Wouldn't a balkanized US in the 1780s/1790s just get reabsorbed by Britain, if not outright politically than economically subjugated? New England drifting into trade and military agreements with the mother country, the rest becoming economically dominated like Latin America became? Louisiana wouldn't get purchased from France, so it likely just becomes/remains under Spanish jurisdiction, to be peeled off at Britain's leisure during Mexico's struggle for independence.
US Balkanization- Long Term Russian Hyperpower
- Thread starter Beatriz
- Start date
Why would Louisiana be separated from Mexico? Who would invade Spain and Mexico to get Louisiana?
Mexico's ability to project power into its northern territories was always flimsy, as was its willingness to invest in them--hence the Californios actually being somewhat open to US annexation by the 1840s simply because Mexico City was very remote from them. New Orleans, being downstream of Anglo-controlled areas, will have closer economic ties to areas either directly controlled by Britain (on the Great Lakes) or in Britain's economic thrall. I'm not sure New Orleans will be particularly eager to join Mexico in revolt; if it doesn't, it likely becomes the base for Spain's attempts to subdue Mexico, which may or may not be backed up by Britain depending on the financial situation.
GB could just unequal treaty Mexico and get concessions, I see no reason to invade.
Even a balkanised USA would probably be better run than Latin America, which would make subjugation harder.
A dis-united America has nothing near the power or resources of the OTL USA. They provided massive financial aid and needed supplies such as oil. Texas oil in this TL is laying fallow under the ground because the American oil boom never happens. The USA was the world's biggest supplier of oil, in this case not so much. Britain was only starting to get involved in ME oil. The RN might never have gone to oil fired ships without a secure supply. The great agricultural exporting regions of the USA never would come to be so food exports to the Allies are much smaller. Why would the Germans hold back on Unrestricted Submarine Warfare, fear of war with Massachusetts?
The problem with Russia becoming a superpower by the end of the 20th Century is that being defeated in WWI and not being saved by the CP then losing Russia is screwed. In Brest-Litovsk Russia lost a massive chunk of her productive capacity. "The lands comprised 34% of the former empire's population, 54% of its industrial land, 89% of its coalfields, and 26% of its railways." Baku was lost and that meant about 3/4 of oil production. How do they just get over that?
A dis-united America wouldn't be as powerful as OTL's USA, but its aggregate resources might well be similar, or even greater (since small states are often more efficient and better governed). With a POD in the 1770s or '80s, it's perfectly plausible -- likely, even -- that, for example, Texas' oilfields will have been discovered and exploited by whichever state ends up owning the area.
Except they would never have even taken Texas or Louisiana, or the mid-West, or the Mexican Session, or Alaska, or Hawaii so, it's a pretty truncated non-county. The inland States are dependent on the States and countries that control access to the ocean. The New England States, NY, NJ, DE, and MD have no place to expand too. Their internal growth is dependent on their own resources which are limited. A nation has collective strength isolated segments don't. Each State on its own can only have small dreams, any greater ambitions would step on the toes of other States, and each would have to struggle to survive and prosper against the ambitions of the other States, and nations.
There's no national planning, and investment is more limited. Population flows west are a net loss for the States, and there is no interstate commerce, NY to PA is international trade. The States would become more insular rather than being more regional, and there is no national sentiment creating more restricted societies. Floridia isn't going to launch a moon landing in 1969, Alto California won't have a Silicon Valley, and NYC won't be the global financial center.
Louisiana would either remain part of the Spanish Empire, be given back to France again, or conquered sometime by Britain (probably during the Napoleonic Wars). If it remains part of the Spanish Empire, it would most likely gain independence along with the rest of the New World, and the Allies could trade with it during TTL's WW1; if it's ruled by France or Britain, obviously the Allies also benefit from its resources, in a more direct way than IOTL. Ditto Texas. The Mid-West probably gets annexed by Britain and joined to Canada, so it will also be directly helping the war effort from the beginning. Alaska is likely ruled by either Russia itself or Britain, so any resources it brings to the table (oil, mostly) can likewise be used. Hawaii probably gets occupied by Britain, but even if it doesn't, it's too small and out-of-the-way to have much of an impact on the course of the war. About the only really valuable part of the Mexican Cession was California, which the alt-Allies will be able to trade with, that is assuming Britain hasn't already occupied it anyway.
