They Call it Civilization!

[Rex Britanniae]

Hey, thanks for staying active, guys.

Unfortunately, I have not yet fixed my computer. I am looking at new ones tomorrow, at which point, the final decision on whether I am getting a new motherboard or a whole new computer may (hopefully) come.

Thanks for being patient. It shouldn't be much longer now.

[perfectgeneral]

I am looking at new ones tomorrow

- At a risk of waiting longer, don't forget on-line shopping and auctions.

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?

That was a typo. I'm sticking to 42 degrees north for the Canadian escalation scenario.

Incidently, home advantage can turn around and bite you. In the Battle of Britain the RAF won through home advantage, but nearly lost until Hitler moved the bombers onto blitz from hitting airfields. Even then, a lot of industrial capacity was lost to bombing.

[Cornelius]

Regarding the concentration camps, I wasn't really clear. I know the difference between the british ones and those of the WWII. But my point was that using such tactic in Canada would be a dire mistake. First would further alienate the civilian population, second would be a huge gift to the british. Imagine the kind of propaganda they could make out of this ... Would be worse than the "rape of Belgium".

By the way, what about the other american nations? If USA invades Canada what would be their reaction?
Mexico isn't to take it kindly, for sure. Maybe the mexican goverment could take the opportunity of the war to forge an alliance with an european nation, just like the agreement between Germany and the Ottoman empire.

[Rex Britanniae]

An important note about the Porfiriato is the characteristic admiration it inspired in other nations. Few leaders have inspired such love among contemporaries, yet such hatred amongst their own people as Porfirio Diaz. One of the most important things to his administration and his nation was foreign investment, of which the United States and the United Kingdom are the two main proponents. Siding with one would stop the investments of the other.

The point? Mexico may get involved in some way or at some time, but probably not to much more than words while Diaz is in power.

[stevep]

xchen08

Missed the tail end of your post when I replied last night. Responding now.

Originally Posted by xchen08

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.

Atrocities are probably the wrong word but an unprovoked attack on Canada will provoke at least as much outrage as the Japanese attack on Pearl did OTL. Just seems odd that you can't understand it.

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.

Its not large compared to the continental European powers but it is a lot larger than the US army. Since we're both expecting that the British army won't grow as excessively as the US one the ratio will be more marked in favour of the British.

There was a lot of dead wood in the British army, especially at the higher level. However they did adjust in WWI, despite the heavy losses and going up against the most formidable military machine in the world. More to the point there are a lot of men, both officers and NCOs with experience of the problems of handling forces. The US may be more flexible because of amateur origins of the vast majority of its forces but it will miss the professional core a lot. Not to mention I doubt many in the US have any idea of the war their President is getting them into.

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.

Canada, faced with signs of a US build-up that can only really be aimed at them can get some warning. Fortifications at key points can help a lot. They can't defend the bulk of the country against a massive US attack if the latter is that stupid. However they can make it costly and secure key footholds in the east for while the British can arrive. If you have read any of the discussions of the Trent war you will know that Canada has generally in earlier times had a pretty large militia defence force and in such circumstances, defending their homes on ground they know well can be very effective.

Not sure your estimating correctly the difficulty of specialised high technology production starting largely from scratch. To build up the artillery resources for such a large army and work out how to operate it is not an easy task.

I accept that a lot of the problems will be faced by Britain as well. However to a lesser degree as they have a larger pool of experienced men which will be diluted less. Also it is easier defending than mount large scale invasions of huge areas.

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.

There is if things collapse totally, although I think that highly unlikely. Also I think, no matter how badly the US behave, it would be an unwise move to directly annex any areas to Canada.

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.

I was thinking of Russia as they had a considerable industrial base, although still predominantly agrian at this point. In terms of population it depends on what unit your using. If the full USSR it was possibly still, just about ahead of the US until it dissolved.

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.

You act as if this was a matter of choice for Britain. It is the US that is declaring war in support of an attack on Britain by an ally/satellite. It is the US you are presuming will convert a maritime/colonial dispute into a full scale continental war.

Also there will be long term costs for the US if it follows the path being described. A markedly worse economic position after the conflict, with deep debts, hostility with its former main trading partner and probably the rest of Europe looking askew at the US for its behaviour. Good chance of deep internal divisions. Immigration not only drastically cut off during the war but probably greatly reduced afterwards, with the impact on economical development. The maintaining of a much larger military establishment, especially if it seeks to wage a naval race with Britain.

As I have said repeatedly the conflict your suggested would be highly costly if not destructive for both powers. I still fail to see why the US would deliberately choose such a path.

Steve

[stevep]

Originally Posted by Cornelius

Regarding the concentration camps, I wasn't really clear. I know the difference between the british ones and those of the WWII. But my point was that using such tactic in Canada would be a dire mistake. First would further alienate the civilian population, second would be a huge gift to the british. Imagine the kind of propaganda they could make out of this ... Would be worse than the "rape of Belgium".

Definitely, even if only in say some of the parries regions. Would require a much larger deportation of people than in the Boer War, with probably a markedly higher proportional death rate. [Since it would be a much bigger task being organised by an already over-stretched bureaucracy]. Not to mention since this is before any such occurrence in the Boer war, which would be drastically changed in TTL, the impact would be maximised. Very hostile reaction when news slipped out. [Especially if any such action included the sizeable number of German settlers in the prairies or even more so the people of Quebec province. Either of those could change the wider complexity of the war].

