ASB DWI US owns the world

Saphroneth

Banned
Jeez, you don't ask much do you...


Okay, so.
Basic stuff.

The US economy can get pretty big if it follows the OTL path (basically an economy booming strategy) but maintaining a military eats into that BIG time, being a conquering nation means you have to maintain a military (in the 1890s the European powers are all extremely militarily powerful and a containment war would do terrible things to the US), while the problems with assimilation mean that it's unlikely the US will be able to sustain the raw manpower commitment to hold down conquered populations with any efficiency. (That is, the US will not easily be able to use "first wave annexed" manpower as part of a "second wave" expansion, as it were.)
So if the US starts early it is likely to not get its OTL economic superpower status, or to have it more tightly contested anyway.

Frankly I think that one of the most feasible options may well be that the US manages sole control of nuclear weapons AND has a first-use-expansionist mindset. Keep that up for even a few years and - theoretically, anyway - you could have most other major nations nuked past the point of resistance, at which point it's not a million miles from "clean up at leisure".
 

Saphroneth

Banned
Absent that, there's essentially four or five big problems to handle.

1) The Royal Navy.
The Royal Navy is vast at this time, and is about to get bigger with the invention of the Dreadnought. OTL the two navies (USN, RN)did not achieve parity until after both the Naval Treaties scrapped much of the RN battle line and the RN had had enough time for their war experience to fade somewhat - so unless the Naval Treaties can be forced to take place, the RN is going to have to be sunk the hard way.
2) Russia.
Russia's huge, and while it's quite backward at the PoD it can't be assumed to stay that way. Without WW1 and the Treaty of Brest-Livotsk they'd be even bigger than the USSR of OTL between the wars, and present a formidable opponent to conquer from sheer logistics problems - unlike the US itself most of their good industry isn't in conveniently coastal cities and states.
3) France.
France is kind of a big deal at this time - it's just invented the hydropneumatic recuperator and has a very modern army, as well as a respectable navy (larger than the USN as of PoD.)
4) Germany.
The German army of 1914 is proverbial, and this is due to a continuous trend so it's going to be formidable pretty much whenever you pick. The German economy is also powerful enough to support an impressive navy of its own - in the same league as the Royal Navy, though very much the underdog.
5) Japan.
The Japanese Navy is also pretty tough.

This assumes, of course, that butterflies don't do things like "sort out the problems with China" or otherwise make another Great Power turn up. And once nuclear weapons come in for someone who's not the US they can - not completely, but effectively - say goodbye to any dream of world conquest.
 
If you're going 1898, the thought is this - the U.S. goes for broke in the Spanish-American War. IOTL, Spain was devastated by the loss and lost a whole bunch of territory. If the U.S. runs up the score, it conquers Spain after bleeding them out - and also, all the territory the U.S. took on becomes a permanent part of the nation. This means Cuba and the Philippines especially, with Spain essentially becoming a U.S. territory as well. These would have to be territories, not states, and be semi-autonomous while still paying taxes to the U.S. Sure, it makes America a colossal hypocrite on the whole "taxation without representation" thing, but this can't work if Uncle Sam isn't at least somewhat of a dick.

The taxation pays for the occupation forces, while an improvement in quality of life prevents uprisings. Meanwhile, the U.S. government looks at WWI as a territory grab. It makes gains in the Middle East, all the while snapping up territory where it can - by the 20s it controls a number of waterways, including all of Panama and the Suez. It uses this influence, as well as support of the Mensheviks, to smother the Communist government in Russia before it gets too powerful, effectively destroying communism before the 30s. Yes, it still has its backers, even stateside, but it's seen as a fad, not as a force.

Without a strong government to replace the Tsars, Russia falls apart, and the U.S. puts in a puppet, worming its hands into Russia's government and mobilizing its military. At the time, Hitler isn't viewed as nearly as dangerous as he really was - Russia's job is to snuff out the Japanese, with whom America had long anticipated a war. By 1940, America cuts enough deals to make Russia a U.S. territory - essentially the Russian leadership sees it as, "Go with these guys or collapse." Especially when Hitler reveals himself to be their worst nightmare.

WWII goes much as it does IOTL without all the pesky communism - and in the wake of Europe's devastation, here comes America to the rescue with a plan to make the defeated nations of Germany and Italy into U.S. territories. Since America pays for it, the U.K. and France go along with it, absorbing a few other destroyed areas in the process until all of Europe except Britain, France, Switzerland, a chunk of Scandinavia, and maybe southeastern Europe are all part of the United States.

Much the same happens in Asia, putting China and Korea in American hands to rebuild - paid for with taxes from their many territories, of course. America then snaps up some other areas such as Indonesia and controls the entire Pacific. All that's left is Southern Asia, and a war between India and Pakistan leaves both nations ripe for "rebuilding."

Decolonization of Africa invites the Americans in as peacekeepers, and uprisings in Central America do the same. Eventually America is so overwhelmingly powerful and pervasive that it decides it should run the entire world and looks for any excuse it can to invade holdout nations. Most territories are pro-U.S. because of the improvement of quality of life from where they were when they joined (which doesn't take much,) so they gladly send mercenaries to help conquer the world. And through sheer force, the United States of America conquers, breaks down, and rebuilds in its own image every nation on the planet.

