American Australia Or New Zealand/British(Canadian) Alaska and Greenland

This is a thought that has bothered me for some time,weather or not Australia or New Zealand could have come under control of the United States from their former British masters..and inspiration from another thread,if taking the right moment..the British could have bought or annexed Russian America(Alaska) from the Czar.

If we are to look at it from the Australia point of view,I sort of think that Western Australia could have joined the USA. They were hesitant to join the Federation of Australia,and even almost voted to break away soon after they joined.

I think most likely that New Zealand could have joined the USA,not that far from Hawaii..and United States ships were off the coast as soon as 1790. Perhaps the Americans could have instigated rebellion among the Maori,and a promise of fair representation in the United States.

Perhaps the most realistic view would be a British,or later on..Canadian Alaska. Think about it,that lone piece of USA all the way up north..it does seem a bit out of place. Perhaps the British could have seized it as a spoil of war,or just bought it before the Americans have.

If they did,Canada would be much richer..due to the oil reserves and resources there..added to that,I even remember a friend telling me once that there was a British claim to the northwestern part of Greenland..the portion that ran along British North America. With Denmark,or rather Norway's inability to defend the continent..could it have been taken into British..later Canadian hands?
 
Can't figure out why the Americans would be better towards the Maori than they were towards the Native Americans.

Can't honestly see the Australians, or even a portion of them, wanting to join the US. Their representation in the Congress would be horrible because of the distance. Independence as a seperate county, more than likely dependent upon the British for defense, is more reasonable.
 
If we are to look at it from the Australia point of view,I sort of think that Western Australia could have joined the USA. They were hesitant to join the Federation of Australia,and even almost voted to break away soon after they joined.

I think most likely that New Zealand could have joined the USA,not that far from Hawaii..and United States ships were off the coast as soon as 1790. Perhaps the Americans could have instigated rebellion among the Maori,and a promise of fair representation in the United States.

I think you're ignoring the reasons behind this stuff. Western Australia almost didn't join Australia because of issues over losing control of their governance and economy. They wanted things like the ability to keep their own tarriffs high, not to lose influence to a remote government, etc. Joining the USA doesn't solve these problems, it makes them worse. Western Australia wanted independence, not being a remote and unimportant part of a bigger nation.

As for New Zealand - US ships were sailing around New Zealand, sure, but in 1790 the US was really in no position to be trying to interfere in the Pacific. It was still about 60 years from even having an established Pacific coastline at this point. And a promise of fair representation in the US again just doesn't cut the mustard - the Maori arguably never pressed hard against British rule because the British left them to their own devices, largely (the actions of the colonists themselves is a different issue, and the UK was not in favour of the colonists' actions). Unlike the (cited) reasons behind the Declaration of Independence, the Maoris (and most other peoples) did not operate on the same standards. They didn't care about having representation anywhere else. They wanted the right to run their own affairs and didn't want other countries butting in. Offering the Maori fair representation would be an insult, and the diplomats would probably be escorted off Maori land instantly, for offering such a deal. It would be a bit like going to an African country, now or then, and saying "our country is more advanced - submit to our rule and we'll reorganise your government a bit better" or something - sure, there's an admitted advantage, but it is grossly outweighed by the fact that handing over sovereignty is in 99% of cases a negative action for a country. If the US wanted to take over New Zealand it would probably have to do something akin to Hawaii and launch a coup d'etat to take over control of the islands (harder to do as the Maori were not a single national entity but numerous independent tribes). You'd also then get the British on the Americans' backs at a point when the Americans really were in no position to face off against the British again. After all, it was only a few decades later that the British helped the Maori to author a document which declared them a sovereign nation, a move designed to prevent other countries from exploiting the land as a potential conquest.

I have to say I really think these two suggestions are a little far-flung. Also, I'm not sure about whether the British would really take the stance of "we want this, so we'll take it" over Greenland. Alaska is a more balanced issue, but there are still questions over it.
 
So it's impossible,to a extent for Australia or New Zealand to join the USA? Well,I can imagine some would think that. But what about Alaska and Greenland being part of Canada? I would like some points to be brought up,realistic as possible..
 
...,I even remember a friend telling me once that there was a British claim to the northwestern part of
Greenland..the portion that ran along British North America. With Denmark,or rather Norway's inability to defend the continent..could it have been taken into British..later Canadian hands?


Hearsay, eh???
When would this claim have been posed?

Actually nobody did anything about northwest Greenland until the establishing of the private colony by Knud Rasmussen in 1913 - Danish government not really wanting to do anything about and were reluctant to have it handed over in 1937.
There had been US activity in the area before 1913 by expeditions like Peary but no claim.
 
The US prepared plans to invade New Zealand (as a stepping stone to an eventual invasion of Australia) in the early 20th century. See for example - http://www.geekzone.co.nz/juha/862

So how about an alt-WW1 with Britain and Japan in the Central Powers, and the US in the Entente:

- Most of the US fleet is in the Pacific, and so NZ is conquered, and some enclaves in Oz too, as well as some of the German Pacific islands. The Japanese mostly concentrate on fighting Russia (and seize the Maritime province).

- The British fleet is mostly in the Atlantic, and they occupy Iceland and Greenland to secure their lines of communication to Canada, which are essential to supplying reinforcements to halt the American land invasion. The British fleet also bombard the East Coast US cities.

The war starts to wind down after it becomes clear that the cost to nearly every major combatant is too high (they have all lost territories). At the ceasefire Britain keeps Greenland, Iceland becomes independent from Denmark but under British protection, annd the US keeps NZ, Brisbane, and the German Pacific islands.

(BTW, why not enjoy a present day invasion of NZ - see http://www.invadenewzealand.com/ )
 
Pre-1900 there is effectively zero possibility of having Australia or New Zealand be part of the USA. US forces just couldn't reach them in sufficient numbers to take them from the UK, especially since any US-UK war wouldn't have just been confined to the South Pacific. And without a US-UK war I don't see how Australia and New Zealand could have been absorbed by the US - even if the UK hadn't claimed them, another European power would have.

Post 1900 there is also zero possibility, but more because by then both NEw Zealand and Australia had emerging national identities and it would have been hard for USA to break this. Also, prior to WW1 it would have been very difficult for the USN to reach the South Pacific due to its limited logistical capability. (Yes I know about the 'Great White Fleet's' circumnavigation of the globe in 1907 but without British logistical support that would have been impossible)

UK absorbing Alaska and Greenland however is p[ossible, although I see no reason for them to do it. I suppose you could have an American Front during the Crimean war which ends with Britain taking Alaska, even if little actual fighting took place.

I can see southern Greenland being absorbed, maybe during the Napoleonic wars as a stop over for the crossing of the North Atlantic, but there's no reason for the UK to go after Northern Greenland
 
You have to understand that NZ Europeans were, prior to WW1 really pro Empire and Greater Britain, they by all accounts didn't really see themselves as a separate nation or group, more a branch of a bigger tree. Also I vaguely remember reading somewhere that locally born settlers outnumbered British born settlers in NZ by 1880 (possibly earlier too).

So I would find it pretty damm unlikely that they would easily consent to foreign (non British) control, even if those foreigners spoke English and were familar to them.

You would need to go back before 1850 for a POD at the very latest, after that point Settler numbers/interest from NSW would be too strong to overcome. You would probably need to go back before 1840 or even really 1835
 
Top