By the way, what about the other american nations? If USA invades Canada what would be their reaction?
Mexico isn't to take it kindly, for sure. Maybe the mexican goverment could take the opportunity of the war to forge an alliance with an european nation, just like the agreement between Germany and the Ottoman empire.

They would probably be concerned, especially Mexico, but unlikely to see any intervention from them unless the US got totally bogged down. Could be interesting if any sort of Pacho Villa type raids while the US is so heavily committed elsewhere. If the US was rash enough to declare war it would really have both feet in the tar pool!

[stevep]

Originally Posted by Rex Britanniae

An important note about the Porfiriato is the characteristic admiration it inspired in other nations. Few leaders have inspired such love among contemporaries, yet such hatred amongst their own people as Porfirio Diaz. One of the most important things to his administration and his nation was foreign investment, of which the United States and the United Kingdom are the two main proponents. Siding with one would stop the investments of the other.

The point? Mexico may get involved in some way or at some time, but probably not to much more than words while Diaz is in power.

Rex Britanniae

Could be interesting. As I have said to xchen08 in what we're discussing the US is the basic driver as very much British reaction is before forced by their actions. Hence I can't see Britain trying the Zimmermann cock-up. Hope the British government would realise that there's no really chance given the state of Mexico. Nor could I see Mexico being interested. However in reaction to a border clash or the sort of ultimatium xchen08 is suggesting for Canada being directed to Mexico as well it could get nasty there as well.

Sorry we're rather hi-jacked the thread. Hope you have success in getting a new system sorted out soon.

Steve

[Venusian Si]

Originally Posted by stevep

.

Also there will be long term costs for the US if it follows the path being described. A markedly worse economic position after the conflict, with deep debts, hostility with its former main trading partner and probably the rest of Europe looking askew at the US for its behaviour. Good chance of deep internal divisions. Immigration not only drastically cut off during the war but probably greatly reduced afterwards, with the impact on economical development. The maintaining of a much larger military establishment, especially if it seeks to wage a naval race with Britain.

Now why would Immigration be cut? Even when the United States was fighting the C.S.A. in the Civil War, Immigrants poured into the U.S. like crazy. The only thing I could see stopping immigration would be anti-immigration laws similar to those of the OTL.

As for trade, while trade between Britain and the U.S. would be ruined in either scenario, the United States could still find trade with Nations who despise Britain for its Actions/Power. (France, Germany, Latin America in General.) So yeah...

[bm79]

Originally Posted by UnitedStatesofMars13

Now why would Immigration be cut? Even when the United States was fighting the C.S.A. in the Civil War, Immigrants poured into the U.S. like crazy. The only thing I could see stopping immigration would be anti-immigration laws similar to those of the OTL.

As for trade, while trade between Britain and the U.S. would be ruined in either scenario, the United States could still find trade with Nations who despise Britain for its Actions/Power. (France, Germany, Latin America in General.) So yeah...

Actually, immigration was rather low during the 1860s, though that has as much to do with the blockade of the CSA as anything else. Back then, much of the immigration still came from the British Isles, and a lot of those people came in at New Orleans on cotton ships outbound from Liverpool. The second great wave of immigration didn't really start until the 1870s and was much more directed to northern ports, though New Orleans did still get a significant number of immigrants outbound from Naples, Palermo, and the Adriatic ports of the Austro-Hungarian Empire.

[Venusian Si]

Originally Posted by bm79

Actually, immigration was rather low during the 1860s, though that has as much to do with the blockade of the CSA as anything else. Back then, much of the immigration still came from the British Isles, and a lot of those people came in at New Orleans on cotton ships outbound from Liverpool. The second great wave of immigration didn't really start until the 1870s and was much more directed to northern ports, though New Orleans did still get a significant number of immigrants outbound from Naples, Palermo, and the Adriatic ports of the Austro-Hungarian Empire.

Thank you for the Correction.

[perfectgeneral]

Sorry we've rather hi-jacked the thread. Hope you have success in getting a new system sorted out soon.

I think this shows how good a point of departure you have chosen. While not wanting to put you off, everyone has a point of view and is keen to explore the possibilities. You've obviously started well from it as we are keen for you to be up and running asap. Kudos.

[stevep]

Originally Posted by UnitedStatesofMars13

Now why would Immigration be cut? Even when the United States was fighting the C.S.A. in the Civil War, Immigrants poured into the U.S. like crazy. The only thing I could see stopping immigration would be anti-immigration laws similar to those of the OTL.

During the war, especially presuming an escalation like an attack on Canada Britain will be imposing a blockage. After the war the US will have markedly deeper debts, probably a much higher military budget and very likely deep social divisions. This will make it economically less attractive to them. Also having just fought a long and pointless war which involved drafting reluctant immigrants - as it almost certainly will have to - that could well deter immigrants from other areas. There definitely will be far less people moving to Canada and then south as occurred.

As for trade, while trade between Britain and the U.S. would be ruined in either scenario, the United States could still find trade with Nations who despise Britain for its Actions/Power. (France, Germany, Latin America in General.) So yeah...

Nations who despise Britain, other than the US not that many. Plenty who are jealous or would laike a larger share of the pie. Some who despite us for being too liberal or moderate prehaps.

