AHC the USA has a state on all hatibale continets

Probably not. But is it possible the US would see it in some ways like Liberia? Liberia was basically treated as a way to get rid of emancipated African Americans. In the same way they might colonise the territory by sending over Catholics from Maryland, Texas, Florida, New Mexico etc.
That's a reasonable idea, but the main problem is that the Irish are already quite civilized, and, in OTL Liberia never became a state.
 

Morty Vicar

Banned
That's a reasonable idea, but the main problem is that the Irish are already quite civilized, and, in OTL Liberia never became a state.

I didn't mean they would send people to civilise the Irish (though it couldn't hurt :p jk) - it was more so they'd have a more pro-US population, and also useful for raising an army there if need be. But you're right that in both cases its hard to go from there to full statehood.
 
I didn't mean they would send people to civilise the Irish (though it couldn't hurt :p jk) - it was more so they'd have a more pro-US population, and also useful for raising an army there if need be. But you're right that in both cases its hard to go from there to full statehood.
I think it would piss off the Irish, and Catholics in general, if Catholics were sent to Ireland.
 

Morty Vicar

Banned
I think it would piss off the Irish, and Catholics in general, if Catholics were sent to Ireland.

Probably, but it's possible the Irish Catholics at the time might welcome a boost in the numbers of Catholics. 'Send' is probably the wrong implication, they would be encouraged to move there voluntarily as in Liberia, perhaps even motivated by financial rewards. There would be some tensions if they were sending in Hispanic Americans maybe, but I think Irish expats might be welcomed.
 

And very rapidly leaves a Europe would be quite unwilling to ally with post-war, since it would then be aggessive conquest of an independent nation, which (until 1944) was part of the the Danish Commonwealth, and really had no interest in being part of the war one way or another.

What "Europe" are you speaking about in 1945-50? Britain? France? All the other nations who feared Soviet expansion and needed US Marshall Plan Aid? What "aggresive conquest?" The wartime US occupation of Iceland was peaceful and happened because Denmark was occupied by the Nazis and it was requested by Britain (who had occupied it earlier). There is no reason to automatically presume Icelanders would rebel if this occupation kept on going if it was benign. Frankly, I think this would have little effect on the establishment of NATO, especially if the US occupation transitioned over many years to a territorial status and eventual statehood. Western Europe felt it needed US support, both to protect itself from the Soviets and to help keep Germany down - and eventually co-opting Germany within an alliance that it could never domnate...one dominated by the US. This is highly unlikely, I agree, but not for the reasons you posit. And it's probably the most probable US state in Europe (yes, Iceland is considered part of Europe) from a geographical and strategic perspective.
 
Europe? Early WWIII, US gets its hair mussed, Europe is wrecked. US occupation of the ruins eventually leads to badly depopulated Ireland/Scotland/England/whatever becoming part of the US.
 
Africa: Buy St. Helena from Britain during or immediately after WWII. Or go to war with the UK in the 1930s/40s, win, take St. Helena.
Asia: OTL. (Guam)
Europe: Take Elba from Italy during WWII and keep it as a base. Or go to war with the UK in the 1930s/40s, win, take the Isle of Man.
North America: OTL. (Puerto Rico)
South America: The US takes Guyana from Vichy France during WWII and never gives it back. Or go to war with the UK in the 1930s/40s, win, take the Falklands.
Oceania: Just buy an island from the UK. Or go to war with the UK in 1930s/40s, win, take Fiji.
 
Asia and Oceania: It's been proposed OTL that a state be formed out of US possessions in the Pacific; for example, the Governor of Guam fairly recently mulled over reunifying with the Northern Marianas and petitioning to be admitted as the 51st state. A state that incorporated all territories the US had OTL (such as those two, American Samoa, Palau, etc.) could count for both continents, or could be admitted as two states. (Alternatively, they could be admitted as part of "Greater Hawaii," also proposed OTL.)

South America: In 1938, Édouard Daladier proposed transferring French possessions in the Caribbean and Pacific, possibly including French Guiana, to the United States in return for the unlimited right to buy US aircraft on credit. While this would be problematic to get through the French parliament, it would leave the US with a potentially state-sized territory in South America if it went through.

Alternatively, the other Guyana has a sizable statehood movement, and allegedly a third of Guyanese people live in the US. This could be acted upon by a sufficiently expansion-minded US leadership.

