ManintheField
Banned
It's not just that, though: British investors owned huge amounts of US assets. Embargoing the US is literally taking money out of their own pockets.
WI: U.S. vs U.K., WW1
- Thread starter Killer300
- Start date
It's not just that, though: British investors owned huge amounts of US assets. Embargoing the US is literally taking money out of their own pockets.
There's one other major point as well, the US controls over half the world's oil supply at this point. I doubt the rest of Europe would be particularly happy if their prices doubled (or more) because Britain won't accept it can't win the war. Especially when the oil powered ships start being built in larger quantities.
Admiral Halsey
Banned
Well they aren't getting Canada back that's for sure. Maybe lose India depending on how badly the lose.
Honestly, I don't think much would happen, compared to the defeated Germany of OTL anyway. A larger naval program would be likely, possibly a delay of producing oil powered ships.
An eventual peace treaty would probably involve the US "purchasing" Canada (ala it's ours, you can't have it back, here's some money to pretend its voluntary) as happened at the end of the Mexican/American and Spanish/American Wars, combined with the relatively low casualties of such a conflict there probably wouldn't be the massive unrest OTL WWI saw.
ManintheField
Banned
I honestly don't think the UK is going to be in danger of losing India in anything but a full-on 'invade and conquer' scenario, which I find pretty unlikely (That is, difficult to contrive without skirting the ASB line: Why would the US ever have the motive?).
TBH, unless we can invent a scenario where Americans REALLY start to hate the British by the 1910's, I think the Empire would be fairly safe outside the Americas in a hypothetical US/UK war. The US simply doesn't have any reason to care enough to put the effort into dismantling it.
TBH, unless we can invent a scenario where Americans REALLY start to hate the British by the 1910's, I think the Empire would be fairly safe outside the Americas in a hypothetical US/UK war. The US simply doesn't have any reason to care enough to put the effort into dismantling it.
Pretty much my view as well. The US would probably see taking away the big British territory on their border as a big enough win, and the rest of the empire is too far away to be messed with. And while the US might be able to win a bigger victory I don't see an invasion of the UK at this point being likely.
ManintheField
Banned
I might want to qualify a bit by saying major parts of the Empire. Territorially adjustments around the edges are probably inevitable in ANY hypothetical US-UK war. Choose an area where the two are in some kind of mild competition for marginal territory, adjust it in the victor's favor. Think small Pacific islands. Passing around protectorates in the Solomons or Cook Islands, some smaller Caribbean possessions, that kind of thing. The kind of place that is valuable enough to want if the price isn't that high but not valuable enough to really fight it out over. Something to give a victor in a fight that never really escalated something to show for their effort.
Once the war lasts for a while and casualties start really piling up, you can start talking about more valuable possessions like Canada or other larger territories.
You would need years and hundreds of thousands or millions of casualties for Americans to start thinking about an invasion of the British Isles and the detachment of very major Imperial territories outside the immediate area of American interest. I just can't think of a reason for the US to ever go this far instead of settling for a favorable enough peace at some earlier point.
Again, why would the US annex Canada after a war. It's now going to have to garrison a huge territory of unfriendly Canadians. Sure, after a generation or two, things will calm down, but I just don't believe an American elected government is going to annex Canada. Gone are the days of manifest destiny.
In the event of an occupation of Canada:
1) Canada is returned to the Canadians. the Americans aren't stupid, it would be a costly waste of time, resources and manpower to garrison Canada.
2) Canada and Britain would have to pay reparations to the US.
3) USN would get basing rights in Halifax and Esquimault, possibly also St. John's.
4) Free trade agreement between Canada and the US. (This was the usual gripe for Americans, that the British Imperial Tariff system was hurting their business in Canada)
5) De-militarisation of Canada
It is possible that the US could claim Western Canada up to Manitoba, but I think that is doubtful. What would it gain? More farmland? Remember, this is before oil has been discovered so Alberta, Saskatchewan and BC are pretty useless (in fact, a net drain on Canada at the time).
I think it is rather fanciful to think that the US would occupy and annex all of Canada. This is the 20th Century, not 1850.
In the event of an occupation of Canada:
1) Canada is returned to the Canadians. the Americans aren't stupid, it would be a costly waste of time, resources and manpower to garrison Canada.
2) Canada and Britain would have to pay reparations to the US.
3) USN would get basing rights in Halifax and Esquimault, possibly also St. John's.
4) Free trade agreement between Canada and the US. (This was the usual gripe for Americans, that the British Imperial Tariff system was hurting their business in Canada)
5) De-militarisation of Canada
It is possible that the US could claim Western Canada up to Manitoba, but I think that is doubtful. What would it gain? More farmland? Remember, this is before oil has been discovered so Alberta, Saskatchewan and BC are pretty useless (in fact, a net drain on Canada at the time).
I think it is rather fanciful to think that the US would occupy and annex all of Canada. This is the 20th Century, not 1850.
A few things. The US of manifest destiny isn't as far removed as you suggest. the Indian wars went past 1870 with flare ups into the 1920's. The philippines, puerto rico, guam... were all annexed at the turn of the century. The desire for more land was still there and the Americans of this time period weren't the same as today or even during the vietnam war. They would generally support a war regardless, especially if they were winning. Sure there were detractors for every war the US has been in but they didn't influence policy to stop any of those wars until Vietnam.
Canada is not the huge country its made out to be and the canadians are not the mixture of Vietnamese and afghans they are made out to be. they will not persist in a multi generational rebellion against a a power which would mostly for them just be a change of administration. US soldiers are not going to be shooting canadians in the street for petty offenses, such as having their hands in their pockets. Canada could be garrisoned with the occupation paying for itself.
Here is what i think would happen in regards to canada. Some of it will be annexed to the US directly. Other parts will become territories of the US which in the future will become states. The more populous regions of Canada would stay relatively independent but i think there would be a split. Perhaps French canada, Ontario, and one or more in the east. It would just make good sense to have these reservations for potential trouble makers to go to or be taken to.
As for britain, as long as they don't insist on continuing the war and accept the situation in canada i don't even think they would be asked to pay reparations
That was part of what we were doing here, I'd remind you.
But sorry for bumping this.
Still, great discussion here guys, even if it did get ridiculous at times.Canada is pretty big though, if you want a good comparison look at the Boers during the Second Boer War. It took the UK years and thousands of Pounds to run down the bitter enders, with troops from Canada so they would know, and the Transvaal and Orange Republic are a lot smaller then West Canada.
The US may be able to occupy the large cities but the wilderness will be a haven for rebels, who would view the US occupation as a lot more then 'a change of administration'