to Japan and Pacific theater.

Well in this scenario case, WW1 counts as lost morally and even further, ww2 will perhaps take longer and might end in some "Vaterland" scenario, I can imagine US and UK being allied block against continetal Germany post ww2

 

[LordLeviathan]

if the americans cannot be defeated post 1898, why there is post-1900 board?

beyond that, nothing could stop them.

 

[Bry]

what I trying to say is that nothing could never stop the USA.Even losing the american revolution, they will have still got they independance.

I am saying that nothing could have stop the USA from becoming superpower before or after 1900.

Well, that's evidently untrue... There is certainly no particular reason why the United States, most likely simply by a more permanent bout of isolationism, could not have remained a Great Power... Though I suppose the issue would depend on what your definition of a 'superpower' is.

 

[B_Munro]

If you look at his post, he seems o suggest that while the Americans lost in Vietnam, in the end, they've largely won even there, as the nation is hardly more than nominally communist by some analyses.

Which probably would have happened anyway regardless of whether the US fought there. The US generally has a history of being lucky in it's wars: we've either fought much weaker opponents, or, in the cases where we were fighting strong ones, did so as part of strong alliances. The war of 1812 is about the only other case, and the British (1) reeealy didn't want the job of reconquering us and (2) had Napoleon on their minds anyway.

Kevin, I'd add to your "ways to cut down the US" less successful democratic government/worse social problems, perhaps going with a more "elitist" form of government winning out in the early republic or a more divisive "Gilded Age". If we can get a Communist-type revolution, some version of American Fascism, or a sufficiently nastily corrupt Latin-American style political ethos, we can do quite a bit to cripple the US.

Not entirely sure what you mean by " Americans are going to win whatever they want to win", though. It's not likely we could have "won" a war with the USSR in 1975 in any sort of meaningful way, after all.

Bruce

 

[Markus]

so, are there any wars that USA could lost?

1.Revolution: Can be lost. The Brits say: “Ok, you got representation, as long as you send your money with your representatives.”

2.Mexico: Can no be lost militarily without ASB intervention.

3.ACW: In case the USA looses the will to fight, the Confederacy can win. In all other cases the USA is WAAAY more likely to win big and early.

4.Spain: see 2.

5.Philipines: see 2.

6.WW1: see 2.

7.WW2: see 2.

8.Korea: Better NK-logistics, more Russian support, maybe some Chinese volunteers and the UN forces get pushed out of the Pusan perimeter.

 

[alt_historian]

okay so the germans didnt have better weapons in the first or second world war? Yea they did they just didnt have the ability to make enough of them.

An the whole vietman thing i wasnt born but the us military destroyed the viet kong in that battle it was just the home front who was tired of fighting a war with absolutely no gain for them. Plus there was no way the people at home could tell if they were actually winning or not

I don't want to sound picky, but I'm pretty sure that Vietnam was a war rather than a battle. That's the way I've always heard it referred to. If not, it was one hell of a battle...

I'd agree generally with Bry and B_Munro: a lot needs to change for the US to 'only' be one of he Great Powers, rather than way out in front as OTL. However, I don't see any particular reason this could not happen. The earlier the POD, the easier it is for the US to be reduced in power.

@ LordLeviathan: see above. Also, you seem to feel that its impossible for the US to be anything other than number one. Very few things are impossible, and this isn't one of them.

 

[LordLeviathan]

before 1900, the USA could be defeated and reduced in power.

but after 1900, are there anyway the USA can be defeated?

if they cannot be defeated post-1900 why they never try to defeat the soviet-union when they had the bomb and they didn't have it, why they never try annexing canada, others scenerios.

if the USA have such power why did it use?

 

[alt_historian]

before 1900, the USA could be defeated and reduced in power.

but after 1900, are there anyway the USA can be defeated?

if they cannot be defeated post-1900 why they never try to defeat the soviet-union when they had the bomb and they didn't have it, why they never try annexing canada, others scenerios.

if the USA have such power why did it use?

Its unclear what you're saying here. Are you saying that the US can, or cannot be defeated after 1900?
If you're saying it can't be, then:
- they didn't try to defeat the USSR because the USSR - and, specifically, Stalin - had been portrayed as a loyal ally of the US in the war against Nazi Germany. Its difficult, in a democracy, to suddenly turn public opinion right round: somewhat easier to carry it off in a dictatorship, which is how the Soviets could suddenly portray Nazi Germany as an enemy up to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, then an ally against imperialism from 1939-41, then an enemy (with just cause) after that.
- why did the US never try annexing Canada? I don't know. You have to find out if anyone really wanted to: would such a course of action be considered worth the effort? Would it be as odd as, say, France suddenly deciding to annex Belgium?

 

[B_Munro]

I don't want to sound picky, but I'm pretty sure that Vietnam was a war rather than a battle. That's the way I've always heard it referred to. If not, it was one hell of a battle...

