They Call it Civilization!

[stevep]

Originally Posted by xchen08

I would say widespread partisan activity will depend on how the U.S. conducts its invasion. If the U.S. announces at the outset that it won't seek annexation, and treats nonresisting civilians well, I see no reason why Canadian civilians will rise up in revolt. There are many immigrants in Canada too, more as a percentage of the population and even the native born are likely to be somewhat displeased with Britain for dragging them into an unwinnable war with their greatest trading partner over a worthless piece of jungle. Some may even see it as betrayal, since it is obvious to anyone that if Canada is forced to war against the U.S., Canada will fall no matter whether the Empire wins in the end. In any case, the U.S. has no need to hold down all of Canada. Canada has nothing that the U.S. needs, and control of the St. Lawrence, the Great Lakes, and the major nodes of the Canadian rail system is more than sufficient to deny any benefit from Canada to Britain as well as eliminate any threat from the North.

xchen08

Depends on the circumstances. I find it highly unlikely that Canada would want to join the conflict or that Britain would want it to, unless the government has a fit of total insanity. Far more likely that stymied at sea the US sees Canada as an area it can hit out at British interests and try and gain some counter for its losses elsewhere.

Under those circumstances I think the Canadians, a neutral state attack simply for military expediency, will overwhelmingly be very angry. They might not be in much of a position in the occupied areas but some intelligence transfer and subtle aid in the right cases can be very useful. This will include most/all of the recent settlers who are looking for a decent life and will not welcome invaders disrupting everything with open arms.

Also, if the US is declaring its not going to annexe any of the country its attacked what is the point? Opening a new front and tying up a lot of troops in a costly occupation of a peaceful and once friendly neighbour. Not to mention it will lose the US diplomatic points in both Europe and Latin America.

In such a circumstance most of populated Canada will be highly vulnerable to US occupation. However I doubt they will be able to take it all. Especially in the east where the terrain is favourable for the defence, there is a sizeable military establishment and British forces can move quickly to support from bases nearby. As such the US is likely to find itself with a considerable military front, alongside a major if at 1st fairly peaceful occupation of a huge area.

In terms of your war aims for the invasion the US is likely to gain full control of the Great Lakes. The St Lawrence, highly unlikely as Britain and the free Canadian forces will have the mouth. There will be little threat from Canada but it will be more than the none that would have existed before such an invasion.

Well, when the manpower ratio is as lopsided as it is, there can be a few problems with mobilization on the American side and still be able to amass more troops than the British Empire could. I think, between 8% and 9% of the U.S. population in this period were immigrants. That's a lot, but even the remainder is more than enough to swamp Britain. Plus American immigrants have generally shown their loyalty to America whenever tested, and the few British immigrants would be greatly outnumbered by the Irish, who have no love for Britain. Further, the same problems would plague Britain too. How willing would the Irish be to fight against their brethren over the sea when they see the British government as oppressors? What about the more militant British labor movement? And no matter how pointless the American public may feel this war is, at least it is in what they regard as their own backyard, something the British public cannot feel.

Not sure about the loyalty of the immigrants. In this case the US is the aggressor, which will influence some. [Not just the fairly sizeable numbers from Britain and Canada]. Also don't get confused by modern myths about the Irish. Those who went to the US were the ones with the funds to make it, which disproportionally meant the Scots-Irish Protestants [i.e. modern day Loyalists]. Not to mention even the Catholics may have doubts about fighting their own people as the Irish Catholics were prominent in the British army. Most of all however as I say many of the immigrants were there to improve their lives my making a better living. Many hadn't yet taken up citizenship and intended to eventually return to the old homelands where their families lived. They would have little interest in being drafted into the US army for a war to conquer their neighbours. Especially since the Catholics and Orthodox populations who increasingly made up the bulk of immigrants had often faced discrimination. I think you could see events like the ACW draft riots, probably with the sizeable Italian minority in the role the Irish played in that.

In terms of the rest of the population their loyalty is likely to be higher to the state. [However while about 10% were immigrants another ~25% were the sons and daughters of immigrants so there could be a lot there who were less than eager to die for US war aims]. Furthermore, while many will get carried along by propaganda by the likes of Hurst many will ask 'what's in it for me' and realise its pretty little. Especially as the butcher's bills begin to mount. Then there might be other group, most noticeably the blacks and Asians who continue to face much discrimination. The former will remember their father often spending blood for the union in the ACW, then getting displaced by Jim crow laws and often brutal repression in the years since.

I think very few proportionally will actually be eager to join up. [Still a fair number given the total population but they will suffer heavy losses when the serious battles start]. Then it will be the case of imposing a draft which is likely to be deeply unpopular.

Britain and the empire has a slightly smaller total pool but far more experience of waging major wars and carrying losses. Also, with far more people with some experience of military activity I would expect that they will do better and hence take lower losses in the early encounters. Both sides will face a steep learning curve as the war, if it gets long, with be far different to what they expected but Britain has a lot more experience here to call upon.

I'm not saying this will be a walk over but, presuming no intervention by other powers nor moderation by the combatants its going to be a long grinder and think Britain will have the greater experience and motivation to last the pace better. No one outside the Venezuelan government really cares about some large patches of jungle. However once US forces attack Canada it becomes personal. Both for Britain and the rest of the dominions, who can easily see themselves in the same position if this is allowed to go uncorrected.

- If the US doesn’t attack Canada

Under those circumstances then it will not be such a crusade from Britain. However it will be seen as a threat to Britain’s interest, the initial Venezuelan attack followed by the US one. [Expect that many in Britain will see the US as the primary villain as they will suspect the Venezuelans would dare attack without knowing of US support]. Furthermore for Britain it will be a fairly cheap war under those circumstances. Trade will be disrupted but we maintain markedly larger military establishment than the US and will be making use of it. As such the US is going to have to spend a hell of a lot more to catch up. Talking of the army here and ignoring higher US wages. No way are they going to catch up in time in naval terms. Not only is the RN too strong but the British shipyards are so much larger. At the same time the loss of trade and import revenues will hit the US economy pretty damned hard. Might also be a run on the dollar as the booming US expansion will look a lot less secure with a major war in the offering.

Ad such, while both sides will be hurting I think the US will hurt more. Also once the Venezuelan government is forced to make peace or overthrown and Britain starts occupying US overseas possessions will there be the same appetite for war in the US?

Oh I quite agree. By far the most likely thing would be a little skirmishing in Guyana, a few naval skirmishes in the Caribbean, then there's a peace that preserves face for both sides, the Venezuelans may or may not get screwed, and there is continuous argument over who actually won forever after.

Agree this is by far the most likely probability.

[stevep]

Originally Posted by xchen08

Hmm, after further looking into my numbers, it turns out that they cheated a bit by only including Britain and Canada as "Britain and Dominions," excluding preFederation Australia, preUnion South Africa, etc. Thus it came up with a number of 43 million compared with 76 million for the U.S. which is a bit lower than yours, but not grossly so. However, even if we use your numbers, and you include all territories with responsible government, you can't get Britain anywhere near the U.S. population, and once again large scale recruitment from non self-governing colonies is impossible, meaning only India with its insane population can actually contribute significant forces to a war in the Americas, and you would still be fighting very close to the U.S. and very far from Britain. So my previous (very conservative) estimates of the forces after full mobilization would still hold, just less conservatively.

The logistics will be a problem. However Britain has by far the largest navy, merchant marine and shiybuilding industry in the world. Also a lot of experience of transporting men and equipment around the world. With modern steamships its not too far and the primary need would be to transport forces, equipment and their supplies. Not like in the two world wars where Britain needed to fight convoys through with food, raw materials and equipment for the home islands. Unless something bad happens most of that can come from Europe. [Some extra food possibly from the Ukraine, Argentian or Australia to replace American grain supplies].

I agree that if the will hold the US will be able to moblise more men. Whether the will holds and whether enough extra to win iare the points under debate.

Just curious, why do you find it hard to believe? After all, the disparity in industry, infrastructure, and population is even worse than it is today, and there is no doubt the U.S. would be able to conquer and hold Canada now if it were willing to pay the (high) costs.

I would agree that, if its prepared to moblise a lot of men the US can occuply most of Canada. However the question is how long will they be willing to meet the high costs?

I would say one interesting effect would be that Germany and France can now be much more aggressive in colonial disputes with Britain. Not so aggressive that they would end up in war alongside the U.S., but enough to take advantage of British forces tied up.

True but this also applies to the US colonial empire as well and Germany especially was also clashing with the US in this time period over Samoa and Venezuelan debts. It is a lot more serious for Britain admittedly but only likely to get threatening if the US attacks Canada, turning a naval/colonial squabble into a major bloodbath. Otherwise neither Germany nor France can push us too far as they then find Britain's attention would turn to them. So a little nibbling at the edges is the most likely. Also at this time the Germans are in no real position to pose a naval threat so are unlikely to push far and if France tried something it might, as bm79 suggests find German very interested in events.

Steve

[xchen08]

Stevep:

Some good points, though I feel many can be countered.

1) As a general point, this war is not clearcut as an act of American aggression. I'm not entirely sure of the circumstances of the initial arbitration that led to the crisis, but it could be interpreted as Britain agreeing to arbitration, then pulling out after the decision goes against them, thus Britain is the aggressor. This will likely be the view of those nations less than friendly with Britain, such as the other American nations and many European states. The American population will almost entirely see this as a war of aggression by Britain, ie they rejected our fair arbitration, then violated the rightful borders or our good friend; blatant violation of the Monroe Doctrine, etc. Therefore I doubt Britain would have any advantage in morale or sense of righteousness.

2) Regarding Canada, the main trouble is the superiority of the RN. The U.S. will have trouble aiding Venezuela, and so the easiest place to put pressure on Britain will be Canada, whose major population centers are essentially indefensible. The U.S. wouldn't need territorial annexations if the main point is to have territory and people to trade in the peace treaty. Of course, maybe once tempers get hot, and the war escalates, Venezuela will be forgotten and then the war turns into a grudge match to drive Britain out of the Americas once and for all. Until that though, there is no reason for the U.S. to act sufficiently odiously to drive a well off and civilized people into partisan activity.