And at this point, it has a hell of a lot of rebellions to put down.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
The taxation pays for the occupation forces, while an improvement in quality of life prevents uprisings. Meanwhile, the U.S. government looks at WWI as a territory grab.
At this point the wheels come off. Expansionist US is not going to be permitted to do whatever it wants by the other great powers - it's the Draka problem, essentially, in that the alt-US is going to be faced with whole-hearted opposition.
 
Absent that, there's essentially four or five big problems to handle.

1) The Royal Navy.
However, if you can get Britain to voluntarily join up with America, the other problems become remarkably easier. After all, in 1892 Conan Doyle had Sherlock Holmes say 'I am one of those who believe that the folly of a monarch and the blundering of a minister in far-gone years will not prevent our children from being some day citizens of the same world-wide country under a flag which shall be a quartering of the Union Jack with the Stars and Stripes.' In many respects, it'd be easier to orchestrate a peaceful reunion of Britain and the US than to solve the rest of the problems with this proposal. Something to do with a longer Teddy Roosevelt presidency, undoubtedly, which results in a formal partnership signed during WWI and, in the temporary absence from the international scene of Germany, France and Russia, leaves the post-war world theirs for the taking.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
However, if you can get Britain to voluntarily join up with America, the other problems become remarkably easier. After all, in 1892 Conan Doyle had Sherlock Holmes say 'I am one of those who believe that the folly of a monarch and the blundering of a minister in far-gone years will not prevent our children from being some day citizens of the same world-wide country under a flag which shall be a quartering of the Union Jack with the Stars and Stripes.' In many respects, it'd be easier to orchestrate a peaceful reunion of Britain and the US than to solve the rest of the problems with this proposal. Something to do with a longer Teddy Roosevelt presidency, undoubtedly, which results in a formal partnership signed during WWI and, in the temporary absence from the international scene of Germany, France and Russia, leaves the post-war world theirs for the taking.
That would be a fun one, if implausible. "Stars, Stripes, and Sirs"?
 

Saphroneth

Banned
First job is to come up with a better flag than 'a quartering of the Union Jack with the Stars and Stripes', because world conquest is fine but forcing people to live under such a goddamn eyesore isn't.
Hm... perhaps the Stars and Stripes, with the Union Flag in place of the stars and an increasingly large number of golden stars on the stripes?
 
Hm... perhaps the Stars and Stripes, with the Union Flag in place of the stars and an increasingly large number of golden stars on the stripes?

I thought about combining the two and the only good flag I can come up with looks way way too much like the Confederate Battle Flag. It
 
As of the post war (1945) it economically dominated most of it (which obviously has since changed)

which is as close as the people of the US have ever wanted to go in terms of 'conquest'

with a focused effort, and if it expressed a ruthlessness that Genghis Khan would approve of, using nuclear weapons in the 1940s and 1950s it could easily have done so... if by no other way than eliminating entire nations that oppose it.
 
At this point the wheels come off. Expansionist US is not going to be permitted to do whatever it wants by the other great powers - it's the Draka problem, essentially, in that the alt-US is going to be faced with whole-hearted opposition.

If - and that's a big "if" - other nations can stop them. The States would need a more devastated world to pull this off, sure, and it would have to be popular within the newly absorbed territories. Essentially, the U.S. takes over, the people decide they're better than whatever assholes were in power before, life is good compared to before, and the situation beforehand is bad enough that it works. Essentially, America is seen as a savior, outsiders see them as cleaning up a mess AND paying for it, and America sees it however the hell they want.

Again, this would require things to be a hell of a lot worse in some areas and for the U.S. to get off relatively scot-free in the World Wars.
 
There is a serious problem in that the US's limited forey into imperialism in the OTL SA war resulted in significant backlash. Because we took a few islands and faced some stiff resistance in some.

Now, multiply that by the rest of the world.

I don't see it happening.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
If - and that's a big "if" - other nations can stop them.

If the US was faced by much of Europe it would have serious problems - if they went after Suez, then the Royal Navy would go for stopping them and the RN is more powerful than the USN in just about any plausible scenario until about the 1920s - IMO, anyway.
 
Hm... perhaps the Stars and Stripes, with the Union Flag in place of the stars and an increasingly large number of golden stars on the stripes?
I thought about combining the two and the only good flag I can come up with looks way way too much like the Confederate Battle Flag. It
It's a graphic designer's nightmare:
1) c.50 stars, plus expansion
2) 13 stripes
3) St George's cross
4) St Patrick's cross
5) St Andrew's cross
and you've only got red, white and blue to do it with. The Grand Union flag looks pretty terrible- and then you have to find somewhere to put stars on it? No thanks.

The Australian/New Zealand defaced blue ensigns look good, though. Shame there isn't an American constellation with c.50 stars.
 
If the US was faced by much of Europe it would have serious problems - if they went after Suez, then the Royal Navy would go for stopping them and the RN is more powerful than the USN in just about any plausible scenario until about the 1920s - IMO, anyway.

The 1920s or soon after is when I picture that happening, and if the US wants to exert influence over the Suez, it could at least wedge its way in there and take full control later when the UK can't muster the manpower to fight them.

Of course, this concept is admittedly ASB so anything we come up with is, "Well, it's possible..."
 

Saphroneth

Banned
The 1920s or soon after is when I picture that happening, and if the US wants to exert influence over the Suez, it could at least wedge its way in there and take full control later when the UK can't muster the manpower to fight them.
Manpower nothing, the navy's the problem.

That said, you're right in that it would be about the same scale of plausibility as the Anglo Empire.
 
Top