A U.S.-British War in 1895-1896

What if, due to some mistakes, misinterpretations, and/or hotheads on both sides, the Venezuelan crisis of 1895 leads to a U.S.-British War?

How exactly would such a war have turned out? Exactly how long would such a war have lasted? Who exactly would have won such a war? What exactly would the post-war peace treaty have looked like in this scenario? Also, what exactly would the other European Great Powers have done during this war?

Any thoughts on this?
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
The Canadian-American border would have turned into a bloodbath, as this is the age of the Maxim gun and barbed wire. The Royal Navy was crushingly superior to the United States Navy at this point and didn't need to worry much about the Germans yet.

Advantage: Britain.
 
The Canadian-American border would have turned into a bloodbath, as this is the age of the Maxim gun and barbed wire. The Royal Navy was crushingly superior to the United States Navy at this point and didn't need to worry much about the Germans yet.

Advantage: Britain.
Wouldn't both logistics and pure numbers have favored the Americans on land, though?
 
The US would have the internal LOCs and more accessible manpower vs. Britain's control of the sea and global empire.

Industrially both would be reasonably matched at this time.

Militarily, neither nation was up to the stresses of modern war. The massed ranks may have given way to more open formations due to relative experiences in the Crimean & ACW, not to mention what observers would have reported from the Franco-Prussian War, but no-one was prepared for the bloodbath made possible by modern weapons.

At sea, Britain would dominate but, I suspect, only after a few nasty surprises (& not all from Americans). Despite a long history of gunboat diplomacy by both nations, the major fleet units were, in practice, more like over-sized, armed yachts. Both navies had developed a habit of "paint and polish", even to the extent of it impairing the fighting qualities of the ships. Some ships were so over-polished that their water-tight doors were no longer water-tight. Then read up on the struggle to get the changes modern guns had made to gunnery taken seriously in the Royal Navy during the late 19th century! Other nations were just as blind.

Britain would have to accelerate the solution to Home Rule for Ireland (probably without Ulster) and to make changes in it's administration of India.

The USA would probably lose Alaska, at least until the peace treaty is negotiated, which would see the return of captured territories of either combatant. Raids on coastal cities and installations may also happen, as could a landing behind the front lines in the east, in an attempt to cut off American forces in the northeast.

Hawaii might regain it's independence from the planters and the US probably wouldn't gain any of it's OTL Pacific or Caribbean colonies.

Mexico may even be tempted to join (or be dragged into) the conflict.

With Britain distracted, tensions between France and Germany would escalate. Austro-Hungary might make a play in the Balkans. Japan may make moves of their own in Manchuria. Russia would be watching both and be tempted to make another move on Afghanistan and/or Iran.
 
Last edited:
I know that this does not fit the OP, but since common wisdom in other threads seems to be that a shooting war is rather unlikely:

Is it possible that instead of beringing the US and UK closer together after the crisis is solved, both powers'`relation becomes long-term soured? So they rather engage in needling the others' interests than working together on anything?
(Yes, I know that in practical terms, the economic connections were very strong. But national pride and jingoism can lead to crazy results, especially in the decades around 1900.)
 
Britain would have to accelerate the solution to Home Rule for Ireland (probably without Ulster) and to make changes in it's administration of India.

The USA would probably lose Alaska, at least until the peace treaty is negotiated, which would see the return of captured territories of either combatant. Raids on coastal cities and installations may also happen, as could a landing behind the front lines in the east, in an attempt to cut off American forces in the northeast.

Hawaii might regain it's independence from the planters and the US probably wouldn't gain any of it's OTL Pacific or Caribbean colonies.

Mexico may even be tempted to join (or be dragged into) the conflict.

With Britain distracted, tensions between France and Germany would escalate. Austro-Hungary might make a play in the Balkans. Japan may make moves of their own in Manchuria. Russia would be watching both and be tempted to make another move on Afghanistan and/or Iran.

I'm not saying these ideas are wrong, but there is, like with a lot of possible war threads, a sort of "running before walking" danger here.

Both sides IOTL were happy to negotiate in the long run, so firstly you need to overcome an initial reluctance to come to blows in the first place. Countries aren't stupid, even during the Imperial posturing of the 1890s-1910s - wars are costly and risky and not entered into lightly by Governments.

