AHC:Third War Between Great Britain and the United States

Last edited:
As it turns out, there is some heavy oil in the Amacurao region that was part of the disputed area between Venezuela and British Guiana in 1894. IOTL, it didn't get discovered until a lot later, but ITTL, it gets discovered before Maracaibo oil does and John D. Rockefeller gets the rights to it. Only those rights are in jeopardy if the territory is part of British Guiana. That heats the dispute up to the point of war with the UK.

Heavy oil never really becomes a thing until much later in the 20th century, it's way cheaper/easier to just use lighter oil than trying to fool around with the heavy stuff. The price oil needs to be much higher before it's economically viable.
 
Really tough.

By 1870, the LAST thing Britain wanted was a continental rival in the Americas. The US had surpassed Britain economically by then, and by 1872 the UK was facing the reality of a United Germany in Europe.

1. The US and Britain enjoyed extensive, mutually profitable economic ties.
2. The US and Britain had commonality of language and - somewhat - of culture.
3. The last time they fought - 1812 - they had damaged each other badly for no appreciable gain. This would be worse in any new go-round.
4. They have no disputes from 1870-1914. The US is (mostly) isolationist. Britain is concerned with:
A. Maintaining the Concert of Europe
B. Forestalling the rise of a single dominant European power
C. Keeping the Russians from a warm-water port
D. Maintaining the British Empire
E. Defending the global trading network

Of those five points, the US has no real interest in points A - D (although it would be more inclined towards the British on all of them except D) and is in enthusiastic, active agreement with Britain on E.

People mention the Venezuela/Guyana thing in 1896. This was barely even a footnote at the time; you need serious screwage to make a war of it.

The real goal of this thread is to fight a war between Britain and America and have a fun discussion of the relative merits of both sides' predreadnaughts. While I don't dispute the fun of that, it is implausible. Neither Britain nor America planned to fight a war with the other, and the force structures and deployments of both powers reflect that. If the United States had seriously believed a war with the UK was possible, it would have a much larger army in 1876, and it would have been deployed far differently, for example. The British would have had a much bigger naval base at Halifax, etc. Plus, of course, this doesn't happen in a vacuum; how do other major powers react, are there two sides, etc.

And of course there is the inevitable nationalist chest-thumping that this discussion would generate on this board.

Mike Turcotte
 
With a post-1870 POD, this is pretty hard to make happen without some major political changes in both the USA and Britain. I'd go out on a very flimsy limb and posit the remote possibility that if Germany never instituted unrestricted submarine warfare in 1914-1918, the British blockade of Germany could have created a causus belli between the US and Britain if it resulted in the excessive stopping of US shipping and\or any damage to US property and trade. Until the 1915 Lusitania affair, US sentiment in the Great War was largely split, with significant powerful ethnic minorities (Irish, German) strongly anti-British. With the right combination of British arrogance and stupidy mixed in with American jingoism, It might be remotely possible to see some sort of undeclared naval war break out between the US and Britain over the illegal searches and seizure of US shipping/cargoes attempting to trade with the Central Powers. If such a conflict occurred, I suspect it would be a short-term bilateral affair settled by negotiation outside of the broader Great War alliance structure. It's almost impossible to imagine the USA actually joining the war on the side of autocratic Germany against democratic Britain and France.
 
It's a very difficult challenge. Britain knows that in case of war with the United States, the important areas of Canada could be overrun. The US coastline is too big for an effective blockade, and the US is almost autarkic in this period anyway. Furthermore, the chances are slim that Britain could force any peace on the US. The US is no longer the weak, lowly populated country it once was. Furthermore, cementing the US as an enemy is a strategic nightmare given Britain's rivals in Europe. This is why Britain historically choose to appease the US in any disputes since US demands were generally moderate anyway.

Something would need to seriously go wrong to put people in London and Washington who would be willing to risk war.

I can't think of any direct involvement. It may be possible to cause a war by an indirect POD. Say an equivalent Great War happens in the 1890s instead of 1914. We might see a different alliance system that might suck in the US opposite of the British. Especially if Britain and France end up in the opposite sides, the US might be more sympathetic to France than Britain.
 

