Latest Complete Conquest of United States

[Sabot Cat]

a) conquered,
b) carved into puppet states,
c) held directly, or
d) in some way or another politically and militarily controlled by another nation/or groups of nations.

1. The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, which was reduced to nothing and divided between Austria, Prussia, and Russia from 1772 to 1795.
2. Several European nations during the Napoleonic Wars, with the First French Empire herein depicted at its height in 1812:

 

[Sideways]

Maybe the key is to significantly weaken America? Maybe a more successful revolutionary France avoids the Louisiana Purchase and wins a war with the USA and Britain. Then have the US economy do badly for a few decades, becoming a provincial backwater that can eventually be conquered by an alliance of European powers that have had time to build up their population and industrial bases in North America.

It may make it easier if the slaves/abolitionists joined forces against a US government dominated by the cotton industry.

I'm not sure how plausible that is, this is not my area, really. But interesting question.

 

[TFSmith121]

Okay, now extrapolate that to the strategic situation of the US in the Eighteenth

1. The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, which was reduced to nothing and divided between Austria, Prussia, and Russia from 1772 to 1795.
2. Several European nations during the Napoleonic Wars, with the First French Empire herein depicted at its height in 1812:

Okay, now extrapolate that to the strategic situation of the US in the Eighteenth Century....

Note the major difference has something to do with the neighbors.

Best,

 

[TFSmith121]

As others have said, um, not quite in the 18th Century or after

It happen to
Ireland
Scotland
Wales

As others have said, um, not quite in the 18th Century or after...

Plus, extrapolate from the above examples the major differences with the strategic situation of the United States...

Again, something to do with the neighbors.

Best,

 

[Saphroneth]

Distance, by itself, is not much help. The New World nations did get beaten by Spaniards who didn't have all that much of a tech advantage when all is said and done, and who were operating at the end of a very long supply line.
The key is probably that the new world nations were 1) ravaged by disease (which weakened them) and 2) politically unstable. To say the least...
Keeping that in mind, the US was weak enough in absolute terms in the 1780s that it could possibly have been conquered. (Before it became an official country, it wasn't cohesive enough to be fought, really - it was basically an insurgency.) Pushing it back from coherent nation to incoherent one in the 1780s *could* technically be done, but it's extremely tricky.
After that, the strength of the US increases quickly, and its size does so as well. The only real way to get it to be "defeatable" is to cause a major social fracture line to open up - like the slavery issue, which is probably the easiest.
If... hm. If you had a major European (Anglo-French is a favorite) intervention in the Mexican-American War, coupled with a better Mexican army in the first place, you could defeat the US quite easily. But the nations in question would have to be Draka-type to keep pressing until the point of full conquest.

 

[teg]

Distance, by itself, is not much help. The New World nations did get beaten by Spaniards who didn't have all that much of a tech advantage when all is said and done, and who were operating at the end of a very long supply line.

What are you talking about? If you mean the indigenous nations of the Americas, then yes, there was a massive technological gap between the Spaniards and them. I'm not a big expert but my understanding is that even the most advanced American societies were still in the bronze age.

teg

 

[Sabot Cat]

Okay, now extrapolate that to the strategic situation of the US in the Eighteenth Century....

Note the major difference has something to do with the neighbors.

Best,

Movin' the goal posts here.

But anyway, the United Kingdom could have easily pulled off a more decisive defeat of the United States with their superior navy, military, and alliances with European and American Indian nations if there was the political will in the UK to do so.

 

[Sabot Cat]

As others have said, um, not quite in the 18th Century or after...

So Poland and much of Western Europe during the Napoleonic Wars count for nothing now?

 

[Saphroneth]

What are you talking about? If you mean the indigenous nations of the Americas, then yes, there was a massive technological gap between the Spaniards and them. I'm not a big expert but my understanding is that even the most advanced American societies were still in the bronze age.

teg

The tech gap was large. The tech advantage consisted of the personal weapons (swords, armour, and early muskets) of about a thousand Spaniards, including about a hundred cavalry, and a mere six cannon.
The Spaniards also, however, had the Tlaxcalans on their side. Which was to say, about a hundred thousand local allies.

 

[jsb]

a) conquered,
b) carved into puppet states,
c) held directly, or
d) in some way or another politically and militarily controlled by another nation/or groups of nations.

Now, once you find any of the above, extrapolate whether the same conditions could be acheived against a continental nation state with the resources and strategic position of the United States from 1776 onwards.

Err 1939-1945 anybody for W Europe, France or lots in the east.

I think you just need a nuclear war (70s ?) it doesn't matter if the USA wins/loses, Just have them get hit a lot and have somebody (south America ?) miss out on getting hit to much ?

JSB

(or should I not post this in pre 1900)

 

[TFSmith121]

Actually, no - note the second sentence:

Movin' the goal posts here.

But anyway, the United Kingdom could have easily pulled off a more decisive defeat of the United States with their superior navy, military, and alliances with European and American Indian nations if there was the political will in the UK to do so.

Actually, no - note the second sentence:

a) conquered,
b) carved into puppet states,
c) held directly, or
d) in some way or another politically and militarily controlled by another nation/or groups of nations.

