RodentRevolution
Banned
Wait you are saying the population of the USA was close to 800 million in 1914....how in heavens name did you lose all those people?
Fate of Canada in case of Central Powers US?
- Thread starter ReconGuy02
- Start date
Wait you are saying the population of the USA was close to 800 million in 1914....how in heavens name did you lose all those people?
If the US and the UK are at war with nobody else involved that is one thing. Throw in the rest of WWI, that is quite another. The reality is that the RN in 1914 was pretty much as large as would be tolerated in PEACETIME. US/UK hostility rather than amicable relations might expand it some, but only so much. Until the late 1930s the USN was substantially larger than the IJN, however WPO always contemplated the difficulties of the USN having to advance across the pacific away from logistic bases towards Japan which from the get-go was closer to logistic bases and would become more so as the advance west went on. Yes Halifax is close but it has minimal infrastructure, more or less a big warehouse and Bermuda is even smaller. On the Pacific side Victoria is limited, and more than balanced by the Northwest USA and San Francisco. Sure the UK can take or try to take Hawaii, but until that happens the closest base for the RN in the Pacific is quite far away and the IJN and Russian Pacific Fleet are very limited. On top of that the RN can't ignore the German Navy, or even the A-H (in the Med).
Yes the RN can do a great deal of damage to US trade, but the reality is the USA is far less dependent on that trade than the UK is and what is good for the goose is good for the gander. Economically it will hurt, in terms ot the ability to fight the war much less so.
There is no doubt Canadians will fight bravely in large numbers. The problem is they are simply overmatched numerically and materially and Britain in 1914 can either send a significant reinforcement to Canada or the continent. I'll give you active Canadian forces are larger ITTL and there will be more British presence. The continent is going to win every time. If France loses relatively quickly its game over. The UK/Canada can't invade the USA even one on one, and if there is a CP-US alliance that means Germany is still in play. While there is active fighting going on, there will be partisans in Canada. Once the fighting stops, that is quite another story. Any continued partisan activity in whatever parts of Canada are CEDED to the USA will be crushed and crushed badly. Yes, for a while there will be military law but the reality will be that th average Canadian will not find their life greatly changed - the stamps and the currency will change, certain words will be spelled differently but otherwise not much. You won't see the sort of confiscations and lootings of WWII Germany for example. Eventually there will be voting and citizenship.
How many Francophones in Alsace-Lorraine took to the hills and ambushed Germans AFTER the war ended in 1871 and that territory was CEDED (not occupied) to Germany - few if any. Absent the threat of death/enslavement (think partisans in the USSR in WWII), or the hope that with the war going on allied forces and liberation are coming, even most patriots will decide not to die pointlessly. Those Canadians who cannot stomach living under the stars and stripes can sell their assets and move freely to somewhere else that is colored red on the map.
None of this is to denigrate Canadians or Canadian patriotism. The military reality is in this scenario, Canada is going to lose - how quickly depends on lots of details. Will some military and others take to the woods or polar bear country to continue the fight WHILE THE WAR GOES ON, of course. Once the war is over, that is an entirely different matter.
Yes the RN can do a great deal of damage to US trade, but the reality is the USA is far less dependent on that trade than the UK is and what is good for the goose is good for the gander. Economically it will hurt, in terms ot the ability to fight the war much less so.
There is no doubt Canadians will fight bravely in large numbers. The problem is they are simply overmatched numerically and materially and Britain in 1914 can either send a significant reinforcement to Canada or the continent. I'll give you active Canadian forces are larger ITTL and there will be more British presence. The continent is going to win every time. If France loses relatively quickly its game over. The UK/Canada can't invade the USA even one on one, and if there is a CP-US alliance that means Germany is still in play. While there is active fighting going on, there will be partisans in Canada. Once the fighting stops, that is quite another story. Any continued partisan activity in whatever parts of Canada are CEDED to the USA will be crushed and crushed badly. Yes, for a while there will be military law but the reality will be that th average Canadian will not find their life greatly changed - the stamps and the currency will change, certain words will be spelled differently but otherwise not much. You won't see the sort of confiscations and lootings of WWII Germany for example. Eventually there will be voting and citizenship.