As for international diplomacy, I doubt an invasion of Canada will have any negative effects on the U.S. Latin America's public sentiment will no doubt be on the American side and Europeans long resentful of Britain using its naval superiority to dictate where the fighting takes place will likely see the invasion as fully legitimate.

3) Regarding immigrants and the willingness of Americans to fight: as mentioned before, Americans, immigrants and otherwise will likely see the war as defensive. The ACW draft riots required extraordinary levels of corruption to spark, and mistreated minorities have consistently seen righteous war as opportunity to demonstrate their loyalty and patriotism, and thus their right to be treated as equal citizens. This is what blacks did from the Revolution up to the Korean War, what Germans did in WWI, what Japanese did in WWII, etc. There is almost never any lingering loyalty to the old country once war starts. Indeed the S-A war about this time was seen by many immigrants' children as a chance to demonstrate that they too were Americans as well as a chance for Northernors and Southernors to fight together.

Then it will be the case of imposing a draft which is likely to be deeply unpopular.

This of course, will be equally true in Britain, and possibly even more true of the self-governing colonies/dominions.

There is no reason to believe that the U.S. would have any greater difficulties in mobilizing its population than Britain will.

Britain and the empire has a slightly smaller total pool but far more experience of waging major wars and carrying losses. Also, with far more people with some experience of military activity I would expect that they will do better and hence take lower losses in the early encounters. Both sides will face a steep learning curve as the war, if it gets long, with be far different to what they expected but Britain has a lot more experience here to call upon.

I'm not sure this is true. The last big American war, of course would be the ACW. There's been nothing since except colonial wars and indian wars. But Britain hasn't fought a major war since the Crimean either. The assorted colonial wars and police actions and gunboat diplomacy is hardly likely to give the average British officer any more experience in modern warfare than the average American officer. For that matter, historically, the U.S. didn't demonstrate any greater incompetence in Cuba and the Philippines than Britain demonstrated in the Boer Wars.

Ad such, while both sides will be hurting I think the US will hurt more. Also once the Venezuelan government is forced to make peace or overthrown and Britain starts occupying US overseas possessions will there be the same appetite for war in the US?

Loss of trade and tariffs will hurt, no doubt, but it won't be crippling. The U.S. has a large internal economy, far larger than Britain. Loss of trade would be painful, but not life or death like it would be for Britain, or even for Germany like in WWI.

As for overseas possessions, I don't think the U.S. had any yet. The territories acquired in the S-A war of course haven't been acquired yet. Hawaii is a pro-American Republic that I'm sure France or Germany would be willing to prop up if Britain makes moves to occupy it. Alaska is not really vulnerable to attack, nor of any value if attacked.

True but this also applies to the US colonial empire as well and Germany especially was also clashing with the US in this time period over Samoa and Venezuelan debts. It is a lot more serious for Britain admittedly but only likely to get threatening if the US attacks Canada, turning a naval/colonial squabble into a major bloodbath. Otherwise neither Germany nor France can push us too far as they then find Britain's attention would turn to them. So a little nibbling at the edges is the most likely. Also at this time the Germans are in no real position to pose a naval threat so are unlikely to push far and if France tried something it might, as bm79 suggests find German very interested in events.

Before the S-A war, the U.S. has sufficiently few overseas interests outside the Americas that it will likely feel no pain in conceding points to Germany or France in order to influence them against Britain. Britain, however, cannot afford to do this. The main outflow of this would be that Britain can't afford to concentrate its entire Navy against the U.S., and thus would find it harder to maintain superiority in American waters than it might overwise have found it.

If the war drags on and escalates, it'll probably turn into Britain with control over Venezuela (and troubles with occupation and partisans), the U.S. with control over Canada (and troubles with occupation and partisans), and neither side really able to strike at the other. RN raids on the coast will be costly, running the risk of mines, submarines, torpedo boats, coast defense, etc, and landings suicide. With an inferior navy, the U.S. is really unable to strike at Britain except continuing to crush resistance in Canada and smashing any remaining British pockets in North America. Economy wise, I don't see a stalemate as hurting either side over the other. The U.S. suffers more disruption to trade, but is far less reliant on it. British trade is also seriously disrupted thanks to the loss of trade with Canada or the U.S. as well as commerce raiders and possibly submarines. The longer the war drags on, the more likely some other power will take advantage of Britain's distraction and the USN will steadily get closer and closer to parity. Plus, the loss of Canada hurts Britain a lot more than Venezuela hurts the U.S.

[Leistungsfähiger Amerikan]

A question that comes up is how quickly can the US raise a big navy? I know about the industrial cpacity, but nevertheless, it must take years. I only wonder becuase the war could leave American conflicts overseas. Maybe someone stole their colonies(there were some pacific islands, no?), or GB decided to take a bigger chunck of Venezuela. How long would it be for the US to be able to start raising a fuss about it, and actually have the navy to back up the words?

[stevep]

Originally Posted by xchen08

Stevep:

Some good points, though I feel many can be countered.

1) As a general point, this war is not clearcut as an act of American aggression. I'm not entirely sure of the circumstances of the initial arbitration that led to the crisis, but it could be interpreted as Britain agreeing to arbitration, then pulling out after the decision goes against them, thus Britain is the aggressor. This will likely be the view of those nations less than friendly with Britain, such as the other American nations and many European states. The American population will almost entirely see this as a war of aggression by Britain, ie they rejected our fair arbitration, then violated the rightful borders or our good friend; blatant violation of the Monroe Doctrine, etc. Therefore I doubt Britain would have any advantage in morale or sense of righteousness.

I was going by the initial OP situation where a skirmish in a disputed border region is followed by a sudden declaration of war by Venezuela under the insane charge that Britain was preparing an invasion and this small skirmish stopped it. Followed by the US supporting Venezuela in its attack. ]Not to mention a sudden attack on a neutral state if the US attacks Canada]. There was no mentioned of negotiation in that and while some will be swayed by the yellow press others will have doubts about what the motives for the US are in this. There will be concerns in Britain as well but as Venezuela is going so far off the rails and the US support them that will be a lot less. As I said before the more conspiratorial, possibly on both sides, could well assume that the US government is behind the entire thing as they would not believe that Venezuela would attack Britain without being certain of support.

2) Regarding Canada, the main trouble is the superiority of the RN. The U.S. will have trouble aiding Venezuela, and so the easiest place to put pressure on Britain will be Canada, whose major population centres are essentially indefensible. The U.S. wouldn't need territorial annexations if the main point is to have territory and people to trade in the peace treaty. Of course, maybe once tempers get hot, and the war escalates, Venezuela will be forgotten and then the war turns into a grudge match to drive Britain out of the Americas once and for all. Until that though, there is no reason for the U.S. to act sufficiently odiously to drive a well off and civilized people into partisan activity.

The US will, you suggest, blatantly invade a neutral state and that isn't going to cause offence? Also if it is declaring in advance that its going to restore liberty to Canada after the conflict and not make any annexations what influence does that supply to Britain? [Other than I doubt if many people will believe such claims]. Not to mention, even if the US tries to keep its troops under strict discipline there will be clashes. Occasional disputes or accidents that cause resentment and conflict. Not to mention to support its invasion the US is going to have to take over much of the Canadian railway system, disband its army and probably much of the police, impose control over the main urban areas at least.

As for international diplomacy, I doubt an invasion of Canada will have any negative effects on the U.S. Latin America's public sentiment will no doubt be on the American side and Europeans long resentful of Britain using its naval superiority to dictate where the fighting takes place will likely see the invasion as fully legitimate.

The US invading a neighbour because its politically convent is not going to cause concern amongst the smaller states to the south that the US is effectively claiming control over. [Which is what the Monroe Doctrine means when it comes down to it!] True this was the period before the US really started throwing its weight about in Latin America but I suspect a fair number of Latin states will be unhappy with the idea of Washington deciding how and by whom their ruled and what foreign policies they follow.

Why should Europe, or anyone else outside the US be resentful that having declared war on Britain the latter uses its much more powerful navy to minimise the amount of damage they can do to it?

3) Regarding immigrants and the willingness of Americans to fight: as mentioned before, Americans, immigrants and otherwise will likely see the war as defensive. The ACW draft riots required extraordinary levels of corruption to spark, and mistreated minorities have consistently seen righteous war as opportunity to demonstrate their loyalty and patriotism, and thus their right to be treated as equal citizens. This is what blacks did from the Revolution up to the Korean War, what Germans did in WWI, what Japanese did in WWII, etc. There is almost never any lingering loyalty to the old country once war starts. Indeed the S-A war about this time was seen by many immigrants' children as a chance to demonstrate that they too were Americans as well as a chance for Northernors and Southernors to fight together.

But will they see a bloody conflict resulting from a naked land grab which ruins their chances of peaceful economic development as a righteous war? Some might be that misguided by I suspect many will not. Don't forget this is the gilded age with widespread corruption, much political manipulation and great abuse of power. Teddy has not come to power and trimmed back the trusts and monopolies. I can see many of the European immigrants viewing this as a war to enable bigger profits for business and to distract the population from the state of the US. Not saying there will be socialist rebellion but can see a lot of potential for unrest.

This of course, will be equally true in Britain, and possibly even more true of the self-governing colonies/dominions.

If it gets to the point of a draft although that will only be necessary if Canada is attacked. At which point crusade is probably a good description for the feelings that will be provoked. Don't forget there was a Conservative government at the time which, seeing the situation in Europe with mass armies being raised was arguing for extensive military reforms and many were arguing for conscription. This was rejected until 1916 because it was so alien to British tradition but under the circumstances here I doubt if the most anti-militaristic Liberals would be able to put up much resistance.

There is no reason to believe that the U.S. would have any greater difficulties in mobilizing its population than Britain will.

