Conflict of Interest: America, Britain, and France

hey, all. me again :p

i was thinking about something i decided for my ATL earlier today: in it, britain, france, and the US are all world powers (britain and america are superpowers while france is a borderline superpower). america is engaged in a few different alliances, one of which allies them with an aztec empire and britain, another of which allies them to france and japan. in my ATL, a world war breaks out and britain and france end up on opposing sides. my original idea was to make it be that, as a provision of its alliances, america would intervene on behalf of both britain and france, EXCEPT in the case of a war between those two states as that would be a conflict of interest (so american troops would be dispatched to help both countries on their fronts except those where the british and french empires meet, such as in western and equatorial africa ITTL)

anyway, i was thinking about it earlier and a thought occurred to me: what if there were conflicting factions in america: those that are pro-british, and those that are pro-french? there would presumably be other factions like this--pro-aztec, pro-japanese, nationalist, etc--but theyre irrelevant at the moment. could there potentially be huge domestic issues over this? keep in mind that the war also involves other allies of all three states in question. for example, america is also at war with spain ITTL, which is also an ally of france.

could these domestic issues escalate to civil war and attempted secession of some states from teh union? thoughts?
 
oshron

I'm not sure all three powers can be super-powers, at least not in the modern age? Also just to clarify with the enboldened section. It sounds like you're saying that the US would fight on both sides? May have mis-understood but that sounds mad?? I can see it staying neutral in such cases, far more likely.

In terms of what I think is you're main point it would depend on the circumstances as to what prompted the alliances. There could be circumstances where either allies prompt strong emotional links or vested interests could want to avoid 'their' preferred ally losing. Also it depends on who's seen to have started the war and the nature of the war being waged. [If one side is a dictatorship or is waging a brutal war against civilians in occupied areas say].

As such there is scope for tension in the US about what it's policy is in such a crisis. It might led to clashes, politically and possibly even street clashes between supporters of the two sides but think it would require something very extreme in the situation to see serious internal conflict on the issue. [Say if for whatever reason the government was clearly biased towards one side despite that being seen as morally blacker than the other].

Steve

hey, all. me again :p

i was thinking about something i decided for my ATL earlier today: in it, britain, france, and the US are all world powers (britain and america are superpowers while france is a borderline superpower). america is engaged in a few different alliances, one of which allies them with an aztec empire and britain, another of which allies them to france and japan. in my ATL, a world war breaks out and britain and france end up on opposing sides. my original idea was to make it be that, as a provision of its alliances, america would intervene on behalf of both britain and france, EXCEPT in the case of a war between those two states as that would be a conflict of interest (so american troops would be dispatched to help both countries on their fronts except those where the british and french empires meet, such as in western and equatorial africa ITTL)

anyway, i was thinking about it earlier and a thought occurred to me: what if there were conflicting factions in america: those that are pro-british, and those that are pro-french? there would presumably be other factions like this--pro-aztec, pro-japanese, nationalist, etc--but theyre irrelevant at the moment. could there potentially be huge domestic issues over this? keep in mind that the war also involves other allies of all three states in question. for example, america is also at war with spain ITTL, which is also an ally of france.

could these domestic issues escalate to civil war and attempted secession of some states from teh union? thoughts?
 
oshron

I'm not sure all three powers can be super-powers, at least not in the modern age?
i know, its a little ASB :rolleyes:

Also just to clarify with the enboldened section. It sounds like you're saying that the US would fight on both sides? May have mis-understood but that sounds mad?? I can see it staying neutral in such cases, far more likely.
ITTL, the US is allied to both britain AND france in two seperate alliances, france because of their help during the revolution and as a trade partner since then (though im thinking of making that faltering by the time the worldwar takes place) and britain for pretty much the same reasons as IOTL. ive so far written it up that, for both alliances, the members of each alliance will act to defend the others in the event of war (so if war is declared on the aztecs, the US and britain will intervene, while if war is declared upon japan, the US and FRANCE will intervene). ive purposely set up this and other alliances to divide pretty much all world powers between two or more sides like in WWI as well as including some conflicts of interest. the US with britain and france is an example of that: a provision of their alliance to those two european powers, which was agreed upon by the other two powers as well, is that the US will send economic and military aid to both countries EXCEPT in the event of a war between those two, because britain and france arent allied to each other

As such there is scope for tension in the US about what it's policy is in such a crisis. It might led to clashes, politically and possibly even street clashes between supporters of the two sides but think it would require something very extreme in the situation to see serious internal conflict on the issue. [Say if for whatever reason the government was clearly biased towards one side despite that being seen as morally blacker than the other].
i was thinking of making more states, and therefore more of the government, pro-british (especially since there's more states in the US ITTL, it kind of imbalances the pro-british and pro-french sides), so maybe that could contribute?
 
Sure it can be a major issue. Or, at least an important one. Look at the pro-British Federalists and the pro-French Republicans from our own history. It wasn't like they were campaigning on which European power they wanted to snuggle up with, but there was still a definite divide.

If you want to really polarize the people on the issue, make sure it's tied to ideology... Think of how third world countries during the Cold War could have a pro-American faction (of capitalists) or a pro-Soviet faction (of socialists/communists). That was very much tied to ideology, and polarizes people a lot more than "Which alliance is more convenient"?
 
Write it!

Then I'll know what's going on and can comment accordingly

As it stands, I only have a rough idea

...its cold outside!

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
i WOULD write it, but im actually still trying to get everything "historical" down first (everything pre-2032) so that i know exactly where the post-2032 world can go

im thinking maybe there can be more pro-british factions in the government centers (new england, etc), so it could maybe be that the government APPEARS to be more pro-british even if it really isnt. any ideas for states that could be pro-french? im currently leaning towards making louisiana and florida two of them

in fact, i think i'll go and make a little map for which states have which pro-foreign factions
 
Last edited:
Top