Europe: Sicily had a somewhat significant statehood movement immediately following WWII; it probably wouldn't have amounted to much on its own but could have been helped along by a sufficiently terrible situation on the mainland that wouldn't require the US to instead prop up a fictional "Sicilian government of Italy." Maybe the US negotiates a more limited peace with Fascist Italy, and leaves an intact government that is seen as legitimate but no friend of the US or the USSR.

Africa: A Liberia that never formally declares independence could fit this model, especially if Liberia becomes surrounded by post-colonial states that end up being hostile to the Americo-Liberian upper class. A petition for statehood could guarantee a degree of security, and could concievably be accepted by Congress if Liberia was significant enough.
 

U.S David

Banned
I always wanted to do a timeline where the US and British go to war in the 20s

The Americans win, and annex the empire
 
I always wanted to do a timeline where the US and British go to war in the 20s

The Americans win, and annex the empire

First of all, that is incredibly, incredibly implausible. Second, annex? If this is in the 1920's, the USA does not have the capability to hold down the UK and make its population consent to living under the US.
 
First of all, that is incredibly, incredibly implausible. Second, annex? If this is in the 1920's, the USA does not have the capability to hold down the UK and make its population consent to living under the US.

He never said when the POD is or what the ramifications of the war are at home in Britain.

Republican revolution leading to civil war in the Empire after the monarchy declares war on the US, perhaps? The US defeats the monarchist forces and the republicans reorganize and vote to join the Union.
 

Morty Vicar

Banned
He never said when the POD is or what the ramifications of the war are at home in Britain.

Republican revolution leading to civil war in the Empire after the monarchy declares war on the US, perhaps? The US defeats the monarchist forces and the republicans reorganize and vote to join the Union.

Another POD could be a disastrous WW1, the UK is invaded then the Americans join and occupy the country and its various territories. After the war the UK owes a huge debt to the USA, and cannot afford to maintain the empire, so sells it wholesale to the US.
 

U.S David

Banned
First of all, that is incredibly, incredibly implausible. Second, annex? If this is in the 1920's, the USA does not have the capability to hold down the UK and make its population consent to living under the US.

He never said when the POD is or what the ramifications of the war are at home in Britain.

Republican revolution leading to civil war in the Empire after the monarchy declares war on the US, perhaps? The US defeats the monarchist forces and the republicans reorganize and vote to join the Union.

Another POD could be a disastrous WW1, the UK is invaded then the Americans join and occupy the country and its various territories. After the war the UK owes a huge debt to the USA, and cannot afford to maintain the empire, so sells it wholesale to the US.

The US wouldn't annex the home islands, just demand a united free Ireland

But the rest of the Empire, from the Yukon to New Zealand is now "America"
 

U.S David

Banned
Didn't the US Government actually support the occupation of Northern Ireland?



And everyone is fine and happy with this?
I don't know about the Ireland Part, but other then the Domanions I think most of the population of the empire would be happier under American law. They will be states and equals, not subjects to a British king

Oceania, tis for thee...

We don't have Latin America yet
 
I don't know about the Ireland Part, but other then the Domanions I think most of the population of the empire would be happier under American law.

Do you have any evidence to back this up?

They will be states and equals, not subjects to a British king

You do realize that the king doesn't hold the power in the UK right?


Anyway, because I do not want to derail the thread, I'm thinking that the Philippines could be a potential state if the USA plays its cards right.
 

Morty Vicar

Banned
I don't know about the Ireland Part, but other then the Domanions I think most of the population of the empire would be happier under American law. They will be states and equals, not subjects to a British king

I completely disagree with this. If we're talking about the 20's (or arguably any period up until the present) Britain was much more socially progressive than the USA. Remember that much of the British Empire was made up of non-white people. I won't argue that non-white people in the British Empire (or more accurately non-British people) weren't marginalised or victims of prejudice to some degree, but nothing compared to the USA in the 20's or even right up to the 1960's. There was never any segregation or racial laws in Britain, there may have been widespread prejudice such as signs which said 'no blacks' etc, but this only really started in the 50's and 60's as there was more immigration (encouraged by the UK govt). There was never any segregation, unless you count ghettoisation of jews for example, which was arguably self-imposed rather than enforced by wider society. On the point of the king, by this time the monarchy is purely symbolic. In this scenario they would be more likely to object to being subjects of a US president than a King in name alone. Contrary to popular belief a lot of ex-Empire nations (commonwealth nations) have chosen to retain the Queen as the symbolic head of state long after independence.
 
Top