How many Francophones in Alsace-Lorraine took to the hills and ambushed Germans AFTER the war ended in 1871 and that territory was CEDED (not occupied) to Germany - few if any. Absent the threat of death/enslavement (think partisans in the USSR in WWII), or the hope that with the war going on allied forces and liberation are coming, even most patriots will decide not to die pointlessly. Those Canadians who cannot stomach living under the stars and stripes can sell their assets and move freely to somewhere else that is colored red on the map.
None of this is to denigrate Canadians or Canadian patriotism. The military reality is in this scenario, Canada is going to lose - how quickly depends on lots of details. Will some military and others take to the woods or polar bear country to continue the fight WHILE THE WAR GOES ON, of course. Once the war is over, that is an entirely different matter.
If we are talking about a war between the USA and the British Empire then surely we should be comparing their populations.
The closest to 1914 i can easily find is 1907 when the USA had 5.5% of the world population, and the British Empire had 22.4%.
Also there was a lot more support in the colonies for fighting to defend the British Empire, and it's trade routes than there was for fighting in Europe. Australia, and New Zealand supported a war with Germany mainly because they had been sold on the German Fleet being a threat to their trade routes with Britain.
The closest to 1914 i can easily find is 1907 when the USA had 5.5% of the world population, and the British Empire had 22.4%.
Also there was a lot more support in the colonies for fighting to defend the British Empire, and it's trade routes than there was for fighting in Europe. Australia, and New Zealand supported a war with Germany mainly because they had been sold on the German Fleet being a threat to their trade routes with Britain.
It was occupied 20 years after the war. They were allowed to vote only in 1895.
SsgtC
Banned
This is when racism comes into play. In 1914, the British Empire was not going to call on black or Indian units to fight another white nation. They may be used for garrison duty to free up white Infantry regiments, but they're not being called on enter combat. Plus, there's the issue of getting all those soldiers to Canada. Doing it before the war is politically impossible (and will trigger a preemptive DoW by the US), while doing it after the war starts means fighting past the USN. Some will obviously get through. But I doubt enough would to matter.
Okay you got me there I mean it was a whole six weeks after the declaration of war IOTL before Indian Soldiers were deployed in the Ypres Salient, and it wasn't until October 1914 that the Indian Army took part in the Battle of La Bassee against the Germans who of course aren't really a white nation. [SARCASM OFF]
Of course racism will play some role, and we can expect that US Black units will be mainly relegated to support roles as IOTL. Actually probably even more than IOTL since some Black units only got into combat because the French were desperate for reinforcements, and the US was more willing to put Black units under French command than White units.
Realistically the amount of butterfly netting you are going to have for the USA to change as much is proposed, and for the British Empire to carry on as if nothing has happened would put it well into ASB. With a hostile USA south of the border there is going to be a bigger British garrison, and a bigger better trained, and equipped Canadian Militia, and Regular Force Army. Also IOTL Japan was an ally of Britain and captured German Pacific Territories, ITTL it would be reasonable to expect that the Japanese would be doing doing something similar to US Pacific territory.
FillyofDelphi
Banned
Somehow I think the US will be able to manage without a supply of pineapples for a few years, given Hawaii is going to be the frayed end of the long logistical shoestring the Japanese are going to be able to establish for a Pacific War. Their impact will be negligible, at best. There's very little of import for the US in the Pacific at this point, assuming butterflies haven't moved away American aquisition of the Phillipenes at all in which case you're claiming a few coral reefs and guano covered sandbars for the most part.
longsword14
Banned
A meaningless statistic. Counting Africa and India into the number is inflating it but neither of those two will be used in any war.
While calculating Britain's warmaking capacity, India and Africa should immediately be dropped.
