With a POD after 1800, have there be no canal completed between the Gulf of Mexico/Caribbean and the Pacific by the year 2000.
Wouldn't that invite the same sort of gunboat diplomacy that was used in securing the zone OTL, though?However, maybe if the Americas were heavily Balkanized to the point where most nations would be small city states, as well as made more hostile to the European powers, then maybe it could work..
Wouldn't that invite the same sort of gunboat diplomacy that was used in securing the zone OTL, though?
I'd think the reverse might be a better option: let's say Nicaragua & Panama (& any other third-choice sites) become and remain heavily contested between the military giants of Mexico and Gran Colombia, and neither wants to shoulder the expense of building a canal when it might readily be lost to the other.
Global death plague.
It's still possible because this is a little while before germ theory.
Black Death equivalent might well set things back a LOT. There'd be a lot less pressure to settle new lands, for instance, if Europe wasn't over populated, and there'd be less demand for global trade, tea or what have you. And the resources to send machinery all the way to the isthmus, as well as providing and supporting that many labourers would be difficult.But a plague so devastating to as to prevent it for the entire 200+ year period of the POD? Not even the Black Death was that nasty.
A Black Death sized plague reduces Europe's population by a third. For comparison, Britain's growth between 1800 and 1900 OTL is from 16 million to 41.1 million.Black Death equivalent might well set things back a LOT. There'd be a lot less pressure to settle new lands, for instance, if Europe wasn't over populated, and there'd be less demand for global trade, tea or what have you. And the resources to send machinery all the way to the isthmus, as well as providing and supporting that many labourers would be difficult.
I'll admit a Black Death sized plague would likely result in a postponement of the canal by ... 50 years, say, but 100 should be possible.
Something rather nastier than the Black Death would work better.
I will admit THAT isn't ASB, although rather unlikely. I didn't think of a modern plague, myself.
But as hlovell said, you'd need an apocalyptic event. Something worse than Black Death ought to qualify.
why everybody think its ASB without massive disaster ? Panama Canal is very costly, both in money and human cost, and it always threatened by landslide after rain. small scale disaster (malaria/yellow fever outbreak; massive landslide that buries large part of canal, political instability in Panama) will be enough to stop US building Panama Canal. The French already failed before. Re-working Panama Canal after it failed, or relocate it to Nicaragua or Mexico will have same problem; that area is very prone to political problem, malaria and landslide. After two or three project ended in failure, support will evaporate, no investor will put money in project with several proven failure, and voters would think it waste of money.
I can't see this happening. A USA that had taken far more casualties and been more generally devastated by the war would most likely be one that's far less casualty-averse and far more willing to act in its own interests: in short, one willing to tell Edward Teller "here's your 300 bombs and the route we want, go nuts."Then, WWI comes along. The USA either continues putting off the project after the war, or tries to pick up where it left off in the 1920s. Either way, the Great Depression prevents it from happening in the 1930s. World War II lasts longer and is more devastating than OTL and the post-war period prevent it from being carried out in the 1950s.
Didn't that involve the annexation of the empires most valuable lands in Poland, Caucasia, the Baltic, and the Black Sea?And it's not even the fastest growing country in Europe. Russia has grown from 37 million to 135.6 million in the course of the century.
I thought armored diplomacy scenario could work.
why everybody think its ASB without massive disaster ? Panama Canal is very costly, both in money and human cost, and it always threatened by landslide after rain. small scale disaster (malaria/yellow fever outbreak; massive landslide that buries large part of canal, political instability in Panama) will be enough to stop US building Panama Canal. The French already failed before. Re-working Panama Canal after it failed, or relocate it to Nicaragua or Mexico will have same problem; that area is very prone to political problem, malaria and landslide. After two or three project ended in failure, support will evaporate, no investor will put money in project with several proven failure, and voters would think it waste of money.