I don't see why the British would need to settle Home Rule - in 1895 its relatively laid to rest with the defeat of the Second Home Rule Bill and the stable Government of Conservatives and Liberal Unionists that was now in power. Even the Liberals, keen on the idea in 1914, shelved it with the outbreak of war. There's no reason for Salisbury to uncork that bottle again... Even more so for India.

I'm not a military expert, but I think in 1895 striking at Alaska would be not only difficult for Britain but, strategically, a very low priority. It represents no real threat (too underdeveloped for the US to really use as a staging post) and isn't really a chip worth grabbing for any peace-negotiations.

Diaz's regime in Mexico is reliant on foreign investment and trade, particularly with Britain and the US. He would need a very convincing reason to leap in and disrupt those trade networks and risk invasion or blockade.

Whilst all those international tensions you exist are true, honestly I think its unlikely any other power would intervene. It would be a huge gamble for Russia, say, to push south. Any war with the US is not going to remove the Indian Army from the Raj or really require the Home Fleet to leave British waters (so remaining a threat to Russia's Baltic Coast). Japan is unlikely to move against Manchuria without having secured Korea - the ink is just drying on the peace with China in the summer of 1895. Plus a distracted Britain isn't a danger to Japan - Russia is.

I think any war between Britain and the US would have been limited, inconclusive, and hastily settled at the negotiation table. There's too much to loose and not enough concrete gain on either side to eek it out.
 
Japan is unlikely to move against Manchuria without having secured Korea - the ink is just drying on the peace with China in the summer of 1895. Plus a distracted Britain isn't a danger to Japan - Russia is.

I do not know much about the Japanese government of that time. Is there any possibility that they would try to acquire the Spanish Philippines as southern extension of Taiwan?
 
Overall the likelyhood of a real prolonged war is low IMHO. Probably the whole thing starts with an overeager captain and the exchange of naval gunfire. Sinking one ship or three, but soon cooler heads will start negotiating a compromise.

The long term consequences might be more serious. The US might realize it will need a real "navy" so naval shipbuilding will increase.

Teh affair falls in a time where conflict (colonial) with Russia and France is a greater threat than one with Germany. IN addition a future conflicht US/Spain will only confirm the British side of US intentions to challenge Bruiitains position.

I think the logicla outcome will be an Anglo-German treaty (support each other in "colonial matters") and an Anglo Japanese treaty (just like OTL).

This of course will likely prevent the formatioon of the Entente (maybe) and also make better relations between UK and Russia more difficult.

BUt UK being NOT in the French camp might prevent the 1914 crisis (if it happens) virulent.
 
I've seen this POD called 'the whale and the wolf' scenario, since the UK seems to have all the advantages at sea while the US has a lot better logistical setup on land (internal communication lines, fairly dense railroad net, a big population which is right there, not having to bring in troops from a widespread colonial empire, etc.)... it seems to boil down to if the UK can turn it's naval advantage into any kind of advantage on land; the big problem for them is limited logistics in Canada...
 
The classic whale vs. the wolf scenario.

The British lack the manpower and infrastructure to threaten the USA in North America. While they have a great many resources they could throw into a war, they face the same issue every global superpower does, that they spread those manpower and resources globally with a number of threats and rivals keeping them from tossing too many of them into one theater.

Long story short, the British could on paper make this war very painful for the USA, but only if they're willing to make it very painful for themselves elsewhere. London is not going to trade Cape Town or Bombay for Seattle or Boston for the take of Toronto.

Thus, they are left to dealing the USA some painful body blows, but are held back from dishing out anything close to a knockout.

The Americans have a colossal advantage in North America in terms of everything from manpower to railroads, and are more than capable of overrunning damned near the whole of Canada without more than token resistance.

Sorry Canadian posters who always say that Canada somehow beats back the Americans like a hockey-playing Vietnam. A country of 5 million people, most of which is barely settled farmland, is not fending of an industrial militarized nation of 80 million that is on the other end of the border.

Outside of North America though, the USA likely kind bring too much against Britain, especially the farther you get from North America. US Marines flying the Stars and Stripes over Parliament is as absurd as the Redcoats taking New York.