As I pointed out above the Indian Army was deployed in France six weeks after the start of WW1 and did fight there so I don't see why you believe they would not be used against the USA. In 1914 the Indian Army was the second biggest all volunteer army in the world, being slightly smaller than the British army. The Indian army in WW1 was an all volunteer force which deployed over a Million Indian Army troops served overseas in the Indian Expeditionary Forces, while at home they maintained units on the North West Frontier, and doing Internal Security work consisting of 11 Divisions, and 5 Brigades. Also India produced arms and ammunition.
While native African troops weren't AFAIK deployed to Europe European troops raised in Africa were, and African troops did fight in Africa against the Germans. As I understand it the reason for not deploying African Troops to Europe was that there were not enough officers who spoke the native languages available as many of the whites who knew the native languages had already joined locally raised White units, and the need to Garrison newly captured German territory.
Calculating war making capacity is more than just population. But people were just looking at Canada, and Britain and saying the USA has more population so I pointed out that they were ignoring a large part of the population of the British Empire, and the Indian and African contribution to Britain's war making capacity is no where near zero, so their contribution should not be ignored.
RodentRevolution
Banned
Copper, nitrates, certain grades of iron ore, those kind of important war materials. The British meanwhile had better hope they looked properly at the carbonisation of coal to oil pre-war. Of course the important point here is that it is a Brit rather than an American who has some idea of what each sides critical imports that would be affected in such a war would be despite the USA having the foremost higher education system in the world and one that makes a lot of materials on such questions freely available.
FillyofDelphi
Banned
Oh, so they're talking about the South American Region/Southeast Pacific. A bit odd to make the IJN a notable part of the post them, given Japan dosen't have the power projection to operate down there. Neither would the Royal Navy be able to keep ships out their for any reasonable length of time, given the isolation from recoiling stations and other sources of resupply along with the US ability to sorted down from California to counter any attempt at a sturdy blockade. With all the other demands on the British Fleet, where can they scrape together a South Pacific force from? To say nothing of the need to protect against American commerce raiding.
And don't say France. The problems of cohalition warfare must be recognized, and France is no dependent client who'll submit their navy to British strategic command and purpose.
RodentRevolution
Banned
Japan's likely entry into the war is just an additional point. As for the rest of your post that is utterly counterfactual. The RN routinely had ships patrolling both the Atlantic and Pacific coasts of South America as they had among other things a coaling station at Port Stanley which is massively closer to the area in question than any California port. As to commerce raiding a cruiser on patrol is capable of doing both, investigating suspect merchant shipping and looking for hostile cruisers.
Also why not say France? That is what coalition wars are about, the action together of multiple allies, so just as some posters have cited the impact of the HSF and KuK Marine it is valid for people to recall in the scenario described Britain would have allies.
So yeah we have a likely weaker than OTL America facing an enemy with treaty bound allies like Japan and entente aligned allies like France and Russia. The latter two nations are interesting as they would usually figure as potential allies for the US in other suggested scenarios cf some of your own in regard matters like the Venezuela Crisis turning hot.
So we do have a rather unnatural scenario based on comparison with OTL but that is fine because one of the whole points of Alt History is that one change can snowball over time. Now the OP asked us to employ lots of anti-butterflies but even so you will expect changes. That said posters like yourself seem to be trying to insist that only those changes that suit aggressive revanchist America be allowed even though you are asking the Japanese to lose face by dropping out on a treaty they took very seriously as it was the first one that acknowledged them as a great power and yet are asking for us to assume the American economy remains on track per OTL despite a number of obvious differences.
The most likely reason for the US not needing to protect distant Pacific possessions in this scenario is because it never gets its hands on any. A hostile US is not likely to enjoy tacit UK support in ITTL's anti-butterfly induced Spanish-American War which could well result in a German Philippines for example. No Guam and no Puerto Rico Territories as further examples.