So, in short, if the "US" doesn't expand but remains confined to the East Coast, the land they occupied isn't going to disappear; it will either be occupied by other colonial powers, most likely ones (Britain, France, Russia) which are involved in WW1 anyway, or it will consist of independent Western countries, which the Allies can trade with. That's one of the ways in which the Royal Navy blockade helped the Allies win, and would help them ITTL -- it allowed them to get resources from the whole extra-European world, whereas the Central Powers were limited to what they could produce themselves.
None of that seems to have held Europe back to any noticeable degree. Remember that the balkanised US states would only be small compared to OTL's USA; by international standards, they'd mostly be normal-sized countries.
What you're not taking into account is the capital investment that's never going to happen without these lands being part of the USA. All these areas are just empty backwaters rather than developed regions that have products to sell to a national market. No one is going to cultivate the peatmoss covered heavy soil Great Planes. Where are the millions of migrants willing to work the soil and fight off the Indians coming from? The Planes have a very inhospitable climate and are not easily accessible to settlers not coming from the East. These lands had nominally been held by European Powers for centuries and were left fallow for that whole time. The native tribes would've held off all comers for the whole 19th century without the United States systematically conquering them. These things didn't just happen without a huge effort.
A world without the USA would cause so many butterflies throughout the world that WW1 as we know it would occur, hell, a no USA world could have a very different French Revolution to begin with.
That could be a good point. But I think the POD for this TL is that after independence the 13 States go their own ways rather than form a federation of States. If it's the way you're thinking than yes, the ARW accelerated the process leading to the French Revolution. Would the Revolution happen 10 years later, with different personalities dealing with the crisis?
If the States are independent then the ARW happened since otherwise they would be a part of Britain.
Where did the millions of migrants willing to work the soil in Canada from? Though even if the Great Plains don't get settled, I think the Allies could survive, because they've got essentially the whole world to import food from.
What is the population of Canada vs. the USA? The great Canadian wheat belt was settled later than the USA. The Allies in WWI were dependent on the aid and support they were getting from the USA Canada couldn't make up the difference, no one could.
My point was that other countries were capable of settling vast tracts of land. Canada has a lower population because its climate is less hospitable, not because the US had some special colonisation power that everyone else lacked. If the British occupy land in OTL's Midwest and West, there's no reason they can't populate it by 1914.
There is no particular reason to think that the British would take control of upper-Louisiana. The British hadn't even tried to take New Orleans in any of their wars with the Bourbon Powers. New Orleans has natural defenses from a naval based attack as shown in the War of 1812. The population of Canada west of the Great Lakes was tiny until well into the second half of the 19th Century so there wasn't any land hungry hoard ready to pour over the border into the region. The British had little reason to have their small peace time army try to force the powerful tribes of the Northern Plains off their land to make way for a trickly of settlers. The native tribes could well hold their lands into the 20th Century.
Well, a Russia that was crushed by Germany in WWI would be crippled for decades under the terms imposed on them. Russia was saved by the defeat of the Central Powers which allowed them to recover most of the territories of the Czarist Empire. A victories Germany which had fought the war to smash the growing power of Russia would be unlikely to easily allow her to regain her former power let alone surpass it. The alliance between German Militarists and Bolshevik Russians wouldn't be an equal one.
The objective of German policy would be to limit Russian power in favor of new counterweights to Russia like the now free Ukrainians, South Caucasians, Finns, Turks, and Baltic Peoples. Unless Germany was somehow taken off Russia's neck their chances of reconquering the Empire would be dim. Just like today the former subject nations of the Czarist Empire would fight hard to maintain their freedom. All of these nations strongly believe Russia had held back their development by limiting their ties with the more advanced West.
The objective of German policy would be to limit Russian power in favor of new counterweights to Russia like the now free Ukrainians, South Caucasians, Finns, Turks, and Baltic Peoples. Unless Germany was somehow taken off Russia's neck their chances of reconquering the Empire would be dim. Just like today the former subject nations of the Czarist Empire would fight hard to maintain their freedom. All of these nations strongly believe Russia had held back their development by limiting their ties with the more advanced West.