Is there a possible way for the US to get Canada, New Zealand and Australia early in it's history?
USA manages to get Canada, Australia and New Zealand
- Thread starter Dominic Harvey
- Start date
-
- Tags
- usa
Canada- possibly. It'd require substantial changes either in the run up to 1776 or for the War of 1812 to go disastrously wrong for Britain, and I mean to an extent that's probably only accomplished by some kind of late Napoleonic triumph.
Much later than that and full annexation of Canada becomes progressively more unlikely, though border adjustments (or wholesale acquisition of territory in OTL's western provinces) is possible.
Australia and NZ? Not the faintest chance. America had no presence in the region save a few whalers, and no capacity to project presence there until the late nineteenth century. By then, seizing the territory would entail full on invasion- probably impossible across the Pacific at that period- and long term occupation. It's an absolute non-starter.
Much later than that and full annexation of Canada becomes progressively more unlikely, though border adjustments (or wholesale acquisition of territory in OTL's western provinces) is possible.
Australia and NZ? Not the faintest chance. America had no presence in the region save a few whalers, and no capacity to project presence there until the late nineteenth century. By then, seizing the territory would entail full on invasion- probably impossible across the Pacific at that period- and long term occupation. It's an absolute non-starter.
Lusitania
Donor
Ok if we check our history we realize that both Australia and New Zealand were not colonies of Britain yet. Heck New Zealand was discovered by captain Cook around the same time as US became independent. Australia became a penal colony after 1800.
As for Canada what we had was French Canadians in Canada and Acadia and few British citizens in Nova Scotia. French Canada has as much almost no chance of joining English speaking colonies due to animosity between the two group, religious mistrust and hatred between the catholic French and Protestant English speakers.
Is it possible like after the Mexican american war, say the US sends settlers there before Britian does because they focus on India?
Lusitania
Donor
No after the war America is just starting to have presence in pacific and with tons of land available in North America there be no desire.
Last edited:
Canada should theoretically be possible, since the US was much more populous and would have had the advantage of shorter lines of communication in any conflict with Britain over the place. The problem is that the US military was pretty tiny and underfunded for most of the 19th century, it would require at least a few years to build up the army and navy to a point where America can realistically hope to defeat Britain, and it's hardly likely that the UK would just sit back and do nothing while the US built up this huge army. (Lots of investment in American industry during this period came from the UK, so an embargo of that sort of thing could cause serious problems, for example.) I think you'd need quite an early POD, whereby America stays friendly with France and Spain rather than the UK and keeps a bigger standing army to defend against any British aggression.
If the US does get into a big war with the UK and win they might take Australia and NZ as part of the peace settlement, although I'm sure if they'd want to, since the countries don't seem to have much strategic importance for the US.
Alternative idea: Britain gets successfully invaded in WW2. The Nazis occupy the British Isles, kill the Prime Minister, Cabinet, Royal Family, and most of Parliament. With the seat of the British Empire gone and the Japanese expanding in the Pacific, Australia and NZ ask to become US protectorates.
If the US does get into a big war with the UK and win they might take Australia and NZ as part of the peace settlement, although I'm sure if they'd want to, since the countries don't seem to have much strategic importance for the US.
Alternative idea: Britain gets successfully invaded in WW2. The Nazis occupy the British Isles, kill the Prime Minister, Cabinet, Royal Family, and most of Parliament. With the seat of the British Empire gone and the Japanese expanding in the Pacific, Australia and NZ ask to become US protectorates.
Which settlers? They don't have an infinite resource and can't mind control people to go there.
The thirteen colonies rebelled in 1776. The First Fleet invaded Botany Bay in 1789. So no, that's not going to happen.
By this time Britain has occupied Australia for 50 years, and the Treaty of Waitangi has been signed which formalises New Zealand as being in the British sphere of influence.
And even after beating Mexico, America would still be trying to invade from across the Pacific.
Besides all that, I think you're underestimating the sheer demographic challenge the US had fighting its own indigenous peoples, stealing their land and setting its own frontier.
Why on earth would they commit to doing that while at the same time taking on the most powerful nation in the world so they can go to another continent with no strategic relevance to America and... fight indigenous peoples, steal their land and settle the frontier?
Well, there's always Pennsylvania (who IOTL were big on settling Upper Canada, as what the place used to be like before the Revolution ruined it), emptying out New York City's jails (if one wanted to pull an Australia), New Englanders (because of geographic and demographic issues - not to mention the original colonial charter for the Massachusetts Bay Colony theoretically included a good portion of then-Upper Canada, as well as Michigan and Upstate NY), maybe a few others. Only with NYC's jails would it be mind control; everything else (i.e. New England) would basically just happen.
Only if those areas took the repeal of the Corn Laws very very very VERY VERY VERY badly.
That was basically OTL, and no the US didn't send anyone there - they just got up and left, aided by their own community groups and all that.
I never get this about nineteenth century Ameriwanks. It's one of the great geopolitical success stories. Thirteen colonies won independence from a global great power then managed to build a favorable trading relationship with the people they'd just beaten.
A second great power helps them win independence, but the rebels handily outplay them at diplomacy and avoid becoming dependent on them. Later, having stared their former patrons down in an undeclared war, the rebels make the greatest land deal in history.
A series of indigenous nations separately and in coalitions tries to fight off the new nation but are swept away.