Of course you could still have the US win such a war but it is not going to be a walk over and a lot of ITTL's historic criticism would have been the question as to why the US did not wait until say the 1920s or whenever it would achieve economic take off in this scenario? Because there are a lot of fundamental factors to the rise of the United States as world power and slower development does not mean no development.
Max Sinister
Banned
Canada might be a juicy bit for the US, and the CPs would definitely win in this scenario, but most of the time, the US are isolationist and happy about it. Per se, Canada is no realistic threat. And the Brits would have to be very stupid to provoke them. They already have to care about Europe, they have no need to antagonize the US.
FillyofDelphi
Banned
@RodentRevolution
The British would need to deploy far more forces in the Western Hemisphere than a simple basic patrol route though. They'd have field a force capable of providing a consistent barrier to regional traffic and resist that barrier being disrupted by American operations from the Pacific Fleet (Which is nothing to sneeze at). Port Stanley can only support so big for a force for so long, especially if the supply routes of the Falklands from Britain proper are disrupted or tonnage being given priority for other areas. The Entente has a long list of tasks for its merchant fleet even IOTL, and that's only going to be a greater issue since Canadian operations now have to be supported, lack of American and Canadian commodities is going to require drawing imports (Assuming you can find them) of things such a food from further afield and in greater qualitites, and prize hull seizures at the start of the war are liable to be to the US's advantage given the balance of global merchantmen at this point, and because of this I doublt you'll be able to treat Port Stanley as a Scapa Flow or even Halifax so far as supporting operations go. California, on the other hand, can support a proper attack force easy enough (And Southern California in the 1910's won't be running out of refined petrol to keep them running).
As for France putting her fleet at the disposal of British strategic concerns, allies does not mean total unity of operation and interests on the opposite. After all, we diden't seen Japanese soldiers on the Western Front. Now, you might be able to get France to pick up some slack in the blockade to free up British ships for deployment to the Americas, but now you're dividing command and that rarely works out well for the combat quality and coordination if the Germans do sail out. The impact of the HSF on the situation in the Americas is coincidental, not Germany yielding to American interests: just by existing and acting on German naval policy they lock down a large number of British hulls, as any ship in the North Sea is a ship that isen't in North America.
The British would need to deploy far more forces in the Western Hemisphere than a simple basic patrol route though. They'd have field a force capable of providing a consistent barrier to regional traffic and resist that barrier being disrupted by American operations from the Pacific Fleet (Which is nothing to sneeze at). Port Stanley can only support so big for a force for so long, especially if the supply routes of the Falklands from Britain proper are disrupted or tonnage being given priority for other areas. The Entente has a long list of tasks for its merchant fleet even IOTL, and that's only going to be a greater issue since Canadian operations now have to be supported, lack of American and Canadian commodities is going to require drawing imports (Assuming you can find them) of things such a food from further afield and in greater qualitites, and prize hull seizures at the start of the war are liable to be to the US's advantage given the balance of global merchantmen at this point, and because of this I doublt you'll be able to treat Port Stanley as a Scapa Flow or even Halifax so far as supporting operations go. California, on the other hand, can support a proper attack force easy enough (And Southern California in the 1910's won't be running out of refined petrol to keep them running).
As for France putting her fleet at the disposal of British strategic concerns, allies does not mean total unity of operation and interests on the opposite. After all, we diden't seen Japanese soldiers on the Western Front. Now, you might be able to get France to pick up some slack in the blockade to free up British ships for deployment to the Americas, but now you're dividing command and that rarely works out well for the combat quality and coordination if the Germans do sail out. The impact of the HSF on the situation in the Americas is coincidental, not Germany yielding to American interests: just by existing and acting on German naval policy they lock down a large number of British hulls, as any ship in the North Sea is a ship that isen't in North America.