The US has a much higher number of recent immigrants [notice I don't say settlers] with no real reason to display loyalty to the state. Also many have reasons to be resentful of their treatment. Of the longer term population some will want to join the war and many will even believe, initially at least, US propaganda. However others will want to continue with their own lives and see no point in the massive militarisation that the government is demanding, when there is no threat to the US itself. Britain, because of its greater starting military establishment and imperial links have a markedly lower proportional build-up to wage the initial limited war.

I'm not sure this is true. The last big American war, of course would be the ACW. There's been nothing since except colonial wars and indian wars. But Britain hasn't fought a major war since the Crimean either. The assorted colonial wars and police actions and gunboat diplomacy is hardly likely to give the average British officer any more experience in modern warfare than the average American officer. For that matter, historically, the U.S. didn't demonstrate any greater incompetence in Cuba and the Philippines than Britain demonstrated in the Boer Wars.

In terms of the many colonial wars they won't be that good a training ground for the sort of conflict that is occurring. However I'm thinking less of that than of the logistic of moving and supporting large numbers of troops far from home. That is something that will be very valuable for the British forces in the conflict. For the US, unless they do try and send forces to Venezuelan or raid British possessions say in the Caribbean they will not have a great need. However to build up and support large armies need an extensive support structure that the US will have to build up largely from scratch. Also, presuming they do go into Canada they will then have the problem of supporting much of those forces deep into unfriendly territory.

Loss of trade and tariffs will hurt, no doubt, but it won't be crippling. The U.S. has a large internal economy, far larger than Britain. Loss of trade would be painful, but not life or death like it would be for Britain, or even for Germany like in WWI.

True Britain will face a greater problem here being a much larger trading nation. However it will see less of its total trade disrupted even if the US starts raiding large scale and it will not be a life or death issue for Britain with Europe nearby and the enemy an ocean away.

As for overseas possessions, I don't think the U.S. had any yet. The territories acquired in the S-A war of course haven't been acquired yet. Hawaii is a pro-American Republic that I'm sure France or Germany would be willing to prop up if Britain makes moves to occupy it. Alaska is not really vulnerable to attack, nor of any value if attacked.

I think there are a few Pacific islands and interests. Hawalli is by far the most important and Britain could well respond by seeking to reverse the American coup and restore the monarchy. I don't see why either France or Germany would seek to clash with Britain to protect a US puppet that the US couldn't protect itself. Thinking more like Samoa, which the Germans had claims on historically and a number of smaller places like Midway. Could see them snapped up while the US is unable to maintain their claim. Britain has more at stake but is still able to protect those possessions so there might be some nibbling at the edges of disputed territories. Alaska is of little value to anyone at this time I think but Britain might seek to occupy coastal regions to remove possibly bases for raiders and also apply pressure on America to come to terms and end the conflict by negotiation.

Before the S-A war, the U.S. has sufficiently few overseas interests outside the Americas that it will likely feel no pain in conceding points to Germany or France in order to influence them against Britain. Britain, however, cannot afford to do this. The main outflow of this would be that Britain can't afford to concentrate its entire Navy against the U.S., and thus would find it harder to maintain superiority in American waters than it might overwise have found it.

It can't afford to commit its entire navy but it doesn't need to. This is before the German naval build-up takes off and while France is technically No. 2 it is a considerable way behind Britain. Furthermore, while France can try and gain minor advantages it can't afford to do anything that would mean war as that would mean the RN would then concentrate against France and could really hurt it while the army 'liberates' much of the French colonial empire.

It could be argued that the European powers are actually more likely to seek to win favour with Britain. Not only will the US have been seen to be out of line but its insistence that it controls all of Latin America and can do what it likes there is a major threat to interests of the powers with trading and diplomatic interests there. Furthermore America will be seen as the much weaker power [whether rightly or wrongly] and is also traditionally hostile to alliances and co-operating with other powers. As such it has far less to offer a European ally than Britain. Similarly while Britain has a lot of territorial possessions that could be vulnerable that can cut both ways. It can always seek to trade some for support. [Not saying a dow on the US even after say an attack on Canada but diplomatic and economic support could be very handy].

If the war drags on and escalates, it'll probably turn into Britain with control over Venezuela (and troubles with occupation and partisans), the U.S. with control over Canada (and troubles with occupation and partisans), and neither side really able to strike at the other. RN raids on the coast will be costly, running the risk of mines, submarines, torpedo boats, coast defense, etc, and landings suicide. With an inferior navy, the U.S. is really unable to strike at Britain except continuing to crush resistance in Canada and smashing any remaining British pockets in North America. Economy wise, I don't see a stalemate as hurting either side over the other. The U.S. suffers more disruption to trade, but is far less reliant on it. British trade is also seriously disrupted thanks to the loss of trade with Canada or the U.S. as well as commerce raiders and possibly submarines. The longer the war drags on, the more likely some other power will take advantage of Britain's distraction and the USN will steadily get closer and closer to parity. Plus, the loss of Canada hurts Britain a lot more than Venezuela hurts the U.S.

True that the loss of Canada hurts Britain more than Venezuela hurts the US. However does it hurt Britain as much as its 'gain' hurts the US. Even without bloody guerrilla resistance this could be a ulcer for the US that dwarfs Spain. I can think of a lot of tricks that local civilians can do very easily to make life difficult and costly for the occupiers. Along with a load of other, military related ones in such a vast, thinly populated region by small raiding forces. Especially if as I suspect the US will face a bloody WWI type conflict in eastern Canada.

xchen08 - I think you totally fail to understand how I believe people will react to a US attack on Canada. Not just how you think the Canadians will accept being occupied without resistance or resentment. While Canada is formally independent by this point there are close blood and cultural ties to the rest of the British Diaspora. Don't think I overestimate things at all when I use the word crusade. [Think how the US reacted to Pearl Harbour and remember this is a far greater provocation!].

Steve

[xchen08]

I suppose this is something for the OP to clarify, but I read the POD as the U.S. ruling against Britain rather than for when it arbitrated the Venezuelan dispute. Britain then rejected the results of arbitration. It is fully legitimate then for Venezuela and the U.S. to regard the British patrol as intruding on Venezuelan territory, and the shots fired as aggression. Then the Venezuelan declaration of war is self-defense, and the U.S. DoW would be support of an ally. In any case, the case for this war is much better than that for the S-A War, and very few Americans felt badly about that either.

The US will, you suggest, blatantly invade a neutral state and that isn't going to cause offence? Also if it is declaring in advance that its going to restore liberty to Canada after the conflict and not make any annexations what influence does that supply to Britain? [Other than I doubt if many people will believe such claims]. Not to mention, even if the US tries to keep its troops under strict discipline there will be clashes. Occasional disputes or accidents that cause resentment and conflict. Not to mention to support its invasion the US is going to have to take over much of the Canadian railway system, disband its army and probably much of the police, impose control over the main urban areas at least.

Canada was not really an independent nation in 1895. (At least I doubt many people saw it as such) No one would see it as a neutral like, say Belgium. Any neutrality would be a polite fiction arranged between the U.S. and the UK to prevent the war from escalating. This fiction lasts as long the war does not escalate. Once it does, with Britain choking off American trade from Canadian ports and feeding itself on Canadian grain, of course there will be U.S. invasion. No doubt, it would be preceded by an unacceptable ultimatum, such as end trade with Britain for the duration of the war or we will end that trade for you.

The US invading a neighbour because its politically convent is not going to cause concern amongst the smaller states to the south that the US is effectively claiming control over. [Which is what the Monroe Doctrine means when it comes down to it!] True this was the period before the US really started throwing its weight about in Latin America but I suspect a fair number of Latin states will be unhappy with the idea of Washington deciding how and by whom their ruled and what foreign policies they follow.

Not when that neighbor is seen as a colonial dependency, as indeed it was, and the U.S. is fighting in defense of a brother Latin state. This is also before the U.S. really started meddling in Latin America while Britain's been doing so for centuries. Who will they resent more?

Why should Europe, or anyone else outside the US be resentful that having declared war on Britain the latter uses its much more powerful navy to minimise the amount of damage they can do to it?

Because Britain's been doing the same to them for a long time. Because the blockade is interrupting valuable trade with the United States. Because Britain's on top, and nobody likes the guy on top, especially when you also dream of being on top like France, and much more importantly, Germany.

But will they see a bloody conflict resulting from a naked land grab which ruins their chances of peaceful economic development as a righteous war? Some might be that misguided by I suspect many will not. Don't forget this is the gilded age with widespread corruption, much political manipulation and great abuse of power. Teddy has not come to power and trimmed back the trusts and monopolies. I can see many of the European immigrants viewing this as a war to enable bigger profits for business and to distract the population from the state of the US. Not saying there will be socialist rebellion but can see a lot of potential for unrest.

Why would they see it as a naked land grab when they didn't see the S-A war as such despite far better reason? And really, betting on American immigrants holding onto loyalties for the old country or turning against America in wartime has never paid off for anyone.

In terms of the many colonial wars they won't be that good a training ground for the sort of conflict that is occurring. However I'm thinking less of that than of the logistic of moving and supporting large numbers of troops far from home. That is something that will be very valuable for the British forces in the conflict. For the US, unless they do try and send forces to Venezuelan or raid British possessions say in the Caribbean they will not have a great need. However to build up and support large armies need an extensive support structure that the US will have to build up largely from scratch. Also, presuming they do go into Canada they will then have the problem of supporting much of those forces deep into unfriendly territory.

As you said, Britain's advantages in this field are nullified by the fact that the war is in America's backyard. It'll be no more difficult for the U.S. to support troops 100 miles from Buffalo, or right across the Great Lakes from Chicago than for Britain to support troops across the Atlantic, and I'm sure you see the understatement here.