On the serious point of trade yes the US can find other markets. However few are as rich as the British and imperial markets. Also they have their own protection policies. Not to mention, given the behaviour of the US government during this period, that its credit rating will probably drop noticably. Furthermore, having been cut off from foreign markets for a while it will probably have to fight fairly hard to get them back.

Although I could see Britain also going protectionist to fund part of the costs of the war. Coupled with the likely boost to the British economy by the war and the more technocratic policies that the Tories might introduce. As such you could see Britain being a bigger competitor in 3rd party markets as well.

Steve

[Rex Britanniae]

Originally Posted by perfectgeneral

I think this shows how good a point of departure you have chosen. While not wanting to put you off, everyone has a point of view and is keen to explore the possibilities. You've obviously started well from it as we are keen for you to be up and running asap. Kudos.

Thank you, perfectgeneral.

[perfectgeneral]

Wiki - (just for context)
The Monroe Doctrine[8]of the 19th Century served as the political foundation for the support of the Cuban struggle for independence from Spain in the United States. Cubans had been fighting for self determination, on and off, since the Grito de Yara of 1868.

We have already seen that Britain has a hand in the Cuban independence movement in TTL. If the USA fails to get acceptance of the Monroe Doctrine from GB, will Cuba gain true independence? Britain has a history of encouraging unrest in the Americas (ironic eh?). Argentina, Chile and Peru being some of their handiwork. If we couldn't have them, no other major power would either. I think GB would try to take over the Caribbean as things come up for grabs, but if local resistance proves too strong, they will at least be truly independent states.

Cuba makes a great warehouse to store goods offshore (of the USA) until the price is right. The age of sail and wooden ships is coming to an end but Cuba still has some strategic value. Well placed to command the approaches to the Mississippi, etc.

If America doesn't take the Philippines, this might affect the China Relief Expedition. Maybe an alliance of seven fighting the Boxers?

I wonder what lessons might be learnt here that can be applied to the second Boer war? I still have my fingers crossed for an intermediate calibre .256"/.276" cartridge (OTL not introduced in time to switch production lines and build up stock before the Great War so GB reverted to .303").

The .256" (6.5mmx50mm) Arisaka round was produced, by Japan, in 1897 and due to shortages of .303 (ironic) GB bought approximately 150,000 Arisaka rifles in 1914. The Triple intervention shows that, if supported, Japan will check the Russians (and to a lesser extent the Germans) in the Pacific. A good alliance (1902 in OTL). While this round has slightly less stopping power than the Mauser and is a bit less accurate, it has a much smaller logistic foot print and price of manufacture.

The .276" (7mmx57mm) Mauser round was introduced, by Germany, in 1893 and was adopted by the Spanish military (ie Cuba). While an excellent round, with superb ballistics, the 7mm Mauser is largely produced by rivals rather than allies. Still a bit heavy to carry in quantity.

EDit: We have two late entries in the 6.5mm x 55mm Swedish Mauser and the Italian 6.5x52mm Carcano, both introduced in 1891

(ASB Enfield/BSA) British CF .27 x 43mm:
.268" (6.8072mm) bullet diameter, 139 grain (9g) weight of bullet, 30 grains of cordite powder, boat tail spritzer point bullet, 1.7" case length (just over 43mm), Overall length 2.5", 35 degree shoulder. Rim diameter 0.455 inches, Rim thickness 0.065 inches, Base diameter 0.450 inches, Shoulder diameter 0.435 inches, Neck diameter .300 inches. A brass, short, rimless, bottle-necked case with a steep shoulder and necked down to take a .268" diameter, 139 grain, soft point, light nosed, boat tailed bullet. The boat tail sits back into the cordite/nitrocellulose* filled shoulder, while the neck grips further up the 1 inch long bullet. Centre firing primer in base. About 2,450 ft/s muzzle velocity at an energy of about 1,850 ft lb.

*=Cordite in the tropics as it is more stable. Nitrocellulose introduced in 1894.

Boat Tail, Soft Point bullets:
From left to right: 100 gr hollow point, 115 gr full metal jacket, 130 g soft point, 150 gr round point (more likely in early marks)

The ten Royal Gurkha regiments probably have more jungle warfare experience than the Venezuelans. Bring on the shiny eight!

http://www.fleethants.com/allhistory/gurkhas/main1.htm
Throughout the rest of the 19th century the Gurkha Brigade, now comprising ten regiments each of two battalions, a total of some. 18,000 men, saw service throughout the subcontinent of India. They took part in operations in China, Tibet, Afghanistan, 'Asia Minor' and Cyprus.
...
In World War 1, over 120,000 Gurkhas joined the Army, fighting in Flanders with eight battalions in 1914 and 1915. Gurkhas were the first British units to break the German Line at Neuve Chapelle.
...
During the Second World War, 131,000 Gurkhas fought in the Desert, Italy, Greece and Burma. As part of the 8th Army they were present at all the major desert battles, winning particular fame at the break-in-battle on the Mareth Line, where the 2nd Gurkhas gained a VC. In the battle to retake Italy, Gurkhas were involved in all the key battles, winning particular fame at Monte Cassino and at the breaking of the Gothic Line. Inevitably, it was in Burma where their contribution was greatest, taking part in all the bitter battles of 'Defeat into Victory'. In particular, their exploits in the 2nd Chindit Operation resulted in a number of VCs. Their contribution at Imphal, Sangshak and the final break through into the Irrawaddy Delta and Rangoon must live unforgettably in any account of that bitter campaign, resulting in the award of 8 VCs. In effect, the entire youth of Nepal was placed at the disposal of the British. With a Population of only four million, this meant that virtually every Nepali of the martial clans and of military age was serving the British Crown. Casualities were heavy, especially in Burma and Italy, and almost ten percent were casualities.

