Can a more aggressive Britain and Spain keeping Mexico (including Louisiana) force the US to employ a standing army?real threats on it's borders? The USA wasn't overly concerned with aggression from Britain/Canada, Spain/Mexico, etc...
Spain and Mexico were pretty much unable to really threaten the US much. Britain, however, was a different story... if the fallout from the ARW and the War of 1812 had been less amicable, the US would have been forced to maintain a standing army. As it was, the US and UK managed to patch up relations after both wars and got along pretty well...Can a more aggressive Britain and Spain keeping Mexico (including Louisiana) force the US to employ a standing army?
If Britain is angry enough that it ensures the US doesn’t get the land east of the Mississippi that it got in the OTL peace deal, America will be surrounded by its hostile mother country on almost all sides—more than enough justification for a standing army.Spain and Mexico were pretty much unable to really threaten the US much. Britain, however, was a different story... if the fallout from the ARW and the War of 1812 had been less amicable, the US would have been forced to maintain a standing army. As it was, the US and UK managed to patch up relations after both wars and got along pretty well...
How would a US with a powerful standing army affect subsequent events, especially WW1 and WW2, if it happens?Spain and Mexico were pretty much unable to really threaten the US much. Britain, however, was a different story... if the fallout from the ARW and the War of 1812 had been less amicable, the US would have been forced to maintain a standing army. As it was, the US and UK managed to patch up relations after both wars and got along pretty well...
Would the US not expanding west of Mississipi be able to become a great power ITTL?If Britain is angry enough that it ensures the US doesn’t get the land east of the Mississippi that it got in the OTL peace deal, America will be surrounded by its hostile mother country on almost all sides—more than enough justification for a standing army.
it really depends on just what is causing this... does the US still expand as it did in OTL, or is it restricted to the Mississippi/eastward?How would a US with a powerful standing army affect subsequent events, especially WW1 and WW2, if it happens?
Maybe not, but that’s not the point of the AHC—the US ITTL is independent and has a standing army. If it manages to defeat Great Britain in an alt-War of 1812 (highly unlikely, but theoretically possible) it could still continue westward expansion if it captures that territory.Would the US not expanding west of Mississipi be able to become a great power ITTL?
Let's say Britain doesn't return the Great Lakes region in 1795 and then absorbs Louisiana during the Napoleonic wars, not letting the US expand west of Mississipi.it really depends on just what is causing this... does the US still expand as it did in OTL, or is it restricted to the Mississippi/eastward?
then the US isn't getting the agricultural basket of the great plains, the oil in TX, the silver in NV, the gold in CA, the ports on the west coast, etc... it's likely to remain forever a middling level power instead of the superpower it became later on... maintaining a standing army won't help it's budget any either. Still, it's likely to be strong enough to be courted by both sides if there is still a WW1 and 2...Let's say Britain doesn't return the Great Lakes region in 1795 and then absorbs Louisiana during the Napoleonic wars, not letting the US expand west of Mississipi.