True that the loss of Canada hurts Britain more than Venezuela hurts the US. However does it hurt Britain as much as its 'gain' hurts the US. Even without bloody guerrilla resistance this could be a ulcer for the US that dwarfs Spain. I can think of a lot of tricks that local civilians can do very easily to make life difficult and costly for the occupiers. Along with a load of other, military related ones in such a vast, thinly populated region by small raiding forces. Especially if as I suspect the US will face a bloody WWI type conflict in eastern Canada.

Bloody WWI style conflict is unlikely with borders so much longer and population and infrastructure densities so much lower. (at least on the Canadian side) It'll be Eastern Front at worst, that is if one side on the Eastern Front has 3 times the troops and of roughly equal equipment and training. And I think you are grossly overestimating partisan activity, something that amusingly, Americans are particularly prone to. Especially when the U.S. can easily raise more troops than the entire Canadian population.

True Britain will face a greater problem here being a much larger trading nation. However it will see less of its total trade disrupted even if the US starts raiding large scale and it will not be a life or death issue for Britain with Europe nearby and the enemy an ocean away.

Less trade disrupted, but trade a much larger proportion of the (smaller)economy. It probably cancels out. Amusingly, much, perhaps even most of the disruption to British trade will be the end of trade with the U.S. (and Canada)

It can't afford to commit its entire navy but it doesn't need to. This is before the German naval build-up takes off and while France is technically No. 2 it is a considerable way behind Britain. Furthermore, while France can try and gain minor advantages it can't afford to do anything that would mean war as that would mean the RN would then concentrate against France and could really hurt it while the army 'liberates' much of the French colonial empire.

Agreed. Though think about it this way. Suppose Britain can only afford to commit 1/2 of the RN to the war. The other half is needed at Britain itself and around the world. Then, the ships are operating so far from their main bases, and indeed without any bases on this side of the pond capable of supporting so large a fleet. So the fleet would have to be dispersed between many bases. No shipyards or dockyards either, so major maintainance, and repair would require steaming back and forth across the Atlantic, meaning that those ships would not be available for battle. Then, they are trying to blockade a coastline God only knows how many times longer than they had to in WWI, so many squadrons would have to be well separate from the battleline, and they too would spend much time steaming to and from their bases. Once all this is taken into account, a USN a quarter the size of the RN would make the RN commander very uncomfortable. A third the size and blockade becomes impossible. Half the size, and even interdicting troops going to Venezuela becomes questionable.

True that the loss of Canada hurts Britain more than Venezuela hurts the US. However does it hurt Britain as much as its 'gain' hurts the US. Even without bloody guerrilla resistance this could be a ulcer for the US that dwarfs Spain. I can think of a lot of tricks that local civilians can do very easily to make life difficult and costly for the occupiers. Along with a load of other, military related ones in such a vast, thinly populated region by small raiding forces. Especially if as I suspect the US will face a bloody WWI type conflict in eastern Canada.

Remember that everything the U.S. would face in Canada, Britain would face in Venezuela. If you don't believe Venezuela would be a bleeding ulcer for Britain, why do you thing Canada would be one for the U.S.?

[Think how the US reacted to Pearl Harbour and remember this is a far greater provocation!].

I hardly think a surprise attack before declaring war is less of a provocation, than an invasion of an obvious target no doubt after a formal declaration of war when the neutrality was but a diplomatic fiction in the first place.

[xchen08]

Originally Posted by Leistungsfähiger Amerikan

A question that comes up is how quickly can the US raise a big navy? I know about the industrial cpacity, but nevertheless, it must take years. I only wonder becuase the war could leave American conflicts overseas. Maybe someone stole their colonies(there were some pacific islands, no?), or GB decided to take a bigger chunck of Venezuela. How long would it be for the US to be able to start raising a fuss about it, and actually have the navy to back up the words?

Yeah, it will take years. OTL it wasn't until the twenties that the USN was equal to the RN. However, the limitation on expansion was always Congressional approval rather than yardspace or industry. If the USA comes out of the war feeling humiliated and vengence seeking, I'm sure it could do so within a decade.

[perfectgeneral]

Originally Posted by xchen08

Yeah, it will take years. OTL it wasn't until the twenties that the USN was equal to the RN. However, the limitation on expansion was always Congressional approval rather than yardspace or industry. If the USA comes out of the war feeling humiliated and vengence seeking, I'm sure it could do so within a decade.

Yeah, that's why, if things did kick off in North America, Britain would be seeking the gain of everything north of the (edit: 40°? My mistake I meant 42° as I have said already) 42° north parallel. Greater Canada. A balance to keep USA in check. Another ACW would put the USA on the south side with GB allied to the north. Weird. edit for new paragraph

I agree with SteveP, neither GB nor USA would gain from a war over Canada/the northern states. Look what happened in 1814. More of a skirmish than a real war.

Even as recently as Nov 1999 the dispute continues.
http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/...la/dispute.htm

``They had a buildup of troops, man. Normally they have 30 over there,'' said
Semple, the Guyanese police sergeant. ``Then all of a sudden they had 300.''

Look's like this one will never go away unless Venezuela joins the Empire (Dominion Status?)

Although GB doesn't realise the oil it stands to gain in Venezuela, the precious metals, ores and gems are well known (if hard to reach) and the crops of Sugar, Coffee and Cocoa have been traded for ages.

Not all bad:
July 3rd 2005, by Jeroen Kuiper—Venezuelanalysis.com

Relations between Guyana and Venezuela have improved tremendously

[tchizek]

Originally Posted by perfectgeneral

Look what happened in 1814. More of a skirmish than a real war.

I really don't think you can compare the US in 1814 to the US in 1895 in terms of its ability to fight a war with Great Britian. In 1814 it was ~1/3 of the final size, very little industrial capability and distracted by growing west. In 1895 it was in the top 5 industrial countries, basically reached its continental size.

I really think that everyone is underestimating how difficult Great Britian would have things in this war. Remember when this is, everyone in Europe is looking around for a chance to fight (okay okay a small exaggeration but close to true). I think it is likely that this could blow up into World War I or something like it if the US and Great Britian start fighting seriously. Neither France or Germany are going to be happy to loose trade, Germany would love a crack at a distracted Great Britian. France could jump either way. Either take a crack at Great Britian and gain some colonies or take a crack at Germany to get revenge for 1870. If everyone jumps on the top dog (Great Britian) then things get ugly - frankly if even one more great power joins in on the US/Venezuelan side things get ugly for Great Britian.

[xchen08]

Originally Posted by perfectgeneral

Yeah, that's why, if things did kick off in North America, Britain would be seeking the gain of everything north of the 40° north parallel. Greater Canada. A balance to keep USA in check. Another ACW would put the USA on the south side with GB allied to the north. Weird. edit for new paragraph

You do realize that taking down to 40 North is going to leave several times more Americans in "Greater Canada" than Canadians?

Originally Posted by tchizek

I really don't think you can compare the US in 1814 to the US in 1895 in terms of its ability to fight a war with Great Britian. In 1814 it was ~1/3 of the final size, very little industrial capability and distracted by growing west. In 1895 it was in the top 5 industrial countries, basically reached its continental size.

Agree with the sentiment, though top 5 is a bit of an understatement. By 1895, the U.S. was already number 1 in industry, GDP, and population. (among the industrialized nations) It has a capital intensity close to that of the UK itself and a top 5 GDP per capita. It's the largest exporter of grain. Good luck trying to defeat this monstrousity on its home turf.

Really, in 1814 only luck and British distraction saved the U.S. A war in 1870, Britain would win, but if the fighting were in North America, Britain would be in for one hell of a slog. The U.S. would curbstomp Britain in 1930. Halfway between the 2 points, the nations are roughly equal, but we are fighting in the American backyard.

[perfectgeneral]

Originally Posted by tchizek

I really don't think you can compare the US in 1814 to the US in 1895 in terms of its ability to fight a war with Great Britian. In 1814 it was ~1/3 of the final size, very little industrial capability and distracted by growing west. In 1895 it was in the top 5 industrial countries, basically reached its continental size.

I really think that everyone is underestimating how difficult Great Britian would have things in this war. Remember when this is, everyone in Europe is looking around for a chance to fight (okay okay a small exaggeration but close to true). I think it is likely that this could blow up into World War I or something like it if the US and Great Britian start fighting seriously. Neither France or Germany are going to be happy to loose trade, Germany would love a crack at a distracted Great Britian. France could jump either way. Either take a crack at Great Britian and gain some colonies or take a crack at Germany to get revenge for 1870. If everyone jumps on the top dog (Great Britian) then things get ugly - frankly if even one more great power joins in on the US/Venezuelan side things get ugly for Great Britian.

The size of USA had nothing to do with my comment about 1814 being a small skirmish. The USA of the time could have done more. Britain was engaged elsewhere (French and Dutch war cost us a lot and we had colonial gains to put right). It was more of a diplomatic spat than a war. Something neither side really wanted to pursue vigorously. The same would probably hold true this time. Over by Christmas .

[tchizek]

Originally Posted by xchen08

Agree with the sentiment, though top 5 is a bit of an understatement. By 1895, the U.S. was already number 1 in industry, GDP, and population. (among the industrialized nations) It has a capital intensity close to that of the UK itself and a top 5 GDP per capita. It's the largest exporter of grain.

Yes but it is well below the top 5 in total military power so I was figuring that it averaged out to somewhere below Great Britain and Germany but above France, Austria-Hungary and Russia.

[Cornelius]

Just a couple of question out of sheer curiosity

First: If Cleveland decide to force canada into war to break the stalemate with UK, is the Congress going to accept or could oppose such a decision?
Some of the congressmen could object that USA are fighting to defend Venezuela and the Monroe doctrine, not Cleveland's ego.

Second: What if other european nations (Germany for example) decide to take a "direct interest" in South America while both USA and Great Britain are locked in conflict?