Never doubt the commitment of the Gurkha Riflemen.

[perfectgeneral]

The USN has four battleships (three of them coastal) in 1895. Iowa is the only battleship worthy of the name in the USN.

The RN has seven Royal Sovereign class battleships commissioned plus Royal Oak, completed in June 1894, Majestic and Magnificent working up. The rest of the nine Majestic class predreadnaughts are still building or fitting out.

France has the ironclad Brennus in trials.

Germany has the four Brandenburg Class ('Whalers') predreadnaughts plus the Kaiser Friedrich III building.

Russia has the Dvienadsat Apostolov (12 Apostles), Gangut (sank 1897: Rear Admiral Birilev is quoted as describing her as ".. a vile ship, it's good that she sank, and it is pointless to raise her") and Navarin predreadnaughts plus the Tri Svititelia launched 1893, but still fitting out.

Japan has protected cruisers

The RN has the worlds navies outclassed. No combination of powers will challenge GB at sea.


This is an 1895 .303 inch calibre, tripod mounted, Maxim machine gun:

Don't bother memorising the sound it makes. You'll only hear it once.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Matabele_War

The First Matabele War was the first wartime use of a Maxim gun by Britain and it proved to have a decisive impact on many battles. In less than optimal situations, such as hilly or mountainous terrain or dense vegetation with poor lines of sight, the Maxim gun resulted in little direct impact on enemy deaths. But as a psychological weapon, the Maxim gun was truly phenomenal. It generated a sense of fear in the Ndebele and made the British South Africa Police seem invincible. In one engagement, for example, 50 British soldiers with just four Maxim guns fought off 5,000 Ndebele warriors.

Those Ndebele warriors were armed with Martini-Henry rifles. Maxim machine guns fire like 30 bolt action rifles at once. I'd only expect Maxim guns to be used over open ground after the experience in what would become Rhodesia. Cecil Rhodes would understand the force multiplying effect of rapid fire. If you want a sniper, here is your man: Frederick Courteney Selous

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.450_Nitro_Express
... A proeminent user was Frederick Courteney Selous, whom using this cartridge in Farquharson rifle was the inspiration for the character of Allan Quartermain.

Unless you are looking for an American: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Russell_Burnham

[BrotherToAll]

Yeah the Iowa is a fine ship but I don't think even it could stand toe to toe with one Sovereign class let alone more. It maybe could be a hassle for a Sovereign if it got a jump on it but other than that it would be doomed very very doomed. The only place the US could maybe score a big victory would be on land but to be honest I don't see a major land front opening up on anywhere in which US forces will play a large part.

It will be interesting to see what direction Rex Britanniae because the great part about this conflict is anything could happen.

[Rex Britanniae]

Good news, all.

The matriarch has decided to grace me with a new computer, seeing as the motherboard idea looks rather unpromising. I will get it tomorrow. Whether or not everything will be in order so I could post tomorrow is another story, but if not, I should be able to post another update in two days at the most.

We've almost made it!

[xchen08]

Originally Posted by stevep

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.

Well, no win scenario in the sense that the U.S. can't really help Venezuela which is going to get itself crushed sooner or later. However, the deal essentially removes the U.S.'s greatest weapon, the threat against Canada, while also removing Britain's greatest weapon, the blockade. What that leaves is a restricted war where the U.S. cannot directly engage Britain, but Britain cannot harm the U.S. at all. It's essentially the no risk option, where the U.S. has nothing to lose. It can smuggle weapons and advisors to Venezuela. Britain will suffer moderate to heavy losses subduing Venezuela in that situation, and spend a lot of money and effort controlling the Caribbean while blockade running costs the U.S. practically nothing and maintaining its fleet-in-being is cheap.

Britain is neither able nor willing to annex Venezuela, so it'll come out of the war a substantial chunk poorer and with a bit more worthless jungle. Any puppet regime that it sets up will either require a great deal of maintainance, or will fall when it pulls out. The U.S. comes out looking like a champion of the American states. It has lost nothing, and will no doubt claim that only its presence saved Venezuela from annexation by the evil British Imperialists. Congress will no doubt approve a massive naval expansion which makes both the Navy and the Industialists happy. Given that Cleveland was not exactly happy with the Venezuelans, this would seem a good deal.

Not sure your estimating correctly the difficulty of specialised high technology production starting largely from scratch. To build up the artillery resources for such a large army and work out how to operate it is not an easy task.

The U.S. is already producing heavy artillery in good amounts for the naval expansion already underway. It's not quite the same as land based artillery and diversion would limit expansion of heavy naval units, but the machinery and skilled labor are in place. And I think the heavy siege artillery needed to knock the Brits out of fortified enclaves in Eastern Canada would be relatively easy to comprehend.

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.

The U.S. may have taken the Monroe Doctrine seriously (though it didn't really), but certainly no one else did. In any case, it specifically did not include existing colonial territories such as that held by France or the Netherlands. As you yourself mentioned, the Doctrine was really enforced by Britain for its own benefit until about this time. I doubt France or the Netherlands had any fear of the U.S. taking their American holdings. Fear of Britain doing the same though...

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.

