Challenge: The US navy a joke

Um, no... just no, parlaiment is not going to have the political will to invade the continental US less than a decade after the end of the bloodiest war in the UK's history. Also the possibility of a successful invasion the American mainland any time during the 20th century is pure ASB. Besides, even allowing for your ridiculous scenario, this probably turns into some massive Axis wank TL in which the US joins the Axis out of a desire for revenge, the USN gets built up in the interbellum years and combined with the KM raiding shipping, superior US CV's put the RN at the bottom of the ocean and starve the British Isles into submission, and ov course Canada becomes a 51st state in the process. Either way the USN is still top notch by the end of the century.

The best bet for an embarresment of a navy for the US is to have the new deal fail horribly, FDR gets voted out in the 40's and replaced by a deficit hawk who would most likely also be isolationist and cuts military spending. As a result gitmo is closed, the Philippines puerto rico and Hawaii are granted independence. WWII ends with a Soviet dominated Eurasian continent. The US government adopts strict isolationism, when the Russians eventually develope nukes and ICBM's in the late 50's the US military concentrates on countering that with their own missile mounted nukes, the navy still gets snubbed in favor of nuclear arsenal. By the end of the 20th century the USN is little more than a coastal defense force, while the Soviet Navy is king of the waves. Still pretty thin, but plausible.

:p, check the very beginning and very end of my post. Then dig up the UK-US War over Venezuela and McClellan winning the civil war threads in pre-1900.
 
For the insanity of it, I'll take a whack at this. Imagine Robert Conroy's book 1901 (German invasion of US in 1901). The Germans send their entire fleet and sink the US fleet. The US is forced to make peace, give Germany free access to Central / South America, Guam, Philipines, Cuba, Puerto Rico are now German possessions. US fleet reduced to costal defense force by treaty. Germany wins WWI as US stays out. US remains isolationist and never constructs significant navy. Sure it's ASB but you asked for a way ...
 

mowque

Banned
For the insanity of it, I'll take a whack at this. Imagine Robert Conroy's book 1901 (German invasion of US in 1901). The Germans send their entire fleet and sink the US fleet. The US is forced to make peace, give Germany free access to Central / South America, Guam, Philipines, Cuba, Puerto Rico are now German possessions. US fleet reduced to costal defense force by treaty. Germany wins WWI as US stays out. US remains isolationist and never constructs significant navy. Sure it's ASB but you asked for a way ...

Bull. After heavy re-search in just such a war (for my TL) my odds are on the American fleet, not the German fleet.
 
And of course if Germany beats up on the U.S.A, America wouldn't look at nations it has always had good relations with (France, Russia) Or the nation who has invested more in it in the late 18th century then any other nation (Great Britain). Naw, why would America be chummy to them.
 
how about... the two world wars don't happen, the British Empire never falls and the RN guarantees safe passage on the seas, and the US stays in a state of intense isolationism...
 
:p, check the very beginning and very end of my post. Then dig up the UK-US War over Venezuela and McClellan winning the civil war threads in pre-1900.


[67th Tigers]

The U.S. gets into a war over trade rights and China against an Anglo-Japanese Alliance in the 20s. The RN smashes the USN with its mighty G3s and N3s and imposes a blockade, bombarding the U.S. coastline and landing 40,000 troops at random points, easily driving the U.S. army before it. Heavy bombers based in Canada obliterate U.S. industry in the Midwest and New England in a matter of weeks. RN cruisers steam into the Great Lakes through a rapidly enlarged canal and bombard the U.S. Great Lakes Cities, while the vast Canadian Lakes shipbuilding industry rapidly cranks out light battleships. The final blow is struck when Japan lands 20 divisions on the U.S. West Coast and rapidly sweeps all before them. The U.S. is forced to surrender, with Britain and Japan partitioning its overseas territories and Alaska. The U.S. is reduced in one fell swoop to a 3rd world equivalent, and is forced to sign a Versailles style treaty forbidding ocean-going warships, which thanks to its sadly reduced economy, it can't afford anyway. By the end of the century, while the U.S. has recovered somewhat (though still far below the world-bestriding British Empire), Congress still refuses to fund any navy, believing it to be just the first step on another massive beating from Britain.

[/67th Tigers]


First part: The US isn't about to get into a war over trade rights in china, Japanese invasion and atrocities in mainland china certainly didn't do that in the 30's, a trade dispute in the 20's isn't about to do it either. The british might just get into a war in foreign territory with the US, but I seriously doubt that they are actually going to risk getting stuck in a quagmire that a Us invasion could so easily turn into. Even if the Brits decide to make the big leap, after a couple years of heavy bloodshed, discontent at home is going to pressure Parlaiment into wanting out any way possible, as such a versailles style treaty just isn't in the works, if nothing else I get the feeling that any such war would turn out much the same way 1812 did.

Second part: There will be no "world-bestriding" British empire by the end of the century, the British empire was destined to decline by this point anyways. The British public would only get more disenchanted with military adventurism abroad as a result of an American war, not less. Considering this, as distant parts of the empire (India for instance) get more rebellious, the sentiment at home would less inclined to fight it and rather just let them go. As far as the navy goes, yes congress wouldn't be too inclined to fund it at first, although I can see no reason to doubt that a fascist type president getting elected sometime in the 30's promising a "Return to greatness" would employ an antagonistic relationship with england, Fascism is still highly likely to rise in Germany with or without hitler. It would only be natural for the US and Germany to become allies in a war against the Entente. With this series of events under way, the USN could quite realistically outnumber the RN due to vastly superior industrial production in the US. Unlike with the Germans, the British cannot simply accelerate production to outmatch the numbers of USN vessels. There will be no lend lease, and no destroyers for bases to assist the british in their war against the U-boats, against the combined might of the US and Fascist Germany the UK would most likely be forced into rather compromising terms. Sealion is a lot more likely in this TL, I would be hard pressed to make it a foregone conclusion.
 