[stevep]

Originally Posted by xchen08

I suppose this is something for the OP to clarify, but I read the POD as the U.S. ruling against Britain rather than for when it arbitrated the Venezuelan dispute. Britain then rejected the results of arbitration. It is fully legitimate then for Venezuela and the U.S. to regard the British patrol as intruding on Venezuelan territory, and the shots fired as aggression. Then the Venezuelan declaration of war is self-defense, and the U.S. DoW would be support of an ally. In any case, the case for this war is much better than that for the S-A War, and very few Americans felt badly about that either.

Just checked it again. Reference to Sailsbury objecting to US interference and denying he has any right to. That doesn't sound like the US is doing any arbitration agreed in advance by both the powers. In fact no mention of arbitration at all. [I know the US did mediate OTL but no mention of it here].

Canada was not really an independent nation in 1895. (At least I doubt many people saw it as such) No one would see it as a neutral like, say Belgium. Any neutrality would be a polite fiction arranged between the U.S. and the UK to prevent the war from escalating. This fiction lasts as long the war does not escalate. Once it does, with Britain choking off American trade from Canadian ports and feeding itself on Canadian grain, of course there will be U.S. invasion. No doubt, it would be preceded by an unacceptable ultimatum, such as end trade with Britain for the duration of the war or we will end that trade for you.

The US could claim that Canada was not really independent but that would be generally recognised as US propaganda for internal use. Canada still had linked, often close, to the UK. It has its own government, tariffs against foreign goods, including from Britain, respresentation overseas and had [presuming from the scenario] declared its neutrality in the current conflict. Furthermore you have argued eariler that Cleveland would recognise that neutrality so it is showing naked opportunism for the US to go back on its word when it suits it.

I also find it strange that you claim that British is esculating the conflict by defending itself against US attack? 1st I have heard of any suggest of an ultimatium. Not to mention the legality of attacking someone because they are selling food as opposed to military materials. Nor has there been any mention of Britain using Canadian ports for the blockage. Think your starting to stretch to find excuses for a US attack on Canada, espcially given that you admitted earlier that the US decides to attack Canada because its losing the war and wants some way of trying to counter Britain's clear advantage in the naval and colonial sphere.

Not when that neighbor is seen as a colonial dependency, as indeed it was, and the U.S. is fighting in defense of a brother Latin state. This is also before the U.S. really started meddling in Latin America while Britain's been doing so for centuries. Who will they resent more?

Britain did meddle in affairs, most noticably in protecting the region from Spanish and other intervention. True its before the US became more generally obnoxious, although it also has an history of interference. Given that its just attacked a neutral state simply because it has become convinient that could well make some of the states nerous about their position. Britain may seek to defend its citizens and trading interests but not since 1806 I think has it sought to attack and occupy a state in the Americas.

Because Britain's been doing the same to them for a long time. Because the blockade is interrupting valuable trade with the United States. Because Britain's on top, and nobody likes the guy on top, especially when you also dream of being on top like France, and much more importantly, Germany.

Been doing what? Blocking trade behind high tariff walls. Condemning other nations for imperialism while waging bloody wars of conquest itself. Sorry, that the US not Britain.

Britain is blocking trade of war materials with the US as its entitled to do during war. Also seeking to hunt down enemy shipping. It isn't flooding the oceans with raiders why may accidentially hit innocent targets as the US probably is. It isn't causing a war that is considerably disrupting the world economy because of [depending on interpretation] a fit of piek or a desire to expand its sphere of influence. [Since I can't see the US waging such an expensive war without some plans to get some return].

Why would they see it as a naked land grab when they didn't see the S-A war as such despite far better reason? And really, betting on American immigrants holding onto loyalties for the old country or turning against America in wartime has never paid off for anyone.

The US is attacking a neutral neighbour which had done nothing to provoke such an attack. It claims it is doing this to pressurise Britain into submitting to US terms but given its history of grabbing land I'm not sure how many will believe this. Especially since it is recruiting a huge army simply to do this. [It will need a huge army and there is no other place that army can be used so it will be solely for the conquest of Canada].

I am not actually assuming that large numbers of immigrants will turn against the US, although they could be encouraged to by the sort of policies your suggesting. However think you are being too casual in assuming that they will overwhelmingly support the US's wars of expansion.

As you said, Britain's advantages in this field are nullified by the fact that the war is in America's backyard. It'll be no more difficult for the U.S. to support troops 100 miles from Buffalo, or right across the Great Lakes from Chicago than for Britain to support troops across the Atlantic, and I'm sure you see the understatement here.

While the fighting is within 100 miles of Buffalo that is the case. [Although as long as you control the seas the distance over the Atlantic is not a great barrier]. However I thought you were talking about occupying most of Canada, or at least the populated regions. If the US can cross the lakes, which they should be able to, they can overrun the central isthmus. However that would involve some frontal assaults which could well be costly, as could the advance to Quebec. From that point onwards however the lines lengthen considerably and logistics is going to be a problem. Especially if you seek to remove the British presence that will almost certainly be established at the Gulf of St Lawrence [Nova Scota, PEI, Anticost Island, Newfoundland and probably Labordor].

Bloody WWI style conflict is unlikely with borders so much longer and population and infrastructure densities so much lower. (at least on the Canadian side) It'll be Eastern Front at worst, that is if one side on the Eastern Front has 3 times the troops and of roughly equal equipment and training. And I think you are grossly overestimating partisan activity, something that amusingly, Americans are particularly prone to. Especially when the U.S. can easily raise more troops than the entire Canadian population.

Bloody WWI encounters will be unlikely in the pararies. However, unless the US crosses the Lakes they will have to do frontal assualts to force places further east. [Unless your planning on a very long loop around Lake Superior, which will not be easy given the transport facilities of the time] The US is likely to win but that could be costly. Then when they meet the British in the east. New Brunswick will probably be overrun but Nova Scotia is on a very narrow peninsula that will require a hell of a lot of slogging to get through unless you can bypass it. [Which will not be easy when the RN is about].

The US can raise more troops than the entire Canadian population but it won't be easy. I am not furthermore assuming heavy partisan activity, despite the fact the Canadians will have plenty of reason for anger about the occupation. Just thinking about the sheer size of the task your assuming the US will take on coupled with a little subtle sabotage and the fact that Britain and some Canadian units will be able to continue fighting and if used wisely small hit and run forces can cause a hell of a lot of problems for the garrison forces. Its going to be highly unlikely that Britain can drive the US from Canada by shattering military victories. However steadily bleeding them white is a total diffierent matter.

Less trade disrupted, but trade a much larger proportion of the (smaller)economy. It probably cancels out. Amusingly, much, perhaps even most of the disruption to British trade will be the end of trade with the U.S. (and Canada)

I think it will be more destructive than that as expect that the US will try a lot of commerce raiding. [Loss of trade with the US and after its attack Most of Canada will hurt but we can find alternatives]. However, given the changes in technology this may not be so simple. Going to be very difficult and destructive for world trade.

However there are going to be pluses. The war will mean that the US will no longer be able to trade much in other markets, which will give a boost to British and other nations. Furthermore the damage to the US economy will be wider than the loss of foreign trade. There will not be many US fishermen on the Grand Banks for instance. More importantly the British blockage will markedly interfer with US coastal trade. This will also have an impact on the economic value of the Mississippi as much trade down it funneling through New Orleans which will now be blockaged. The US can adjust to this but it will have economic costs.

Agreed. Though think about it this way. Suppose Britain can only afford to commit 1/2 of the RN to the war. The other half is needed at Britain itself and around the world. Then, the ships are operating so far from their main bases, and indeed without any bases on this side of the pond capable of supporting so large a fleet. So the fleet would have to be dispersed between many bases. No shipyards or dockyards either, so major maintainance, and repair would require steaming back and forth across the Atlantic, meaning that those ships would not be available for battle. Then, they are trying to blockade a coastline God only knows how many times longer than they had to in WWI, so many squadrons would have to be well separate from the battleline, and they too would spend much time steaming to and from their bases. Once all this is taken into account, a USN a quarter the size of the RN would make the RN commander very uncomfortable. A third the size and blockade becomes impossible. Half the size, and even interdicting troops going to Venezuela becomes questionable.

Not sure what the capacity of places like Bermuda and Jamacia were at this point. If there is some warning then other facilities can be expanded. Halifax will be missed as I would expect Britain to withdraw from it to protect Canadian neutrality. But then we can move back in once the US attacks Canada.

Much of the blockage could be done by relatively light forces, destroyers and crusiers. Heavy units would I suspect mainly be needed to counter attempts by the US battlefleet to interfer. You could do a fair bit to bugger up US trade with light units that could outrun enemy capital ships if they come out. Pending arrival of units of the Grand Fleet and supporting facilities.

How dispersed is the US fleet at this point? Anything in the Pacific is going to be very lonely and vulnerable. Also the US has to protect its own coastline and I suspect there will be a lot of demands by various regional leaders to make sure their coastline and ports are not left undefended.

Actually it is better if the US does manage to get elements of its small regular army to Venezuela. That isolates it there and also means that part of the US fleet will be tried up trying to support them. Few of any such troops will make it back.

Remember that everything the U.S. would face in Canada, Britain would face in Venezuela. If you don't believe Venezuela would be a bleeding ulcer for Britain, why do you thing Canada would be one for the U.S.?

Lets see. Britain has no need to occupy Venezula. Even if we can't find a friendly factor to take over after the current junta is deposed Britain could largely ignore it, maintaining a small force to protect our interests in the disputed zone, which is pretty difficult for anyone to get at. Or just occupy a few costal regions to prevent the US getting any bases in the area, at least until we can tighten the blockage on the US. Coupled with the fact Canada is far, far larger than Venezula, will be the scence of continued heavy fighting in the east and can be assisted by forces and equipment from Britain.

I hardly think a surprise attack before declaring war is less of a provocation, than an invasion of an obvious target no doubt after a formal declaration of war when the neutrality was but a diplomatic fiction in the first place.

Pearl was a surprise attack because the US was very lax. However it was an attack on a military target after a long period of tension. Your talking about an unprovoked attack on a state, the neutrality of which the US has formally accepted. Not just a strike on a military target but a full on invasion of an entire country for no other reason than its politically convienent. Imagine that someone attacked the US and invaded and occupied California.