I'd agree generally with Bry and B_Munro: a lot needs to change for the US to 'only' be one of he Great Powers, rather than way out in front as OTL. .

Well, the question "how do you keep the US from being a superpower" is different from "how do you keep the US from being the _only_ superpower." After all, you could strengthen the competition. If you get to have PODs going back before 1900, 2007 Superpower China or Superpower Russia aren't too hard. (Getting superpower Germany is harder, as is more-than-nearly-a-superpower Japan).

Of course, then you get into definitions of "Superpower"....

Bruce

 

[Dean_the_Young]

Its unclear what you're saying here. Are you saying that the US can, or cannot be defeated after 1900?
If you're saying it can't be, then:
- they didn't try to defeat the USSR because the USSR - and, specifically, Stalin - had been portrayed as a loyal ally of the US in the war against Nazi Germany. Its difficult, in a democracy, to suddenly turn public opinion right round: somewhat easier to carry it off in a dictatorship, which is how the Soviets could suddenly portray Nazi Germany as an enemy up to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, then an ally against imperialism from 1939-41, then an enemy (with just cause) after that.

While true as a general rule for democracies, one of the unique characteristics of American politics is the "pendulum" motion of politics and opinion; few countries see positions change so quickly and so much as the US. From a foreign policy book I read a few weeks ago, it pointed out that the American view of "Uncle Joe" was surprisingly high in 1942-43, but as soon as 1946 the public opinion had reversed itself. Compared to say British public opinion, US opinion had love-hate-love relationships with people; Soviet leaders, American presidents, cultural figures. Many people who have extreme ratings in one direction or the other can often see their fortune reversed at the drop of a hat.

- why did the US never try annexing Canada? I don't know. You have to find out if anyone really wanted to: would such a course of action be considered worth the effort? Would it be as odd as, say, France suddenly deciding to annex Belgium?

 

[Flocculencio]

does that mean the US and allies won the Korean war, since NK failed to achieve it's goals? Most of the history books call it a draw....

Actually with the main push into N Korea up to the Yalu itself, one tends to think that the UN's objectives had been extended to the conquest and occupation of N Korea.

Thus, they achieved their initial objective, liberating S. Korea but then got ambitious and decided to go for more- which they failed at.

 

[Johnnyreb]

The reason the USA was bound to become a hyperpower is the extent of its land and natural resources. It follows that the only way to stop the process is to reduce these things, so Kevin's suggestion is on the right lines.

It is an article of faith that the eastern seacoast of the USA (which was the really important coast) was protected by the Royal Navy throughout the 19th Century. Suppose, then, that Nelson had lost the battle of Trafalgar. The oceans would be open to predatory fleets of French and Spanish ships.

They may well have set up enormous colonies in North America. Whatever becomes of these colonies, there is no reason to suppose they would have merged with the anglophone USA.

The same argument applies to immigration and the growth of the US population (and therefore workforce.) Britain had far too low a population base to colonise the whole of this enormous territory, which was why unrestricted immigration was permitted in those days.

So these immigrants may well have gone to the new French and Spanish entities.

 

[Sgt Detritus]

The war of 1812 is about the only other case, and the British (1) reeealy didn't want the job of reconquering us and (2) had Napoleon on their minds anyway.

So no Napoleon or he dies early and we would have kicked seven shades of s*** out of the Americans in 1812

 

[Dean_the_Young]

So no Napoleon or he dies early and we would have kicked seven shades of s*** out of the Americans in 1812

If there was no Napoleon, then Louisiana (and New Orleans) might not sell, in which case Jefferson initiates an Anglo-American alliance so that the US can take it by force. Or, no Napoleon to distract Britain, then Britain doesn't impress sailors and act on American shipping, and the US doesn't start the fight in the first place.

 

[MrP]

Thus a draw. The Americans, while not gaining Canada, did not lose. As I acknowledged above, however, the Americans were fortunate not to have to face the full brunt of British military power in that war.

I still don't understand. America, as Flocc said, failed to achieve her objectives. Britain on the other hand did. Yes, they were fighting a defensive war. But that doesn't mean that a British victory (and return to the s.q.a.b.) is a draw. A similar example could be the Lines of Torres Vedras during the Nap Wars. The French march over, planning to crush the British and take Portugal. And they don't. They fail and have to retreat because they can't oversome the defences. The British didn't need to liberate Spain at that time to win. They merely needed to deny the French Portugal. Thus the Allies score a victory and the French a defeat. That's surely the strategic reality in the War of 1812, too.

 

[asnys]

1.Revolution: Can be lost. The Brits say: “Ok, you got representation, as long as you send your money with your representatives.”

The revolutionary war could certainly be lost, but it would take more than that. The colonies had repeatedly rejected the idea of representation-they knew they'd be outvoted. It would be easier to prevent the revolution in the first place, probably by better diplomacy on the British side.