The Philippines weren't though to be in America's natural sphere of expansion. Mexico wasn't annexed because Northerners feared further expansion of Southern power, power brokers both north and south feared upsetting the existing compromises tha prevented Civil War, and the U.S. didn't want large Mexican populations.

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.

And the Crimea was a mess and very nearly a disaster up against Russia which had hardly advanced since the Napoleonic wars and no infrastructure to move troops or supplies. Britain and France were operating together with the Ottomans, who despite their backwardness, would be a far more substantial local base and ally than Canada and a few Caribbean islands, when both nations were stronger industrially and (together) at sea compared to Russia than Britain is compared to the U.S. of 1895.

As for an invasion of Canada, remember that the defenders, other than what few British regulars could make it to Canada in time, would be even more poorly equiped than the invaders. No where in Canada can the defenders achieve the kind of density that the Allies achieved in Northern France WWI. I don't know how organized the Canadian/BNA defenses would be after losing everything west of Nova Scotia. If they keep their nerves, or if the British planned to lose the rest of Canada and fortified the peninsula, and the RN remains uncontested in the region, then they can hold on for a long time. However, it would still be a disaster for Britain, and far more so to Britain than the fall of Venezuela would be for the U.S. And even Nova Scotia will fall eventually, once the U.S. closes the various straits with mines and torpedo boats to the RN and builds up enough artillery.

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.

Like all economic disruptions, the costs are to both and when both are as big as the U.S.A and the UK of 1895, the costs will be about equal to both sides. A more interesting question is how those costs will be borne. American grain production will fall with large scale military expansion and the remainder will mostly be consumed by the army, so the costs manifest as increased national debt. The costs for Britain however, would most naturally manifest as increased food costs and food shortages which may undermine morale unless the British government actively intervenes.

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.

As you say, you can't really scale up these kinds of situations. Let's say 2.5M troops, which would be roughly 2 soldiers for every adult able bodied male in Canada. It wouldn't take a lot of troops to keep the Brits bottled up in Nova Scotia unless the U.S. insists on futile frontal assaults, and all this leaves plenty of troops in reserve.

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?

Sorry, I just mean't reach friendly port, which is probably somewhere in California. It can tie down a good sized British squadron just sitting there anyway, so it's not really a loss.

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

It wouldn't take a decade. Though the question is moot, since once the U.S. holds all or almost all of Canada and Britain has swept Venezuela, there's no point in keeping the war going. It's the naval race after peace that's really going to upset Britain, especially if it tries to keep with the U.S. and Germany combined, something that it abandoned OTL.

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?

Well, the provisional government did not depend on U.S. military support to keep the natives from overthrowing them. Though that's not really my point.

What I meant here is that there are 2 possible sources of British outrage. One is a percieved violation of neutrality. The Hawaian government can declare neutrality with U.S. support just as Canada can declare neutrality with UK support. Suppose that Britain tacitly agrees (by not invading as soon as it could) when both sides hoped to settle the war in Venezuela, then invaded once the war expands. Would the violation of the neutrality drive the U.S. into a rage? The second possible source of British outrage would be the attack on what they percieve as fellow Britons. No doubt this will be strong, but how could the British not have expected attack on Britons when Britain was at war? Would American outrage in the Pacific war have been just as strong or even stronger had Japan simply declared war, then attacked Hawaii?

In any case, I'm certainly no disputing that most of the British public will be angry at an invasion of Canada, just as the American public would be angry at an attack on Hawaii no matter whether the Japanese had declared war days or weeks earlier. However, it seems odd that you think that it would inspire even more rage than the surprise attack.

As I have said repeatedly the conflict your suggested would be highly costly if not destructive for both powers. I still fail to see why the US would deliberately choose such a path.

Oh no doubt, but wars like this generally just happen rather than as a result of careful planning. The point is that given America's population and industry, if it becomes a big war, Britain is screwed badly whether it wins or loses. If it wins, it'll win nothing substantial and only because of its superior navy, which it can't maintain for long against the U.S. post war. And if it loses...

As for the U.S., it would be worse off than OTL, but it was going to become a superpower sooner or later anyway. This merely speeds up the military side of it at the cost of the economic. Both will still come about.

As for the rest of your points, they mainly depend on motivation. How motivated is the U.S.? How motivated is Britain? The U.S. would win if both sides were highly motivated, Britain would win if both were unmotivated, and of course if one is motivated but the other not, that side would come out ahead. These questions depend on clarification of the war's beginning and further progression of the timeline and so don't really need to be debated further.

[stevep]

Originally Posted by xchen08

Well, no win scenario in the sense that the U.S. can't really help Venezuela which is going to get itself crushed sooner or later. However, the deal essentially removes the U.S.'s greatest weapon, the threat against Canada, while also removing Britain's greatest weapon, the blockade. What that leaves is a restricted war where the U.S. cannot directly engage Britain, but Britain cannot harm the U.S. at all. It's essentially the no risk option, where the U.S. has nothing to lose. It can smuggle weapons and advisors to Venezuela. Britain will suffer moderate to heavy losses subduing Venezuela in that situation, and spend a lot of money and effort controlling the Caribbean while blockade running costs the U.S. practically nothing and maintaining its fleet-in-being is cheap.