I find it surprising that so many Americans seem to think they can get away with any sort of attrocity with no one every bearing any sort of grudge but if anyone defeats the US, even in a defencive war, the country will be consumed with rabid hatred and will bear any costs to win a new war.

I will try raising another point. You can, albeit at considerable economic and social cost, recruit a sizeable army, say up to 4-5 million men say. However that will take a lot of time. Especially when your already fighting a war with a powerful opponent. With the US industrial base it can fairly quickly manufacture the uniforms, boots, personal arms etc. However specialised heavy equipment, especially artilery will be a lot tougher. Even more difficult, with such a small professional army in the 1st place, even without the losses that will occur, where are the officers and NCOs for this mass army to come from?

Not to mention that this will take a fair amount of time. During which the war will quite possibly be going fairly poorly and the economic costs will be building up. Also the Canadians are likely to be taking preparations once they find out about the massive US build-up. Expect some prepared border defences and increased recruiting by them in preparation. Still likely to go down if the US attacks with enough but it is likely to be a costly operation.

Steve

[stevep]

Originally Posted by Cornelius

Just a couple of question out of sheer curiosity

First: If Cleveland decide to force canada into war to break the stalemate with UK, is the Congress going to accept or could oppose such a decision?
Some of the congressmen could object that USA are fighting to defend Venezuela and the Monroe doctrine, not Cleveland's ego.

Second: What if other european nations (Germany for example) decide to take a "direct interest" in South America while both USA and Great Britain are locked in conflict?

Good questions. He might be able to force war if enough of the business community is with him, especially the press but it could cause a lot more dessent.

Steve

[stevep]

Originally Posted by xchen08

You do realize that taking down to 40 North is going to leave several times more Americans in "Greater Canada" than Canadians?

Fully agree. Even if everything went pear shaped for the US I could see only relatively limited border changes and that would probably be an unwise move. [The US would resent such changes as much as Britain/Canada would the occupation of Canada].

Agree with the sentiment, though top 5 is a bit of an understatement. By 1895, the U.S. was already number 1 in industry, GDP, and population. (among the industrialized nations) It has a capital intensity close to that of the UK itself and a top 5 GDP per capita. It's the largest exporter of grain. Good luck trying to defeat this monstrousity on its home turf.

Defeating, in terms of widespread occupations is highly unlikely. However not sure if anyone's talking about anything like that. [Know I'm not].

One small quibble with your figures. By about 1895 the US has probably overtaken Germany in population which would put it 2nd overall in that rank.

Really, in 1814 only luck and British distraction saved the U.S. A war in 1870, Britain would win, but if the fighting were in North America, Britain would be in for one hell of a slog. The U.S. would curbstomp Britain in 1930. Halfway between the 2 points, the nations are roughly equal, but we are fighting in the American backyard.

To a degree although the US having to take the offensive in Canada will cause it a lot of problems. Also in one way we're fighting in the UK's back yard as much of the combat is occurring at sea. In terms of win and loss it depends on how your defining the words. Basically what I'm saying on the current debate is that Britain could 'win' by losing less harshly than than US in the conflict.

Steve

[xchen08]

Originally Posted by stevep

Just checked it again. Reference to Sailsbury objecting to US interference and denying he has any right to. That doesn't sound like the US is doing any arbitration agreed in advance by both the powers. In fact no mention of arbitration at all. [I know the US did mediate OTL but no mention of it here].

Well, something for the OP to clarify if he fixes his computer and comes back. If it's just Britain outright rejecting arbitration and pursuing a hardline with Venezuela being the POD, well that's almost as good at rallying American public opinion.

The US could claim that Canada was not really independent but that would be generally recognised as US propaganda for internal use. Canada still had linked, often close, to the UK. It has its own government, tariffs against foreign goods, including from Britain, respresentation overseas and had [presuming from the scenario] declared its neutrality in the current conflict. Furthermore you have argued eariler that Cleveland would recognise that neutrality so it is showing naked opportunism for the US to go back on its word when it suits it.

But yet its foreign affairs, and in particular war and peace are determined by London. I doubt the American recognition of neutrality will take the form of Cleveland publicly announcing that he recognizes Canada as a wholly separate nation from Britain. It'll take the form of behind the scenes talks where the U.S. agrees to treat Canada as neutral in exchange for some similar concessions by Britain in order to keep the war limited. One possible concession would be no blockade of the East Coast and no commerce raiding on either side, thus limiting the war entirely to the Caribbean while minimizing the economic disaster that would otherwise befall both.

I also find it strange that you claim that British is esculating the conflict by defending itself against US attack? 1st I have heard of any suggest of an ultimatium. Not to mention the legality of attacking someone because they are selling food as opposed to military materials. Nor has there been any mention of Britain using Canadian ports for the blockage. Think your starting to stretch to find excuses for a US attack on Canada, espcially given that you admitted earlier that the US decides to attack Canada because its losing the war and wants some way of trying to counter Britain's clear advantage in the naval and colonial sphere.

What U.S. attack? How can Britain possibly need to defend itself when its only possession that the U.S. can reach is Canada, and the U.S. is refraining from attacking that? Blockade on the other hand is an act of war, and quite a serious one at that. Britain imposing a blockade automatically means that the war is not some colonial affair but a serious all out war. With the war already expanded, who's going to find it strange that the U.S. pulls out the stops too?

Britain did meddle in affairs, most noticably in protecting the region from Spanish and other intervention. True its before the US became more generally obnoxious, although it also has an history of interference. Given that its just attacked a neutral state simply because it has become convinient that could well make some of the states nerous about their position. Britain may seek to defend its citizens and trading interests but not since 1806 I think has it sought to attack and occupy a state in the Americas.

I doubt the Argentines would see it that way, or the Brazilians. Certainly not the Venezuelans. Really, what Latin American nation is going to thank Britain for "protecting them from Spanish and other intervention?" Probably about as many that thank the U.S. for protecting them from Communism.

Been doing what? Blocking trade behind high tariff walls. Condemning other nations for imperialism while waging bloody wars of conquest itself. Sorry, that the US not Britain.

But while that may be close to the truth, it won't be how either Americans or Europeans see it. Those bloody wars of conquest that the U.S. has carried out has been against Natives and Mexico. None of the European powers have even skirmished with the U.S. since the French Revolutionary Wars. On the other hand, they have skirmished with Britain, and it's not Americans that have been holding back their own ambitions.

Britain is blocking trade of war materials with the US as its entitled to do during war. Also seeking to hunt down enemy shipping. It isn't flooding the oceans with raiders why may accidentially hit innocent targets as the US probably is. It isn't causing a war that is considerably disrupting the world economy because of [depending on interpretation] a fit of piek or a desire to expand its sphere of influence. [Since I can't see the US waging such an expensive war without some plans to get some return].

We're not talking submarines here. (though we might be eventually) There's not going to be any more collateral damage than the blockade. And really, I see no point in continuing to debate who started the war or who international opinion will see as having started the war. Without further clarification, your interpretation is no more likely than mine. (And if we are talking reason, why is Britain fighting this war? Surely not for some worthless mosquito infested jungle. And if it is for honor, then why would that not apply to the U.S.?)

I am not actually assuming that large numbers of immigrants will turn against the US, although they could be encouraged to by the sort of policies your suggesting. However think you are being too casual in assuming that they will overwhelmingly support the US's wars of expansion.

Well, I have reason to be casual, since they did overwhelmingly support the war of expansion the U.S. did fight OTL, and that was for far worse reason than this war.

While the fighting is within 100 miles of Buffalo that is the case. [Although as long as you control the seas the distance over the Atlantic is not a great barrier]. However I thought you were talking about occupying most of Canada, or at least the populated regions. If the US can cross the lakes, which they should be able to, they can overrun the central isthmus. However that would involve some frontal assaults which could well be costly, as could the advance to Quebec. From that point onwards however the lines lengthen considerably and logistics is going to be a problem. Especially if you seek to remove the British presence that will almost certainly be established at the Gulf of St Lawrence [Nova Scota, PEI, Anticost Island, Newfoundland and probably Labordor].

I think you are seriously underestimating the difficulty of conducting a war across an ocean. Just look at how much work the Crimean incursion was OTL, or the disaster that was Gallipoli. I'm not saying that invading Canada would be easy. However, most important targets are within 100 miles of the U.S. border or the Great Lakes. And even at worst, the lines are much longer than they were in WWI Western Front, with far less troop density, and far less infrastructure. (for the Empire) Also remember that the Germans were outnumbered by Allied forces OTL, not the 2 to 1 or greater superiority the U.S. invasion will have.

However there are going to be pluses. The war will mean that the US will no longer be able to trade much in other markets, which will give a boost to British and other nations. Furthermore the damage to the US economy will be wider than the loss of foreign trade. There will not be many US fishermen on the Grand Banks for instance. More importantly the British blockage will markedly interfer with US coastal trade. This will also have an impact on the economic value of the Mississippi as much trade down it funneling through New Orleans which will now be blockaged. The US can adjust to this but it will have economic costs.

The U.S. was not yet a major exporter of industrial goods, so no, Britain is not going to benefit from lack of American competition. The vast American industry is mostly absorbed in the internal market. The U.S. is a major agricultural exporter, but those most hard hit here would be their British customers. And I strongly doubt Britain can meaningfully interfere with American coastal trade. Too far from base, too vulnerable to torpedo boats, submarines, mines. You are thinking that Britain would have total naval superiority the way the Union did in the ACW. What we would actually see would be the kind of superiority the RN had in WWI.

The US can raise more troops than the entire Canadian population but it won't be easy. I am not furthermore assuming heavy partisan activity, despite the fact the Canadians will have plenty of reason for anger about the occupation. Just thinking about the sheer size of the task your assuming the US will take on coupled with a little subtle sabotage and the fact that Britain and some Canadian units will be able to continue fighting and if used wisely small hit and run forces can cause a hell of a lot of problems for the garrison forces. Its going to be highly unlikely that Britain can drive the US from Canada by shattering military victories. However steadily bleeding them white is a total diffierent matter.