Dan,

The actual first and last parts of xchen's post are [67th Tigers] and [/67th Tigers].

They signified that the post was a mindless Brit-wank, as did xchen's later reference to the "UK-US War over Venezuela' and "McClellan winning the civil war" threads.

The post was a joke, albeit one that passed over your head at 50,000 feet and Mach 3. ;)


Bill
 
Dan,

The actual first and last parts of xchen's post are [67th Tigers] and [/67th Tigers].

They signified that the post was a mindless Brit-wank, as did xchen's later reference to the "UK-US War over Venezuela' and "McClellan winning the civil war" threads.

The post was a joke, albeit one that passed over your head at 50,000 feet and Mach 3. ;)


Bill

https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=140178&highlight=Mclellan

https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=139782&page=8&highlight=Venezuela

And there are two links to the brilliant analysis (britwank) of 67th ;)
 
The post was a joke, albeit one that passed over your head at 50,000 feet and Mach 3. ;)

I suppose I can see how considering I did piece it together from actual claims made, but considering it's so much more concentrated...:D

And there are two links to the brilliant analysis (britwank) of 67th ;)

Hmm, there was another one too, also on the Venezuela crisis, though I don't believe it started out that way where I took most of the snippets, but I'll be damned if I can find it.
 
Last edited:
Dan,

The actual first and last parts of xchen's post are [67th Tigers] and [/67th Tigers].

They signified that the post was a mindless Brit-wank, as did xchen's later reference to the "UK-US War over Venezuela' and "McClellan winning the civil war" threads.

The post was a joke, albeit one that passed over your head at 50,000 feet and Mach 3. ;)


Bill

pardon me for not being farmiliar with every ALT on the board
 
Your challenge is, with a POD of no earlier than 1900, to make the US navy, by the end of the century, an ineffectual embarrassment. Nuclear war or other cheats are not allowed.

According to USN admirals this is the case, as for layman the USN is more powerful than rest of the world's navies combined but many of the admirals say they need more money. This is the case when the USN burns roughly twice as much as money as does the entire Chinese military machine, the no.2 military power on Earth.

This must clearly mean that USN spends money very ineffectively and is, in fact, a farce, even if it for layman seems to be the premier naval force on the planet.

If this state of the USN does not qualify as a joke I wonder what does? :D
 
Well considering the current state of the US navy calling it a joke is laughable. Only the United States has the ability to project power wherever the hell they want within one week.
 
Isolationism

I think somebody brought up the possibility of an Isolationist United States as a possibility. While that might bring about the scenario in question, there are some reasons to think that that might not be the case.

The thing about Isolationism is that, in itself, it isnt necessarily anti-navy. It may shape the nature of a navy; for instance, ships with limited ranges, and an emphasis on defense (slow, heavily armored ships, coastal fortifications). But it is not, per se, against the presence of a strong navy, and in some cases actually favors one.

Let us take Britain as an example. An imperfect one, to be sure, because the english were never isolationists, but the overriding foreign policy goal of opposing continental hegemony is close enough for our purposes. Britain could have, if it so chose, recused itself from continental affairs and downgraded the navy to focus on an army to defend the shores and keep order, or built an army to contest control of the continent. But, from the Restoration on, the royal navy became more and more important, eventually becoming the senior service.

Why? Several reasons. A navy can be aggressive, but is in the British (and American) case firstly a bulwark against aggression. It is reliable; with a very few exceptions (Greece and occasional occurances in Latin America), navies as a rule do not become as involved in politics as the army. They do not threaten a constitutional government; using the british example, the navy never threatened to radicalize and overthrow the government, as the New Model Army defeated Charles (although there were mutinies), nor did it offer a route for the government to oppress.

Now, let us consider the Americans. One of the driving ideals behind American Isolationism has been the idea that the two oceans remove America from enemies, rivals, and conflict. With that in mind, a Navy is a deterrent, keeping other nations from casting a wandering eye upon American shores. It does not offer the same specter of interference in politics, for or against civilian government, that a standing army does. And, because it cannot strike inland, it appears less aggressive.

Finally, periods of isolationism in American history tended to coincide with interference in Latin America. For those purposes, one does not need a truly modern army, merely one with enough competence to handle the nation being intervened in. However, a navy is relativly crucial, both for logistical purposes and to deal with the local navies (the ABC powers, for instance, operated battleships). So, an isolationist government (albiet one involved in latin america) may actually have more need of a navy than of an army.
 

burmafrd

Banned
Well if you do not go into the pre 1900 site very often you might miss out on 67th (the guy that continually claims that McClellan was as good as Lee and that the Army of Northern Virginia was not outnumbered by the Army of the Potomac-in addition to his brit wanks).

There is realistically no way the USN is ever a joke. Not as good or as big sure, but joke never.
 
Basically, to get what the OP is looking for, a pre-1900 POD would be necessary- maybe something like the Lodge/Mahan/TR/Hearst group and their imperalist impulses, which led to a major expansion of the USN into a major navy in the 1890s never happening, or Jeffersonian ideas of national defense somehow remaining dominant (unlikely IMO), or one of the 'USA gets curbstomped on an epic scale' scenarios of the sort 67th Tigers seems to be fond of happening.
 
Last edited:
Top