Check what you proposed again. That was no blockage of the east coast in return for no attack on Canada and no commerce raiding. [Leaving aside whether the latter is taken literally, i.e. no attacks by raiders on MS or includes seizing of enemy shipping by formal naval units]. Britain can still blockage the Caribbean and west coasts and pick up US colonial possessions. Not only will that be economically damaging but also could well be divisive in the US as southern, central and western interests see their trade disrupted/crippled by the blockage in their areas. Also the sweeping of US shipping from those regions will tend to have an impact on their prestige. You might see moves in some states against US businesses without the threat of military interference.

To declare war and then do pretty much nothing while the economy takes damage is going to also seem pretty pointless to most of the population. Especially if having gone to war in support of Venezuela’s territory aims the US sits on its rear while their puppet is squashed.

Also nothing in the above agreement has any restriction on raids on the US mainland. Not saying Britain will do this or if they try it will prove useful but its another possible tool to bring America to the negotiating table.

Maintaining the current, very low force levels will be pretty cheap. But then Britain need do very little either. Active service for some of the forces already in the army and navy need not be greatly more expensive than peace-time duties. If the US does want to engage in a huge naval programme to challenge the RN and/or build up the large army you mentioned, whether to break its word and attack Canada anyway or to calm nerves in the coastal states those will be expensive.

Britain is neither able nor willing to annex Venezuela, so it'll come out of the war a substantial chunk poorer and with a bit more worthless jungle. Any puppet regime that it sets up will either require a great deal of maintainance, or will fall when it pulls out. The U.S. comes out looking like a champion of the American states. It has lost nothing, and will no doubt claim that only its presence saved Venezuela from annexation by the evil British Imperialists. Congress will no doubt approve a massive naval expansion which makes both the Navy and the Industialists happy. Given that Cleveland was not exactly happy with the Venezuelans, this would seem a good deal.

Its able but would definitely be unwilling. However no need I expect to even occupy more than the capital for a brief while. It should be no problem however getting a change of government which will agree some sort of settlement of the border. Especially since the current government has been left in the lurch by the US, which will make it look weak and stupid. Given that most people most of the time just want to live in peace, coupled with the ability for vested interests to make gains at the expense of rivals I don't see any great problem in a more rational government. Leaving the previous government hung out to dry will also undermine US prestige and influence through the region.

After the US agrees peace it may decide on a massive naval programme. Fair more likely I think is debating the impeachment of the President. Let's see. He encourages Venezuela to attack Britain, then declares war on Britain. Makes an agreement that protects east coast trade but leaves rest of the country exposed and causes widespread economic problems. Sits on his rear while his 'ally' is defeated and then makes peace.

If the US did decide to go on a major naval build-up then it makes relatively little difference in some ways. OTL Germany is about to do that anyway and you know what happened then. Facing off against both would be highly risky but how likely are the two to become allies given their respective mindsets. [Not to mention the problems of operating in alliance]. Facing off against the US it would have to build a lot of extra shipyard capacity. Then use that for at least a decade to come level with Britain. That will be very, very expensive even without the greater efficiency of the British yards and procurement system at this time. Will the US, which had tended to blow hot and cold on naval programmes really make that expenditure year after year while taxes continue to rise. And for what reason. To attack Britain at some future time, triggering a very costly war, or simply to say they have a fleet the same size as Britain which, especially since the SAW is probably butterflied, they have no real need for?

The U.S. is already producing heavy artillery in good amounts for the naval expansion already underway. It's not quite the same as land based artillery and diversion would limit expansion of heavy naval units, but the machinery and skilled labor are in place. And I think the heavy siege artillery needed to knock the Brits out of fortified enclaves in Eastern Canada would be relatively easy to comprehend.

There are specialised needs in each capacity plus to support the huge army your talking about [some of the time anyway] would need a hell of a lot, along with supporting supplies etc. Heavy siege guns might be easy to comprehend but more difficult to build and then again to get in place and use. Especially since Britain would have its own resources.

Also think about the less than impressive performance of US industry in WWI. Despite some expansion due to allied orders when it came to produce heavy equipment especially for the US army if failed fairly badly and they went into action with much British and French equipment.

The U.S. may have taken the Monroe Doctrine seriously (though it didn't really), but certainly no one else did. In any case, it specifically did not include existing colonial territories such as that held by France or the Netherlands. As you yourself mentioned, the Doctrine was really enforced by Britain for its own benefit until about this time. I doubt France or the Netherlands had any fear of the U.S. taking their American holdings. Fear of Britain doing the same though...

Since your talking about the US, via its proxy, seizing British land by military action, I think the Netherlands and Dutch do have legitimate reason for concern. How do they know the US won't fabricate a similar situation with them? Whereas Britain defending its interests and people against open and naked aggression is highly unlikely to cause them concern.

The Philippines weren't though to be in America's natural sphere of expansion. Mexico wasn't annexed because Northerners feared further expansion of Southern power, power brokers both north and south feared upsetting the existing compromises tha prevented Civil War, and the U.S. didn't want large Mexican populations.

But the annexation of Canada is thought to be different?

And the Crimea was a mess and very nearly a disaster up against Russia which had hardly advanced since the Napoleonic wars and no infrastructure to move troops or supplies. Britain and France were operating together with the Ottomans, who despite their backwardness, would be a far more substantial local base and ally than Canada and a few Caribbean islands, when both nations were stronger industrially and (together) at sea compared to Russia than Britain is compared to the U.S. of 1895.