Now, once you find any of the above, extrapolate whether the same conditions could be achieved against a continental nation state with the resources and strategic position of the United States from 1776 onwards.

And, sorry, when would the British have allied WITH another European nation against the United States?

The fulcrum of gaining independence (1775-83) and maintaining/growing (1798 to 1800, 1830, 1812-15, 1819-20, 1867) the US was being able to play one European state off against another, because they were in each other's backyards...the Western Hemisphere was always secondary to European power politics.

And the Indian nations definitely backed the wrong horse, as Tecumseh learned when he was Britain's ally...

Best,

 

[TFSmith121]

Was there an ocean between Poland and Austria, Prussia, and Russia?

So Poland and much of Western Europe during the Napoleonic Wars count for nothing now?

Was there an ocean between Poland and Austria, Prussia, and Russia?

Slightly different geostrategic position, as I note above...

Best,

 

[TFSmith121]

Nuclear weapons before 1900 would be quite a trick

Err 1939-1945 anybody for W Europe, France or lots in the east.

I think you just need a nuclear war (70s ?) it doesn't matter if the USA wins/loses, Just have them get hit a lot and have somebody (south America ?) miss out on getting hit to much ?

JSB

(or should I not post this in pre 1900)

Yeah, probably not.

Best,

 

[Sabot Cat]

Actually, no - note the second sentence:

a) conquered,
b) carved into puppet states,
c) held directly, or
d) in some way or another politically and militarily controlled by another nation/or groups of nations.

So the Napoleonic client nations don't constitute puppet states?

And, sorry, when would the British have allied WITH another European nation against the United States?

In 1814, wherein the Kingdom of Spain allied with the United Kingdom against the United States.

Was there an ocean between Poland and Austria, Prussia, and Russia?

Slightly different geostrategic position, as I note above...

Best,

Is there an ocean between Canada and the United States?

 

[Fabius Maximus]

One could argue they tried again in 1812-15 and failed.

One could, but one would have great difficulty making one's argument at all plausible.

As for the OP, most plausible scenarios would probably require a weakening of the central government somehow. This shouldn't be too hard to do -- lots of countries, after all, have suffered a similar fate. Maybe have a tyrannical megalomaniac elected as President, who tries to rule without regard for the Constitution. Then he could get overthrown and the country could go too far in the opposite direction, completely emasculating the central government. Or alternately, have slavery more widespread, leading to a CSA victory in the Civil War and implementation of a very strongly states' rights doctrine of government. Or again, New England actually does secede during the War of 1812, the remaining states could use this precedent as a way of asserting their rights against the federal government ("We're not paying extra taxes for your war, and if you try and make us, we'll throw our lot in with another country, just like New England did!").

I doubt that America would be completely conquered under such circumstances, still less completely conquered by one power, but I could see it being forced into a series of unequal treaties with other nations, divided into spheres of influence by foreign powers, and possibly losing some peripheral territory as well. Basically, it would end up much as the Ottoman Empire or Manchu China did IOTL.

 

[TFSmith121]

"Now, once you find any of the above, extrapolate whether the same conditions could..

So the Napoleonic client nations don't constitute puppet states?



In 1814, wherein the Kingdom of Spain allied with the United Kingdom against the United States.



Is there an ocean between Canada and the United States?

"Now, once you find any of the above, extrapolate whether the same conditions could be achieved against a continental nation state with the resources and strategic position of the United States from 1776 onwards."

Come on, read the entire prompt...

In 1814, Spain was hardly in a position to effect the correlation of forces between the US and UK; they had a few other things to worry about, notably the loss of 90 percent of their Western Hemisphere empire, including Florida...

Canada is going to invade and dismember the United States?

However, when you really consider it in terms of a military issue, these places come close:

Always helpful to have a moat...it has done wonders for Britain, Australia, and New Zealand, after all...

Best,

 

[TFSmith121]

Considering the British goals in 1813-14, not really:

One could, but one would have great difficulty making one's argument at all plausible.

Considering the British goals in 1813-14, not really:

Half of Maine, a third of Ohio, all of Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, etc.

See:

http://books.google.com/books?id=Ui...ASrl4CoBg&ved=0CEUQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

Best,

 

[Riain]

The 'problem' is the continual expansion of the US, making the job harder all the time. But if the United States didn't expand as per OTL then it's conceivable that the task is achievable. I'd say that once California is part of the USA the task is impossible. Even is the Confederacy secedes the Union is too big and powerful to be conquered by the sort alliances the Confederacy could put together.

 

[Fabius Maximus]

Considering the British goals in 1813-14, not really:

Half of Maine, a third of Ohio, all of Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, etc.

See:

http://books.google.com/books?id=Ui...ASrl4CoBg&ved=0CEUQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

Best,

"Stopping the US beating up the natives" isn't the same thing as "Trying to carve up, conquer or dominate the US", unless you hold to a sort of extreme manifest destiny view that the entire continent is rightfully part of America, and everyone else should just accept their rightful American overlords.

 

[Saphroneth]

Yeah, probably not.

Best,

Pre 1900 is the Point of Divergence, not necessarily where the story stops.