Kaptin Kurk

Banned
Maybe something in the Far East. Suppose Japan Collapse, and Britain tries to move in, and is opposed by an young American officer who get's killed at British hands. this is the type of freak thing that could lead to both sides feeling their oats and becoming more aggressive....
 
The thing that interests me the most about an anglo-american conflict isn't the war itself, its the change in relations after such a war. Especially if it gets really ugly in the 1890's with the US hitting inland Canada and the RN really damaging/blockading US ports for a time. I can see such a conflict fizzling out with either the US losing land to Canada out west and having Maine get redrawn or Canada losing virtually all claims to everything west of the Great Lakes along with some other losses. Obviously depends on who 'wins'.

While I can see the war in Canada getting ugly, beyond that I don't see where any major battles would be fought. By the time the British can raise the logistics and forces needed to land on the east coast of the US, the US will have raised a titanic force (though I think it will primarily be Militia, albeit much better Militia compared to the war of 1812).

I am more interested in what happens during WW1 with the US and GB being further apart. At minimum I can see the US staying neutral in WW1 and at maximum I can see the US either trying to retake the lost territories in the 1890's anglo-american war along with a fresh hunk of Canada or trying to finish off Canada once and for all. That is a really interesting war, as depending on US entry, the US might actually have a pretty decent navy.
 
Okay; have William Jennings Bryan get elected in 1896 (this may take an earlier POD, but so bed it). Bryan, in OTL, was a hardfast supporter of the Boers. in the ATL, as President, he stokes anti-Britain sentiment (which would play well to the Democratic base, especially the German and Irish vote) and encourages volunteers to assist the sufering Boers. After an American merchant ship is sunk, the United States officially declares war.

Not sure which way this war would go. Although the US would be at war, mainly, to protect the Boers, it is going to be difficult to sustain naval intervention in Africa as the American fleet is fairly weak. This would lend itself to a war based mainly in Canada, I would think.

I could see, when its all said and done, the Boers still falling udner British influence, but the Americans 'buying' the Maritimes for Britain.
 

Dirk_Pitt

Banned
I think WWI is a nice PoD. If Germany, when it stopped USW when asked by the US, actually stopped permanently(i.e. if Ol' Willy had a brain instead of a Kaiser roll up there:eek:) and Britain was a bit more foolish and continued attacking US shipping, you could have an analogy of the Napoleonic Wars and with the much stronger US Navy and the German submarine fleet, the Royal Navy will naturally have a much more difficult time of it. Bare in mind I know little of Naval matters.
 
I really struggle to see this happening. By 1870, both countries had governments responsible to broad franchises of the population. I can't see politicians chosen by the British electorate being willing to do something obnoxious enough that politician chosen by the American electorate would be willing to go to war over. They wouldn't be willing to endlessly attack American ships in the way the Germans did. Even if you could somehow get to a war over Hawaii or somesuch, it will be a limited skirmish.
 
Why on earth would the fact that they're responsible to a broad franchise make them less likely to do something along the lines of what the Germans did in WWI, assuming similar motives?
 
One interesting idea is greater British involvement in the civil war followed by a series of diplomatic issues and other events over the next 20 years. Eventually leading to war. The thing that needs to happen is the 'special relationship' needs to be tattered over a period of time. I feel like war between GB and the USA will be started because of a match dropped on a powder keg full of minor issues, not a single sudden big issue.

Imagine war in 1903 or something like that with Teddy Roosevelt in the lead. Can anyone give some comment on the state of the USN by that point? I know it sucked up until the Spanish American war and by 1903 the US navy was rapidly expanding, but I don't know how many ships it had relative to the Royal Navy.
 
In 1900, we have the following tonnage wise, which is an imprecise guide but its something: Britain (1,065,000 tons), France (499,000 tons)), Russia (383,000 tons), United States (333,000 tons), Germany (285,000).

But if relations between the US and Great Britain have been cool for some time before, I doubt OTL figures are going to be very useful.
 
Yeah I feel as though the US would have started expanding its fleet a LOT earlier if it had poor relations with the RN. I could see tonnage being way higher, possibly at French levels. Another thing to consider is brown-water or littoral navy forces (coastal ships) that the US might want to field. That could also add some greater tonnage, though it would be entirely defensive unless fighting on the Canadian coast or if Mexico sees an opportunity to attack the US.
 
Top