Mistakes were made, no doubt. However the allies won, in the end fairly decisively. They had an industrial edge that Britain doesn't now but the resources there are probably closer than you think. Also human resources are a lot closer than you think and if you go the mega-war approach then US limits could be reached a lot quicker than you imagine.

As for an invasion of Canada, remember that the defenders, other than what few British regulars could make it to Canada in time, would be even more poorly equiped than the invaders. No where in Canada can the defenders achieve the kind of density that the Allies achieved in Northern France WWI. I don't know how organized the Canadian/BNA defenses would be after losing everything west of Nova Scotia. If they keep their nerves, or if the British planned to lose the rest of Canada and fortified the peninsula, and the RN remains uncontested in the region, then they can hold on for a long time. However, it would still be a disaster for Britain, and far more so to Britain than the fall of Venezuela would be for the U.S. And even Nova Scotia will fall eventually, once the U.S. closes the various straits with mines and torpedo boats to the RN and builds up enough artillery.

Why do you presume they will be ill-equipped and ill-prepared? You have admitted that the US would have to build up a sizeable force to launch such an attack, which will take time. Also, since its not a totalitarian state, such a build-up, recruiting hundreds of thousands and massive purchases of weapon, is not likely to go un-reported. While the Canadian government will not go on a full war footing it is likely to take some precautions. Upgrading weapons. Training and expanding militias. Possibly recruiting at least some of those fleeing the US, most of which will be heading to Canada. Most of all some border defences and planning. [Not necessarily on the border exactly but at key points.]

The main question will be whether the US would try an amphibious attack across the Lakes. If not then east of the prairies its limited to two crossing points opposite Detroit and Niagara which the Canadians could fortify and hold for quite a while. Further east there is a weak point along the border with Quebec although even then falling back on the river would help. Further east still is the approaches to New Brunswick which include some pretty rugged terrain and if that was to fall the very narrow peninsula linking to Nova Scotia, by which time British forces would very likely have arrived to boost the defences.

I think you should be able to take Ontario and most of Quebec if prepared to take heavy losses and put a lot into it and nothing goes badly wrong. Although doing this with an overwhelmingly raw army will mean a lot of problems. However as I have been saying for quite a while the question is not the taking of the bulk of Canada its the holding of it. While at the same time fighting a major war against another major power.

Given the terrain you will need either frontal assaults or an amphibious one to stand any chance of breaking into Nova Scotia and definitely the latter to attack any of the islands to the north. Given the huge superiority of the RN I can't see a successful seaborne assault, even without the lack of experience, training etc. Even a breakthrough along what will by then be a heavily fortified isthmus would be very, very difficult and extremely costly. If nothing else Britain could supply supporting fire from neighbouring territory and/or ships. And how in the face of a huge British naval superiority your going to mine places like Halifax on the east coast of NS?

Like all economic disruptions, the costs are to both and when both are as big as the U.S.A and the UK of 1895, the costs will be about equal to both sides. A more interesting question is how those costs will be borne. American grain production will fall with large scale military expansion and the remainder will mostly be consumed by the army, so the costs manifest as increased national debt. The costs for Britain however, would most naturally manifest as increased food costs and food shortages which may undermine morale unless the British government actively intervenes.

This will be true to a degree, if you go the continental war approach. Possibly equally importantly might be the number of horses taken up by the army as it expands. Could have an effect as well, although you can grow new ones fairly quickly. However, at least in the short term you can expect a serious surplus in grains and the likes forcing down prices. If this is at a period of expansion, which it probably was, then you could see a lot of farm debt, which the various tax increases will not help. The slump in the farm market, as farmers buy less, will have an impact on the economy as a whole, although if the heavy industry is expanding as the military build-up commences that will balance things somewhat elsewhere.

Food prices may well rise somewhat, especially if/when Canada is attacked. This will be unpopular but will be another reason for anger at the US. Also, with plenty of other food producers and given that Britain is a wealthy country this should not be too great a problem. Furthermore Britain has an history of facing crisis before and has faced far greater threats.

As you say, you can't really scale up these kinds of situations. Let's say 2.5M troops, which would be roughly 2 soldiers for every adult able bodied male in Canada. It wouldn't take a lot of troops to keep the Brits bottled up in Nova Scotia unless the U.S. insists on futile frontal assaults, and all this leaves plenty of troops in reserve.

Presuming the US goes for say the about 4M men it aimed for in WWI. [With about 60-70% of the population plus a blockage that might be about the upper limit, especially with questions regarding loyalty of some elements. Don't forget this took 18 months OTL, with allied help and only about 2M made it to France, many of which were deemed not ready for service. [Although this will be a somewhat lower tech war. No tanks, motorised vehicles or anti-aircraft weaponry needed].

You will have to consider losses in the invasion, plus others in the war so far. Also what is needed to safeguard the long coastlines as especially after Canada is attacked they might be an option. To cover the NS and Labrador front you will not need major forces if the US stays on the defensive, although may need to consider British landings behind US lines. However would the US army be willing to leave the job uncompleted as they would see it? Also that still leave the two powers at war and the US committed to maintaining a very large army.

Sorry, I just mean't reach friendly port, which is probably somewhere in California. It can tie down a good sized British squadron just sitting there anyway, so it's not really a loss.

Ok, that makes more sense. How well fortified were US ports in the region?