Not so hard. Britain did so in WWI with a far smaller pool. The occupation will bleed the U.S., much as the German occupation of Belgium and parts of France bled Germany, ie not remotely like Spain. A better example might be the Boer Wars after the end of major military operations, except the U.S. would have even greater superiority than the Empire had. Did the Boer partisans bleed Britain white?

How dispersed is the US fleet at this point? Anything in the Pacific is going to be very lonely and vulnerable. Also the US has to protect its own coastline and I suspect there will be a lot of demands by various regional leaders to make sure their coastline and ports are not left undefended.

Quite dispersed, but then, so is the RN. Given the technology of the era, the RN can't really hope to stop the U.S. fleet running for home.

Actually it is better if the US does manage to get elements of its small regular army to Venezuela. That isolates it there and also means that part of the US fleet will be tried up trying to support them. Few of any such troops will make it back.

No worries there. By the time the USN is half the size of the RN, the army will be very large indeed.

Imagine that someone attacked the US and invaded and occupied California.

If the U.S. declares that it's puppet government in Hawaii is neutral, do you think it's going to stop Britain from invading? That puppet government is about as independent in fact and more in theory than Canada. Will the U.S. feel burning rage if Britain invades and overthrows that puppet government when the nations are already at war?

I find it surprising that so many Americans seem to think they can get away with any sort of attrocity with no one every bearing any sort of grudge but if anyone defeats the US, even in a defencive war, the country will be consumed with rabid hatred and will bear any costs to win a new war.

What atrocities? The U.S. won't do anything that Britain won't expect from someone it is at war with. I doubt the U.S. will be raping and pilliaging its way across Canada.

I will try raising another point. You can, albeit at considerable economic and social cost, recruit a sizeable army, say up to 4-5 million men say. However that will take a lot of time. Especially when your already fighting a war with a powerful opponent. With the US industrial base it can fairly quickly manufacture the uniforms, boots, personal arms etc. However specialised heavy equipment, especially artilery will be a lot tougher. Even more difficult, with such a small professional army in the 1st place, even without the losses that will occur, where are the officers and NCOs for this mass army to come from?

That's a point, though the British professional army is not large either, and its officer corps not particularly professional. However, make no mistake, it will not take the U.S. long to start producing heavy weapons in large quantities. The skilled labor and equipment are all available. We will likely see a lot of volunteer officers and officers elected by their own units. Many will likely be less than competent or overly eager for battle. (like Teddy Roosevelt) However, considering the inbred aristocratic British officer corps who repeatedly demonstrated their incompetence as well fighting the Zulu or the Boers and the complete lack of a Canadian pool of officers or NCOs, I doubt this would be a major handicap.

Not to mention that this will take a fair amount of time. During which the war will quite possibly be going fairly poorly and the economic costs will be building up. Also the Canadians are likely to be taking preparations once they find out about the massive US build-up. Expect some prepared border defences and increased recruiting by them in preparation. Still likely to go down if the US attacks with enough but it is likely to be a costly operation.

I agree, and I think in general all your other points are accurate as well. However, one thing you seem to keep doing is pointing out a difficulty or handicap that applies to the United States without considering that it applies to the British Empire as well. The Royal Navy is ready for modern warfare. The British Army is not, and the Canadian army most certainly is not. They too will need time to mobilize men, train and equip them. The problem is especially acute for Canada with its tiny, widely scattered population and lack of either industry or infrastructure. The U.S. can prepare for invasion faster than Canada can prepare to resist it, and only large scale reinforcement from Britain can Canada even put up a fight. And that reinforcement needs time to mobilize, train, equip, and be shipped to the Americas as well.

Fully agree. Even if everything went pear shaped for the US I could see only relatively limited border changes and that would probably be an unwise move. [The US would resent such changes as much as Britain/Canada would the occupation of Canada].

Border changes in North America (except maybe in Alaska) are completely impossible, no matter how pear shaped the war goes for America. There is simply no way for the British Empire to threaten the U.S. in NA, and thus no way of enforcing any such border changes. If the war does go particularly badly though, the U.S. might permanently lose its holdings such as they are in Hawaii and its sphere of influence in Central America.

One small quibble with your figures. By about 1895 the US has probably overtaken Germany in population which would put it 2nd overall in that rank.

Who are you placing in number 1? Russia? I didn't consider Russia an industrialized nation. I don't think the USA overtook Russia until WWII.

To a degree although the US having to take the offensive in Canada will cause it a lot of problems. Also in one way we're fighting in the UK's back yard as much of the combat is occurring at sea. In terms of win and loss it depends on how your defining the words. Basically what I'm saying on the current debate is that Britain could 'win' by losing less harshly than than US in the conflict.

Well, Britannia rules the waves still, but not equally so everywhere. I guess my main point is that this war, if it expands is a no win scenario for Britain. Even if all the cards go its way, the most it can get and hold would be Hawaii and a few border parts of Alaska. The USA's industrial and political growth by now is unstoppable in any realistic scenario. If the U.S. is feeling vengeful, when it comes for a rematch in a decade or two, Britain would be going down hard. Even if the U.S. comes out much like in 1814, wanting to put the war behind them, relations between the two nations would still be badly spoiled. Heavy fortifications and garrisons would need to be maintained in Canada, and when Britain gets dragged into a European war, it has a potential enemy rather than ally in the Americas. For that matter, we would almost certainly see a Naval race that either sees Britain bankrupted or conceding control of the seas to an unfriendly power.

[Cornelius]

A better example might be the Boer Wars after the end of major military operations, except the U.S. would have even greater superiority than the Empire had. Did the Boer partisans bleed Britain white?

Good point, but the boer resistance made life difficult for the british (at least for a while) and no one was actively supporting them. The canadians would have the british support (though could be difficult determine how effective could be, too many factors).
Besides the british used some very nasty politics to stop the boers, such as concentration camps. Similar tactics in Canada would ruin the idea of a war to free canadians from the british oppressor.

In the end, the problem remains if is profitable for the USA to escalate war or not.
In my opinion would be better to let war stay a simple skirmish and try to find a diplomatic solution. After all Russia is still the main enemy for the british in the Far East; if they start to move the british would accept peace (well, a reasonable one anyway) just to keep their eyes on the "bear"...

[stevep]

Originally Posted by xchen08

Well, something for the OP to clarify if he fixes his computer and comes back. If it's just Britain outright rejecting arbitration and pursuing a hardline with Venezuela being the POD, well that's almost as good at rallying American public opinion.

Agreed that its something for the OP to clarify if we heard from him again on the issue. However as I say I see no mention of arbitration in the OP. Plus if Salisbury had asked for arbitration the British government would have been bound to it, with heavy political costs for rejecting it. The scenario refers to a Venezuelan probe into the disputed region, which even the Venezuelan conscripts loath, followed by a sudden claim that this prevented a British invasion and a dow by 1st Venezuela then the US.

But yet its foreign affairs, and in particular war and peace are determined by London. I doubt the American recognition of neutrality will take the form of Cleveland publicly announcing that he recognizes Canada as a wholly separate nation from Britain. It'll take the form of behind the scenes talks where the U.S. agrees to treat Canada as neutral in exchange for some similar concessions by Britain in order to keep the war limited. One possible concession would be no blockade of the East Coast and no commerce raiding on either side, thus limiting the war entirely to the Caribbean while minimizing the economic disaster that would otherwise befall both.

Can't say war and peace are determined in London if the Canadian government declares its neutrality. Also while Britain might well be willing to come to reasonable terms it seems like its the US that is intent on war. I presumed that the US would use commercial raiders because they have done in previous conflicts and its about the only way they could affect Britain directly.

If the US did make a proposal as you mention above it would definitely be in Britain's interest to agree to it as it removes both the two weapons that the US can deploy. Threats to Canada and to MS. Without it the US can do little to stop Britain crushing the current Venezuelan government and seeking to install one that will negotiate rationally. However, even if Cleveland is serious about this will he be able to control the war hawks, having painted himself into a no-win situation.

What U.S. attack? How can Britain possibly need to defend itself when its only possession that the U.S. can reach is Canada, and the U.S. is refraining from attacking that? Blockade on the other hand is an act of war, and quite a serious one at that. Britain imposing a blockade automatically means that the war is not some colonial affair but a serious all out war. With the war already expanded, who's going to find it strange that the U.S. pulls out the stops too?

See my reply to the previous post. I was assuming that the US dow would be followed by commercial raiding as about the only thing the US can do. Barring than and with some agreement to prevent that there would be mutual economic benefit for both economies in avoiding a blockage. However it does render the conflict very much a phoney war, especially for the US.

The reason I highlighted the and is because Britain is going to have some reassurance that the US is not just playing with words while it gets raiders organised and out onto the oceans.

I doubt the Argentines would see it that way, or the Brazilians. Certainly not the Venezuelans. Really, what Latin American nation is going to thank Britain for "protecting them from Spanish and other intervention?" Probably about as many that thank the U.S. for protecting them from Communism.

Any one who knows their history since it was the threat of British intervention that deterred France from assisting Spain in restoring control of its colonial empire in the 1820's. Even through the US refused to work with Britain on that regard. This never resulted in any military intervention to control/change governments unlike your example.

But while that may be close to the truth, it won't be how either Americans or Europeans see it. Those bloody wars of conquest that the U.S. has carried out has been against Natives and Mexico. None of the European powers have even skirmished with the U.S. since the French Revolutionary Wars. On the other hand, they have skirmished with Britain, and it's not Americans that have been holding back their own ambitions.

So you don't think the US ever took the Monroe Doctrine seriously? True it had no real power until the 1860's but US pressure is generally considered a factor in the collapse of French support for the Mexican empire. [Which I will freely admit they viewed and intended as a satellite of France]. France and the Dutch both have territories in the same region and could find themselves subject to attack if Britain was to kow-tow to US demands so they may not feel too happy with such US demands. Which are basically what they say in the entire American continent goes, regardless of what anyone else feels.