SsgtC
Banned
There is a HUGE difference in sending a single ship to patrol an area, and maintaining a fleet there. Neither the RN or USN could maintain a battle squadron, let alone a full fleet, off South America. Neither country has a major naval base close enough. The Americans are definitely closer though with the Charleston Navy Yard on the East Coast and several major ports on the west (both San Diego and Long Beach likely get developed earlier in TTL). The UK's closet major naval base is in England (Neither Halifax nor Bermuda can support a major fleet, though Halifax is likely more developed with associated Canadian industry ITTL). Even assuming that the UK does that, the US fleet is closer and the British have to fight past the USN just to get to S America from Halifax.
RodentRevolution
Banned
Well there is also a base at Capetown which is just 600 miles by sea further away from Valparaiso in Chile than San Francisco is for example and thus Port Stanley is merely a base on top of that which the British have the US does not. Obviously the US with bases thousands of miles away from the Falklands are going to do a better job of interdicting Port Stanley than the British in supplying and protecting it...I mean seriously?
The huge issue involved in a naval war with the British Empire at this time is the British have bases everywhere you go and the US does not.
For example the Royal Navy has a base at Esquimalt which will tie down ships to defend the US Pacific coast. Then of course to pursue operations against Canada the US would want the bulk of their fleet in the Atlantic.
Yet it gets worse because the US have been beating this war drum sometime we are told. So they have do all of this out of a much smaller pie than OTL.
Take the actual scenario.
The pie starts shrinking when the UK is rebuffed over its Trent demands. Thus US soldiers and sailors die at the hands of the British, it is likely that a good many of these especially among the sailors would not have experienced similar deaths at the hands of the Confederacy. In addition the British sink and more often seize ships, they land raiding forces and burn duel use (i.e with a potential military application) property in a kind of Marching through Georgia but from the sea rather than to the sea. The US do some of this back to the British for which the British demand compensation aka reparations. The US pays said reparations over time so it can focus on suppressing the rebellion. This still however reduces US capital resources.
However the shrinkage does not stop there. The US must still bring the rebel states into submission to the Constitution. These rebel states however have had a brief window in which the blockade was defunct. They are thus fielding at least somewhat better supplied and armed armies at a time when the US has low stocks of powder and many of its forces are out of position. Thus the war goes on longer. Thus quite apart from the battlefield deaths there are more disease deaths than OTL as putting strangers together in the field transmits and shares all kinds of nasties. Every additional person lost on both sides is a future productive citizen from OTL not available to ATL.
The damage goes on. A more robust reconstruction is harder to calculate, the upside of more economic potential accruing to the black population may mitigate or even subsume the loss of income and productivity among the southern whites who resist. However a continued stream of anti-British propaganda and continued turmoil in the Southern States puts off not merely potential British investors but a good many other global investors. The loss of these funds delay and possibly cancel some projects that added value to the US economy OTL.
In addition the US spends more on defence. This adds an additional taxation and competing for lending drag on the US economy, gunboats eat money they do not make it.
Over time all this drag builds. You may actually have a weaker US military ITTL 1914 than OTL 1914.
Now the British lose too. Their big loss though is focused on the war with the US in 1862. Some of this is mitigated by reparations but lost lives cannot be made good. However following that one of the destinations for investment not going to the US will be Britain and the British Empire. Of course it might not be as productive in returns for investors as OTL but the British will capture more of the value added. Now it is possible the British are weaker than OTL economically but it is likely to be insignificant ( a longer Trent War would have been another issue entirely and one I have discussed somewhat on EnglishCanuck's timeline thread.) in comparison to the changes to the US position though of course it may or may not change the British's relative status to Germany etc.
I mean we could look at all of this in detail but instead we are being told the US will conquer all by handwaves. Which is a shame as the US might indeed conquer but it would be far more interesting to see how they really got there ITTL.
Last edited:
There are also those Islands in the North Pacific, the Aleutians which in WW2 the Japanese decided would make a nice addition to their Empire, and staging points for an attack on Alaska. Not exactly what most people think of when they talk about Pacific Islands.