It wouldn't take a decade. Though the question is moot, since once the U.S. holds all or almost all of Canada and Britain has swept Venezuela, there's no point in keeping the war going. It's the naval race after peace that's really going to upset Britain, especially if it tries to keep with the U.S. and Germany combined, something that it abandoned OTL.

I think it would. Britain has a hell of a lead, in both ships in service and under construction and in capacity. It has markedly lower costs, not just cheaper labour but also in the procurement and organisation. As said above Britain was winning a naval race with a comparative economic power 15 years later. If we need to build up to fight either power then there is a bit more incentive to push harder and there was spare capacity in the British system.

Fighting both powers simultaneously would be disastrous but would that necessarily occur. Faced with an obdurate and hostile US Britain might make significant concessions to Germany in which case the latter might be an ally. Would make matters worse in one way as France & Russia might be more clearly opponents but both are likely to be far more concerned with Germany than Britain. Given the US's history and attitude to alliances I think that would be favourable to Britain.

Well, the provisional government did not depend on U.S. military support to keep the natives from overthrowing them. Though that's not really my point.

Were they strong enough to hold them down on their own. Or did the fact that the US could intervene to support its people deter many from opposing them? Might be a moot point anyway as its a useful base for operations against the US west coast and Britain has an interest in removing an hostile power from such a key position.

What I meant here is that there are 2 possible sources of British outrage. One is a perceived violation of neutrality. The Hawaiian government can declare neutrality with U.S. support just as Canada can declare neutrality with UK support. Suppose that Britain tacitly agrees (by not invading as soon as it could) when both sides hoped to settle the war in Venezuela, then invaded once the war expands. Would the violation of the neutrality drive the U.S. into a rage? The second possible source of British outrage would be the attack on what they percieve as fellow Britons. No doubt this will be strong, but how could the British not have expected attack on Britons when Britain was at war? Would American outrage in the Pacific war have been just as strong or even stronger had Japan simply declared war, then attacked Hawaii?

Hawaii is a recently seized protectorate which is still majority non-American. Canada is an independent state with its own elected government, economic policy, armed forces etc. While it has close social, blood and economic links with Britain it has formally declares its neutrality, a situation that in the scenario we're discussion the US has accepted. [Definitely and publically if the US has gained the agreement you suggest which leaves its east coast unblockaged]. For the US to break its word on this and launch an obviously long prepared attack on a country to which Britain has such strong ties you can be sure there is going to be a strong reaction. Especially since this is over a year into a phoney war that the US seems to be continuing for no purpose.

Its a bit of a play on words to say that the Canadians are British as they obviously aren't. There are strong links but they are separate states, as the US itself recognises.

In any case, I'm certainly no disputing that most of the British public will be angry at an invasion of Canada, just as the American public would be angry at an attack on Hawaii no matter whether the Japanese had declared war days or weeks earlier. However, it seems odd that you think that it would inspire even more rage than the surprise attack.

It was more that you seemed to think neither Britain nor Canada would be particularly angry at such an attack. You frequently mentioned that you couldn't see why the Canadians would oppose the invasion and occupation. I have argued that you should expect at least as strong a reaction as the US after Pearl. Could argue for a stronger reaction because:
a) That was a raid on a military target, rather than a full scale invasion.
b) Hawaii was still an overseas territory while Canada is a state which while neutral in the current conflict has very close personal links with Britain. Nor has it done anything to threaten the US unlike the long period of tension between the US and Japan before Pearl.
c) You have suggested that the US would make a deal which would rule out such an attack.

Oh no doubt, but wars like this generally just happen rather than as a result of careful planning. The point is that given America's population and industry, if it becomes a big war, Britain is screwed badly whether it wins or loses. If it wins, it'll win nothing substantial and only because of its superior navy, which it can't maintain for long against the U.S. post war. And if it loses...

As for the U.S., it would be worse off than OTL, but it was going to become a superpower sooner or later anyway. This merely speeds up the military side of it at the cost of the economic. Both will still come about.

In terms of economic damage both sides are likely to be badly damaged by a long war. Given the distance between their homelands and the superior navy that you acknowledge Britain has, how could it actually lose in other than economic terms? Or is it that you expect the attack on Canada to lead to a permanent annexation of part or all of it, in contradiction to what you suggested the US would commit itself to when attacking? Not sure that this would be to the advantage of the US given the continued costs of the occupation and the political and diplomatic costs as well. [Even if you get Britain to make peace it and the rest of the empire will be very, very angry at US actions. Plus its double-dealing and continued suppression of a neighbouring state will make it mistrusted elsewhere in the world. I wonder if even the US would have the nerve to claim to be an anti-imperialist power under those conditions].

As for the rest of your points, they mainly depend on motivation. How motivated is the U.S.? How motivated is Britain? The U.S. would win if both sides were highly motivated, Britain would win if both were unmotivated, and of course if one is motivated but the other not, that side would come out ahead. These questions depend on clarification of the war's beginning and further progression of the timeline and so don't really need to be debated further.

Very true. However Britain has an history of recognising the threat and stepping up to the line when necessary. Also it is directly threatened by US actions while I don't see what advantage there is to the US to picking a fight with its biggest trading partner? Or going on the route of heavy militarisation with the resulting economic, social and political costs. It is not in the US's economic interests to cause this crisis or to refuse to settle things peaceably.

Steve

[perfectgeneral]

Does anyone think that the president of the USA has done the smart thing?

All right then, how about the right thing?

Is there any way to save 'face' or even the Monroe Doctrine?