Thus, while the USA is more than capable of swatting aside anything standing in their way in North America, they lack the ability or capability to do much to the British Empire at large.

Here's the kicker though - both sides of the conflict, Americans and British alike, have heavy commercial interests on both sides of the conflict. No matter how loudly the warhawks may scream in DC and London, the tycoons and the merchants will scream just as loudly to end it quickly.

Thus, rather than a stunning victory for either side, the war likely ends in the two coming to an impasse.

The USA likely is ceded some less important chunks of Canada, likely the underpopulated Western and Northern bits, in exchange for damages and some trade concessions being given to Britain. Both sides get to claim victory at very little cost to themselves, and the only real losers are Canadian nationalists.

The impact on North America might be interesting too.

The USA has more frontier on the home front to settle and carve states from - I see the future American prairie states taking a much different shape than the OTL Canadian provinces. Smaller certainly, the size of the Dakotas rather than Texas. Alaska will be connected to the lower 48, which will have an impact on regional settlement, especially with the Yukon and Alaskan gold rushes ready to start soon. The Wild West may be closed, but the Great White North beckons.

What's left of Canada is likely going to be hewed to Britain's hip - my money is on the British divided what's left into two or three dominions, which could take any number of eventual shapes. In a few decades, the nations that come from them could be very interesting as they take shape - hell, maybe they'll end up directly integrated into Britain rather than independant?

From there, I imagine things go mostly ala OTL. The Anglo-American war of 1896 being remembered largely as "a lover's quarrel" in the Special Relationship, meriting a few paragraphs in American in British textbooks explaining how North America got its eventual borders.

Meanwhile, people on this website will wonder what might have been had a single transcontinental Canada survived had the war been averted, sparking furious debate from the site's Gaelic speaking Acadian members, Quebeci nationalists and Americans from Vancouver and Edmonton over the idea's merits or absurdities. :p
 
Additionally, I will leave this here: Half of the population of Canada live in the red strip. It is an current map, but in 1895 it will have been not too different, I guess.
5080bfd6-a345-4e8b-98b1-e6a97985a16b.jpg
 
Additionally, I will leave this here: Half of the population of Canada live in the red strip. It is an current map, but in 1895 it will have been not too different, I guess.
5080bfd6-a345-4e8b-98b1-e6a97985a16b.jpg

Yup. It's why I reckon the whole of Western Canada, a good chunk of which hadn't even been settled enough to carve provinces out of yet, is on the chopping block at the peace tables.
 
Another factor of this is that its very unlikely to stay as a purely "UKvsUS" conflict. The Germans, as mentioned in the OP, are gonna want something (though for what reason God only knows) from Venezuela, so they'll jump in, and then the French are gonna want to contain Germany, which will activate the Franco-Russian Alliance.

It very much could turn into WWI, with England, Germany, and maybe Austria vs the USA, France, and Russie. What happenes from there is anyone's guess.
 
Another factor of this is that its very unlikely to stay as a purely "UKvsUS" conflict. The Germans, as mentioned in the OP, are gonna want something (though for what reason God only knows) from Venezuela, so they'll jump in, and then the French are gonna want to contain Germany, which will activate the Franco-Russian Alliance.

It very much could turn into WWI, with England, Germany, and maybe Austria vs the USA, France, and Russie. What happenes from there is anyone's guess.

I feel that this is overstating the triggerhappiness of even Wilhelm II. 1895 is not 1914, when the Prussian elites felt that they needed a short, victorious war or be pushed away by the growing SPD.

The most plausible I can see is that Germany tacitly offers it diplomatic support to whoever agrees to leave all of Samoa to German influence and push the third power (ie either UK or US) out.
 
I feel that this is overstating the triggerhappiness of even Wilhelm II. 1895 is not 1914, when the Prussian elites felt that they needed a short, victorious war or be pushed away by the growing SPD.

Agreed; plus, Germany felt like it needed a war in 1914 because it felt that it could still win such a war in 1914, as opposed to after the planned completion of Russia's Great Military Program in 1917.

The most plausible I can see is that Germany tacitly offers it diplomatic support to whoever agrees to leave all of Samoa to German influence and push the third power (ie either UK or US) out.

Agreed.
 
Top