 

[NapoleonXIV]

If you take as a given the establishment of the original thirteen states, the territory to the Mississippi River, no industrialized opposition east of the Pacific coast, and the doors flung wide for (European) immigration, then the train is unstoppable. You might redirect the energy, but the Americans are going to win whatever they want to win.

The only way I see to cut the USA down to a mere "Great Power" and thus vulnerable is to take away some of the above:

• England retains the Old Northwest: George Rogers Clark's campaign in OTL Indiana and Illinois fails; England could, at the cost of a few companies of infantry, forge a claim to keep the Old Northwest. They cannot secure the border against the flood of migrant farmers D) but the fact of sovereignty might slow the Americans down or even cause some of them to revert to being subject to the Crown as a condition of settlement. Some population pressure is redirected toward Florida, which allies more tightly to England and retains Louisiana. Point being, the next time the USA and England (or maybe England/Spain) fight, the USA might be in a weaker position and the OTL replacement for the War of 1812 is a clear loss.
• England successfully wedges the South away during the ARW: The southern colonies (the Carolinas and Georgia) are talked out of independence due to much better English diplomacy. I recall some threads on this subject, and the caffeine is wearing off, so I'll let this one go.
• Aggressive English/Spanish settlement west of the Mississippi: Maybe a stronger European presence in the transMississippi West allows development of a bulwark against American claims / expansion. The only guess I can make right now is for a large group of Huguenots to be dumped along the Gulf Coast with the support of England, but it seems that would have to happen rather early (like concurrently with the settlement along the eastern seaboard). Maybe the Spanish find a reason to send permanent inhabitants instead of conquistadores.

Agreed, a main way to cut America is to never let it form.

Personally, I believe that the USA's real objective in the War of 1812 was not to defeat the British Navy (that would have been an insane hope), nor to acquire Canada (although it would have been quite nice). The real objective was to crush Britain's Native allies, such that no Native nation could ever threaten the security of the United States again. In that, the War of 1812 was a rousing success. Civilized tribes such as the Creek and Iroquois that had blocked white expansion for almost 200 years were vanquished, and few Native nations would ever again present a serious challenge.

That's the second way, postulate to the first, have the native nations survive. The difficulty of doing this in the face of the huge immigration leads to way three

The reason the USA was bound to become a hyperpower is the extent of its land and natural resources. It follows that the only way to stop the process is to reduce these things, so Kevin's suggestion is on the right lines.

It is an article of faith that the eastern seacoast of the USA (which was the really important coast) was protected by the Royal Navy throughout the 19th Century. Suppose, then, that Nelson had lost the battle of Trafalgar. The oceans would be open to predatory fleets of French and Spanish ships.

They may well have set up enormous colonies in North America. Whatever becomes of these colonies, there is no reason to suppose they would have merged with the anglophone USA.

The same argument applies to immigration and the growth of the US population (and therefore workforce.) Britain had far too low a population base to colonise the whole of this enormous territory, which was why unrestricted immigration was permitted in those days.

So these immigrants may well have gone to the new French and Spanish entities.

That's one way, but remember the Nativists and Know-nothings? America could have easily pulled this one on herself in the 1850s.

This last, immigration limitation, may also be the only one possible after 1900. My understanding is that the last and greatest wave of immigration continued to 1924. If it had been shut down much earlier and coupled with a severe drubbing in WWI it might have led to no WWII and a continued Great Depression in the US.

Limiting the immigration is key, I think, all the others might be obviated or mollified, but the US main present power is due to its being the primary beneficiary of the greatest human migration known.

 

[LordLeviathan]

interessing, so the americans was not so unstoppable then I thought.

this discussion is good but are there anyway after 1900 to defeated the americans or was it impossible?

 

[Tyr]

1812 was an American loss.
Yes Britain didn't actually gain anything from the war either but Britain was the defender in that war.
A return to the status quo is a victory for the defender who never wanted a war in the first place.
Look at it this way:
A man attacks you in a dark alley and demands you hand over your wallet. You are succesfully able to punch him in the nose and run away with all your posessions intact. Because you failed to steal his wallet would that count as a loss for you?

The Korean war was a UN/US victory. Again it was the North invading the South and this was stopped.

 

[Wendell]

I still don't understand. America, as Flocc said, failed to achieve her objectives. Britain on the other hand did. Yes, they were fighting a defensive war. But that doesn't mean that a British victory (and return to the s.q.a.b.) is a draw. A similar example could be the Lines of Torres Vedras during the Nap Wars. The French march over, planning to crush the British and take Portugal. And they don't. They fail and have to retreat because they can't oversome the defences. The British didn't need to liberate Spain at that time to win. They merely needed to deny the French Portugal. Thus the Allies score a victory and the French a defeat. That's surely the strategic reality in the War of 1812, too.

Britain kept Canada, but after the war ceased staffing forts on U.S. soil, and ceased encouraging native rebellions against the United States. The war guaranteed that the British would hold Canada for the time being, but that they would never again have a military presence on U.S. soil without permission.