Their southern neighbor is also trying to build its nation; the northerners provoke a war that even many of its partisans think is shameful and take over half their enemy's land. The new nation now stands coast to coast.
Their previous colonisers then work with them on a diplomatic and strategic doctrine protecting the new state from the encroachment of other colonial powers.
The new nation has a bitter civil war, to be sure, but a comparatively short one. The unfree peoples suffer terribly before, during and after the war, but in the main this is ignored in favor of a great national feeling of optimism.
The economy booms massively. Cities arise out of empty plains with a speed and on a scale never seen before in human history.
Having got to the Pacific, the nation purchases a desert of frozen ice that turns out to be full of vast mineral wealth. Its merchants overthrow a peaceful island kingdom, extending its reach across the Pacific. By the end of the century it has outposts in Asia and the Caribbean.
In 1900 it has wealth on a scale that most countries have never and will never achieve. It has become a great power almost through sheer rate of growth, without any great expenditure on navies and armies. It has an incredibly favorable diplomatic and economic situation where the only nation that can challenge it has played a huge role in financing its economy.
How on earth does someone look at that situation and say: 'You know what? It would really be interesting it the United States did better. They had a tough run of it.'
How, in any way, is that an interesting narrative? 'We'll take the winners and - get this - we'll make them win even more!'
A second great power helps them win independence, but the rebels handily outplay them at diplomacy and avoid becoming dependent on them. Later, having stared their former patrons down in an undeclared war, the rebels make the greatest land deal in history.
A series of indigenous nations separately and in coalitions tries to fight off the new nation but are swept away.
Their southern neighbor is also trying to build its nation; the northerners provoke a war that even many of its partisans think is shameful and take over half their enemy's land. The new nation now stands coast to coast.
Their previous colonisers then work with them on a diplomatic and strategic doctrine protecting the new state from the encroachment of other colonial powers.
The new nation has a bitter civil war, to be sure, but a comparatively short one. The unfree peoples suffer terribly before, during and after the war, but in the main this is ignored in favor of a great national feeling of optimism.
The economy booms massively. Cities arise out of empty plains with a speed and on a scale never seen before in human history.
Having got to the Pacific, the nation purchases a desert of frozen ice that turns out to be full of vast mineral wealth. Its merchants overthrow a peaceful island kingdom, extending its reach across the Pacific. By the end of the century it has outposts in Asia and the Caribbean.
In 1900 it has wealth on a scale that most countries have never and will never achieve. It has become a great power almost through sheer rate of growth, without any great expenditure on navies and armies. It has an incredibly favorable diplomatic and economic situation where the only nation that can challenge it has played a huge role in financing its economy.
How on earth does someone look at that situation and say: 'You know what? It would really be interesting it the United States did better. They had a tough run of it.'
How, in any way, is that an interesting narrative? 'We'll take the winners and - get this - we'll make them win even more!'
Grimbald
Monthly Donor
How about this:
US gets Upper Canada and Maritimes in 1783 peace settlement after Washington sends troops north in 1782.
This stifles Canada's growth.
Western provinces become US since path west for Canada effectively blocked. Larger north effectively butterflies ACW.
US and UK never develop special relationship. US builds large fleet; two ocean navy.
Royal Navy sinks US escorts to convoy bound to Netherlands in 1916. Convoy includes quasi military goods for transshipment to Germany
US enters WWI as CP co- belligerent.
US focuses on Pacific taking NZ and Australia and UK Pacific colonies after defeat if IJN. NZ and Aussie best troops are in Europe.
Not ASB but not likely. Even then Quebec is an independent country.
US gets Upper Canada and Maritimes in 1783 peace settlement after Washington sends troops north in 1782.
This stifles Canada's growth.
Western provinces become US since path west for Canada effectively blocked. Larger north effectively butterflies ACW.
US and UK never develop special relationship. US builds large fleet; two ocean navy.
Royal Navy sinks US escorts to convoy bound to Netherlands in 1916. Convoy includes quasi military goods for transshipment to Germany
US enters WWI as CP co- belligerent.
US focuses on Pacific taking NZ and Australia and UK Pacific colonies after defeat if IJN. NZ and Aussie best troops are in Europe.
Not ASB but not likely. Even then Quebec is an independent country.
What makes something 'interesting' is in the eye of beholder. Different folks are into exploring different stories, different parts of history, different narratives.
What if we have the US become the main base of power in the British Empire that the UK secedes from?
through this one weird trick
...allohistorians hate him
Canada is doable through a variety of methods, and there is a good method for earlier American settlement and shipping to the Pacific North West, but getting settlers around to Australia/New Zealand would be difficult since America doesn't have South Africa or India to stop at. Including Australia and New Zealand before 1900 is going to be more adventurous, and I think most of those scenarios would preclude the United States. Maybe the English Civil War has a different outcome.
Post 1860 conquest of those countries would be very bloody. Lots of sharpshooters. There are options for peaceful associations in the late 1800s though.
...allohistorians hate him
Canada is doable through a variety of methods, and there is a good method for earlier American settlement and shipping to the Pacific North West, but getting settlers around to Australia/New Zealand would be difficult since America doesn't have South Africa or India to stop at. Including Australia and New Zealand before 1900 is going to be more adventurous, and I think most of those scenarios would preclude the United States. Maybe the English Civil War has a different outcome.
Post 1860 conquest of those countries would be very bloody. Lots of sharpshooters. There are options for peaceful associations in the late 1800s though.