We're not talking submarines here. (though we might be eventually) There's not going to be any more collateral damage than the blockade. And really, I see no point in continuing to debate who started the war or who international opinion will see as having started the war. Without further clarification, your interpretation is no more likely than mine. (And if we are talking reason, why is Britain fighting this war? Surely not for some worthless mosquito infested jungle. And if it is for honor, then why would that not apply to the U.S.?)

Britain is fighting this war because two powers initiated a state of war against it. One has a claim which it seeks to impose by force - despite not having any ability to do so and having made wild and pretty irrational claims. The other is making clear its apparently unquestioning support for its ally. No country can allow itself to be threatened and especially with Britain's world wide interests, which could open itself to pressure from many other people if it proved weak here.

Even so I could see a fairly limited war until the US attacks a state that although technically neutral Britain has very strong blood and cultural ties to. After that as I say things get a lot more heated.

Well, I have reason to be casual, since they did overwhelmingly support the war of expansion the U.S. did fight OTL, and that was for far worse reason than this war.

Some did but there was a lot of concern even about the abuse of the Indians. The Philippines nearly got given their independence. Mexico was not fully annexed despite a brutal conquest of its capital. Furthermore those were wars that an ebullient US population was confident it could win fairly quickly and easily and generally did. Here its attacking the largest naval and financial power in the world which means it could [and probably will be] a much tougher and costlier struggle. You asked above why Britain is fighting and I told you. Why are the ordinarily people in the US going to bled and die for the expansion of the US? Especially when they will have little if any benefit from it?

I think you are seriously underestimating the difficulty of conducting a war across an ocean. Just look at how much work the Crimean incursion was OTL, or the disaster that was Gallipoli. I'm not saying that invading Canada would be easy. However, most important targets are within 100 miles of the U.S. border or the Great Lakes. And even at worst, the lines are much longer than they were in WWI Western Front, with far less troop density, and far less infrastructure. (for the Empire) Also remember that the Germans were outnumbered by Allied forces OTL, not the 2 to 1 or greater superiority the U.S. invasion will have.

There was some incompetence in the organising of the Crimean campaign but remember that even in the pre-steam age Britain and France supplied their armies in the Crimean, nearly twice the distance from Britain by sea that eastern Canada is, a lot more easily than Russia was able to do so. With Gallipoli the problem was the initial landings weren't pushed so enough depth was not achieved. At just about every point I think the occupied zones were under fire from the Turks in the heights above and despite that and the need to ship in just about everything its thought that allied casualties were less than the Turkish ones.

In this case the situation is totally different. A raw army with minimal experience and probably relatively little heavy equipment is going to have to attack a prepared neighbour, in places probably frontal assaults on prepared positions. Weight of numbers and the ability to outflank will help in many areas but not in the extreme east when they will have to make frontal assaults at the end of lengthening supply lines. They could have 5-1 odds here, which they won't, and it would be unlikely to have much effect against a well organised defence except to increase the butcher's bill.

The U.S. was not yet a major exporter of industrial goods, so no, Britain is not going to benefit from lack of American competition. The vast American industry is mostly absorbed in the internal market. The U.S. is a major agricultural exporter, but those most hard hit here would be their British customers. And I strongly doubt Britain can meaningfully interfere with American coastal trade. Too far from base, too vulnerable to torpedo boats, submarines, mines. You are thinking that Britain would have total naval superiority the way the Union did in the ACW. What we would actually see would be the kind of superiority the RN had in WWI.

Actually wrong. The US already had the largest industrial base in the world as you yourself mentioned. While a lot of that went to the protected home market sizeable amounts also went to export, in Britain, the empire and in competition in other markets. The US had the edge here both because of economies of scale and the difference between their high tariffs as opposed to Britain’s free trade policy. If there was a blockage by Britain this will curtail much of this competition. [Might get some of this anyway as US production is switched to the massive arms build-up your suggesting].

Britain will lose access to American grain but if there is a blockage where will that grain go. [Will need a hell of a lot to feed the horses once the army ramps up but even so you could see a serious depression in the Mid-west under those circumstances.

Actual fact light naval units are very good at operating in coastal waters. Not under enemy gunfire but how much of the long US coastline is covered by coastal batteries. Furthermore there are natural choke points around the main ports and the tip of Florida for instance. The few submarines yet available are still very primitive, although in say 5-6 years with a lot of development possible. Mines could be a problem but that applies for both sides.

Not so hard. Britain did so in WWI with a far smaller pool. The occupation will bleed the U.S., much as the German occupation of Belgium and parts of France bled Germany, ie not remotely like Spain. A better example might be the Boer Wars after the end of major military operations, except the U.S. would have even greater superiority than the Empire had. Did the Boer partisans bleed Britain white?

Actually I used this same example earlier in the thread. Lets look at the numbers. After a pretty dire start the army reorganised, defeated the Boers in the field and occupied their main population centres. Then as you say a relatively small number of commando's waged a guerrilla war. they were ultimately defeated but it took a huge effort, including massive amounts of fortifications, supplies, barbed wire and something like 250-300k troops. Now Canada has something like 50-100 times the population and a similar ratio in land compared to the Boers. Do you think the US can raise say 10-12M troops just to hold down Canada? - Being a bit ridiculous here as I doubt the numbers would scale up that much but it will be a big task, especially when you consider 3 other differences.
a) The US is also fighting Britain in eastern Canada, which means forces are needed for a conventional war here. Possibly the US leadership will have the sense to let the British/Canadian forces stay unmolested but possibly not.
b) This also means that the US must consider operations elsewhere including possible raids on its long borders and the stress of the naval conflict and economic disruption.
c) Furthermore it also means that any Canadian commandos may well be able to call upon arms and equipment from Britain as opposed to the Boers being virtually totally isolated. [Not to mention possibly regular British forces operating with them in such roles].

I think this is a much better example than the one you use of the German occupation of Belgium and parts of France. That involved a huge, well equipped military force and a pretty small, in comparison, area. A much greater force density than the US will be able to afford in most of Canada.

Quite dispersed, but then, so is the RN. Given the technology of the era, the RN can't really hope to stop the U.S. fleet running for home.

If you mean the US Pacific forces heading for the east coast? Apart from the fact that leaves the American Pacific unprotected don't forget there is no Panama Canal yet. Even presuming that the US ships can find the coal and places to bunker and to repair any damage they have to either sail the long way, through the Pacific, the British lake that is the Indian Ocean, past the Cape of Good Hope and then up through the Atlantic and the British blockage that is probably in place by this time. or the mere 10kmiles south, around Cape Horn, past the Falkland Islands and through the Atlantic and into the British blockage. Sounds very similar to a certain Russian fleet?

For the result of the US battlefleet and I think the vast bulk is in the Atlantic, they have the problem of what do they do with it. Disperse to try and have some force in multiple places? Or concentrate in the hope of being able to attack a British squadron. The problem with the latter is it means that Britain can similar concentrate its blockading heavy units.

No worries there. By the time the USN is half the size of the RN, the army will be very large indeed.

And in the decade or so that takes the economy probably collapses.

If the U.S. declares that it's puppet government in Hawaii is neutral, do you think it's going to stop Britain from invading? That puppet government is about as independent in fact and more in theory than Canada. Will the U.S. feel burning rage if Britain invades and overthrows that puppet government when the nations are already at war?

Ignoring the gross inaccuracies in your assumptions I don't know. If the US withdrawal all military forces from the islands and declared them open, then Britain might well respect that. Whether the locals might seek to regain their independence without the threat of US military force to back the small number of plantation owners is an interesting point.

Note your stating that the US declares the islands neutral as opposed to the islanders themselves, or even the US settlers controlling the islands. Which shows how big a contrast between the two examples there are in reality. Also you seem to be presuming that the US would feel anger if Britain refused to accept the island's neutrality, as opposed to the US accepting it, if privately, then going back on that agreement and invading anyway.

There is a hell of a difference between a recently gained colonial possession with very few US citizens there and an established state with which Britain has deep blood and cultural ties. But still, I'm quite happy with the US feeling enraged at the country its declared won on attacking its colonies. Just don't understand why you seem to be convinced neither Britain nor the Canadians will object to the latter being invaded?

Steve

[stevep]

Cornelius


[quote=Cornelius;2154942]Good point, but the boer resistance made life difficult for the british (at least for a while) and no one was actively supporting them. The canadians would have the british support (though could be difficult determine how effective could be, too many factors).
Besides the british used some very nasty politics to stop the boers, such as concentration camps. Similar tactics in Canada would ruin the idea of a war to free canadians from the british oppressor./quote]


Actually I've just posted similarly about the costs of suppressing the Boer commandos. Think your mis-reading the concentration camps as that's literally what they were. Camps to concentrate the Boer civilian population to prevent them from providing aid to the guerrillas. It was only later with the Soviet and Nazi camps that the word acquired a different meaning. Death rates were unpleasantly high but that was largely because of unexpected problems with maintaining such concentrations of people, rather than any intent to kill civilians. What could make the situation in Canada difficult is that the US has an habit of being pretty unpleasant itself with unfriendly civilian populations [Native Americans, Mexicans, Philippines in a few years in OTL] so not sure how nasty things could go there, especially in some of the more isolated garrisons.

In the end, the problem remains if is profitable for the USA to escalate war or not.
In my opinion would be better to let war stay a simple skirmish and try to find a diplomatic solution. After all Russia is still the main enemy for the british in the Far East; if they start to move the british would accept peace (well, a reasonable one anyway) just to keep their eyes on the "bear"...

That's the point I've been trying to get across. Its not that Britain is going to overrun large swaves of the US or make punitive annexations. I think the likelyhood is victory in this conflict would be measured in losing less than your opponent and recovering more quickly.

Steve