America Surrenders

Your challenge if you choose to accept it is to make the United States of America formally surrender to another country. You can use any pod as long as it is not before 1900. No white peace or simple ceasefire is allowed. The USA must come out the clear losing side the same way Imperial Germany or Japan in WWII surrendered for example.

You have over 100 years to work with so this gives plenty of opportunities for creativity. America might be too strong to be beaten by one power but a massive coalition is another story.
 
I have an idea. Civil war emerges in USA in the time of great depression(which is even worse than in OTL). America gets through a rough civil 10 years lasting war, only to become fascist and a lot weakened. Britain, Canada and Mexican forces together attack and defeat them after they go on a beligerent spree. These forces are also supported by local resistance movements.
 
The surrender of Imperial Germany is a lot different to that of Japan and Germany in WW2. I wouldn't think it was ASB for the US to lose in a war and surrender some peripheral territory, suffer some peripheral occupation for a reasonably short period, have crippling indemnities and military restrictions for about a decade or so.

I'd say the first prerequisite would be for the US not to enter WW1 and send major combat forces to Europe. WW1 was a vital learning experience for the US and without it the US will be well behind the military development of virtually every other power.

The second prerequisite would be a WW1 that creates superpowers, so a victorious Germany, a revanchist Russia without OTLs postwar clusterfuck and a strategic union of France and Britain ostensibly aimed at Germany but useful elsewhere.

This could create a situation whereby a powerful and militarily vastly superior (in size and quality) coalition could be formed to attack the US and thoroughly defeat the Armed force in the field. This could result in the loss of territories such as Hawaii, Alaska, Phillipines and perhaps border areas of CONUS in a peace settlement. Much like Imperial Germany the US could sue for peace before the victorious enemy started to really penetrate into the interior with the US powerless to stop them.
 
The surrender of Imperial Germany is a lot different to that of Japan and Germany in WW2. I wouldn't think it was ASB for the US to lose in a war and surrender some peripheral territory, suffer some peripheral occupation for a reasonably short period, have crippling indemnities and military restrictions for about a decade or so.

I'd say the first prerequisite would be for the US not to enter WW1 and send major combat forces to Europe. WW1 was a vital learning experience for the US and without it the US will be well behind the military development of virtually every other power.

The second prerequisite would be a WW1 that creates superpowers, so a victorious Germany, a revanchist Russia without OTLs postwar clusterfuck and a strategic union of France and Britain ostensibly aimed at Germany but useful elsewhere.

This could create a situation whereby a powerful and militarily vastly superior (in size and quality) coalition could be formed to attack the US and thoroughly defeat the Armed force in the field. This could result in the loss of territories such as Hawaii, Alaska, Phillipines and perhaps border areas of CONUS in a peace settlement. Much like Imperial Germany the US could sue for peace before the victorious enemy started to really penetrate into the interior with the US powerless to stop them.

Yeah, but what incentive do said superpowers have to attack America? America was a massive trade partner with Europe (and really the whole world). Attacking them means abandoning that trade. It's not like the Americans were warmongers looking for trouble in Europe either...
 
Yeah, but what incentive do said superpowers have to attack America? America was a massive trade partner with Europe (and really the whole world). Attacking them means abandoning that trade. It's not like the Americans were warmongers looking for trouble in Europe either...

I'm not going to suggest a scenario, for starters the WW1 is so different to OTL that any alliance or scenario will be seriously different than OTL. I'm just positing that it is possible for a power bloc to form that could take advantage of American military weakness to defeat it in the field and carve off a few chunks like OTL Imperial Germany.

However I will point out that economic ties are the weakest and the least likely to prevent war. Indeed looking at how economic ties lead to vulnerabilities that countries exploit for political gain, like the US oil embargo to Japan in 1941, I'd say America being a trading partner could make war more likely.
 
1812 - the UK forces its hand despite the war with Napoleon, and seizes much US territory. The US surrenders, and the UK regains control over much of the Eastern Seaboard, with terms imposed upon the USA in consequence. The USA may also have a Revolution II, though after Napoleon is defeated (which perhaps was inevitable) the UK has more resources to contain the Americans, and there is no France nor other strong enemy to provide assistance this time around.

1861-1865 - the Union loses, but is permitted the right to remain sovereign. However, the CSA takes all land west of the Missisippi, and what are now Kansas, Iowa, even Wyoming and California are slave states. The CSA limits slavery and abolishes it, but enforces a low wage indentured model to have a sustained workforce in its factories. It realises that millions of slaves in fields is not viable in the long-term, though doesn't enact full freedom as the USA did in the real world.
 
Your challenge if you choose to accept it is to make the United States of America formally surrender to another country. You can use any pod as long as it is not before 1900. No white peace or simple ceasefire is allowed. The USA must come out the clear losing side the same way Imperial Germany or Japan in WWII surrendered for example.

You have over 100 years to work with so this gives plenty of opportunities for creativity. America might be too strong to be beaten by one power but a massive coalition is another story.

Well Japan or the Soviet Union(the best candidates) don't need nuclear weapons perse, biological and chemical warfare on a large scale can bring the USA to its knees too. Every country can be starved into submission. Plus, despite how powerful the USA is they cant take on the whole world militarily. If you have a Napoleon or Hitler emerge in the USA and the world turns on them eventually they are going down. Unconditionally if need be.
 

Sideways

Donor
Only scenario I can think of is a nuclear war and even then there'd be no US left to surrender.

Nuclear War doesn't necessarily mean the US is destroyed utterly. You could just about have a nuclear war up to the 80s that didn't destroy the US utterly. Though enough of the USSR would have been destroyed in the 80s that they probably wouldn't be able to make the USA surrender.

The best bet would be a nuclear war in the 60s. Maybe Hitler dies in around 1943, D-Day fails and Germany does better against the USA and UK. The USSR takes more territory, and there's a socialist France, Italy, and eventually Spain. Turkey is forced to be more neutral, and Israel never gets started. By the late fifties/early sixties, the USA doesn't have many good places to attack the main areas of the USSR, but the USSR has bases in Cuba. Nuclear War destroys most of the main US cities, and protestors somewhat backed by the USSR overthrow the government.
 
Yeah, but what incentive do said superpowers have to attack America? America was a massive trade partner with Europe (and really the whole world). Attacking them means abandoning that trade. It's not like the Americans were warmongers looking for trouble in Europe either...

It will probably have to include some element of chemicals, biologicals, nuclear weapons and surprise and blunder. However, having said this, the Motive is easy. Anyone who wants to dominate the rest need to bring diwn the US.

A simple POD, have Otto Hahn have a soviet collaborator and not a western one.
 
1812 - the UK forces its hand despite the war with Napoleon, and seizes much US territory. The US surrenders, and the UK regains control over much of the Eastern Seaboard, with terms imposed upon the USA in consequence. The USA may also have a Revolution II, though after Napoleon is defeated (which perhaps was inevitable) the UK has more resources to contain the Americans, and there is no France nor other strong enemy to provide assistance this time around.

1861-1865 - the Union loses, but is permitted the right to remain sovereign. However, the CSA takes all land west of the Missisippi, and what are now Kansas, Iowa, even Wyoming and California are slave states. The CSA limits slavery and abolishes it, but enforces a low wage indentured model to have a sustained workforce in its factories. It realises that millions of slaves in fields is not viable in the long-term, though doesn't enact full freedom as the USA did in the real world.

OP said pod isn't to extend before 1900, making this... Difficult
 
Top