As we all know, the United States of America and Great Britain have been bitter enemies ever since the former became independent from the latter, and have fought several wars against each other. Would have been possible for the two countries to improve their relationship or even become allies?
They could bond over their shared linguistic and cultural heritage. Whether that's enough to pull America away from its alliance with France (both bonding over being republics) is another matter.
Perhaps you could have John Adams win in 1796 and get the Federalists a foothold in government? Jefferson steered America in a pro-French direction after all.
Perhaps you could have John Adams win in 1796 and get the Federalists a foothold in government? Jefferson steered America in a pro-French direction after all.
Avoid the aggressive American expansionism and repeated attempts to conquer British North America and you have a good start.
As mentioned the Franco-American alliance was also an issue. France already being the hegemon throwing it's weight around in Europe directly enabled and inspired the Americans to do the same.
I guess delaying the anti-slavery movement in Britain would also help. The racist and pro-slavery lobbies have been at the heart of American politics for years and influence the country's aggressive stance even when their strategic interestsmight otherwise have been aligned.
As mentioned the Franco-American alliance was also an issue. France already being the hegemon throwing it's weight around in Europe directly enabled and inspired the Americans to do the same.
I guess delaying the anti-slavery movement in Britain would also help. The racist and pro-slavery lobbies have been at the heart of American politics for years and influence the country's aggressive stance even when their strategic interestsmight otherwise have been aligned.
So what event do you think could encourage the two countries to ally? Maybe some more extreme elements of the French Revolution could take over (as opposed to the moderate Republicans of OTL) and make the Americans reluctant to ally with them, which would push them closer to the British.
Alternatively, you could have the French Revolution fail and the country remain an absolute monarchy, which might spur relations down the line.
Alternatively, you could have the French Revolution fail and the country remain an absolute monarchy, which might spur relations down the line.
Even when France was a kingdom or an empire, both of them stay allies, -(after Bourbons helped them to become independent and Napoleon Bonaparte sold them Louisianna).
The USA and Modern France follow the same model the enlightenment idea and share a lot of common value and more importantly France helped them to become independent. We could easily saw why both nations remain allied, but as stated before British and USA share also many values, although two huge problems prevent warmer relation, the UK after the war still holds many territories claimed by the USA, straining the relationship between the two power and more importantly the pro-french party managed to become prominent after the Washington presidency.
In my opinion a longer independence war could solve all the problem, the USA will be able with a long war to take more territories and more pro-English territories strengthening the pro-English party at the same time it will decrease french finance, pushing the country to increase even more their taxes and allowing to the radical revolutionary to take the power. If a guy as Robespierre holds the power, the USA will want to avoid a connection with them and would be forced to improve their relationship with the British.
Without the quasi-war between British and the USA, and with insane french republican, France will not be strong enough to conquer a good chunk of Europa, and British will be able to hold their colonial empire longer. however it will be a USA screw, I mean they will never be able to conquer a good part of Canada, maybe they will try to expand in Mexico instead?
So long as the Empire of France reigns supreme in Europe, U.S. interests will continue to be protected. By moving into the Caribbean and Central America it limits the British North American Territories and their Deseret puppet to Baja and Alta California, all of which are increasingly American by the day. Our joint hydroelectric project at Washington Dam near Meadowtown and the negotiation for the Supermotorway linking the City of St. Francis with Salt Lake City and Denver mark the beginnings of peace after years of Cold War.
So basically, the main thing is that we have to weaken France/ end the Franco- American alliance for this to be feasible. (Which actually wouldn’t be that hard; the alliance seems like a fact of nature now, but there were plenty of times in the early years where it was strained, such as the 1825 incident.)
Maybe if the British didn’t seize Cuba and Florida, after France won the Peninsular War. As it was, the United States felt encircled by the British Empire in north, west and south.
The war of 1914 was caused by Britians continuing pointless aggression, we entered the war after the Britney massacre to avenge our French allies and our conquest of Canada was just punishment for their actions during the war. Even then they would not have lost their empire if It wasn't for the madness of the Mosely government. I mean dear god we all saw pictures of the camps in Ireland, the empire was dismembered not out of malice but to prevent those attroicites from ever happening again.
This. Hard. they killed 80M of their own people, 30 million of which were irish. There's a damn reason that France and the US still have military all over the Irish sea. England hasn't even apologized.
Gotta say though, i'm still mad that Germany got Sri Lanka. What use do they have for it? America is the one with Dai Viet and especially after the war a whole lotta stuff in the middle east. Germany had what? Persia and Mittleafrika, plus Egypt for shipping? They barely even fought in asia (which, i mean, fair enough. They'd left the Continental System and French Influence along with Poland in the 1860s and what not, and were neutral until Sweden, under British pressure, bombed Danzig.)
Do you often see former colonies become friends with their oppressors? I mean outside of Brasil maybe most of the American colonies that gained their independence spent the rest of time fighting reconquest. The best that seems possible is Gran Colombia's relationship with Spain, which is at best merely passive-aggressive.
can you even call Brasil a colony? The empires royal family moved there and still live there, the imperial government also moved there, the navy moved there, pretty much every function of the portugese empire moved to Brazil during the 1800s and stayed there, if anything its Portugal that's a colony not Brazil.
Honestly they came out of the French Revolution the best. Good terms with america and france couldn't touch them for years, and they grabbed Angola, Zimbabwe, the Cape, hell they have damn near all of malaya and Guinea.
Dolan
Banned
Which ends up in a weird situation for the Portuguese "In-Name-Only" Empire, since their supposed 'Motherland' was a war-torn wreck in 19th Century, and still a pretty much just a developing, even slightly overpopulated region even until the 21st century, all while Brazil and Angola-Boer being pretty much developed, stable countries on their own, complete with peerage systems that pretty much incorporate native and local nobility.
At least their Portugal proper were the best army recruiting ground for the Portuguese Empire, and the Crown Prince of the Portuguese Royal Family has been styled 'Prince of Portugal' since early 20th century, complete with being traditionally required to stay in The Ajuda Palace, pretty much staying in touch with Europe while the rest of Royal Family Members living in relative comfort at Rio de Janeiro.
Sure, Portuguese Brazil and African Regions were originally colonies, they only flipped, wealth-and-development wise because Napoleon ruined Europe.
I never say the opposite, I just explained that if the USA allied with Britains, they would have not conquered a good part of Canada. Moseley was totally mad, he thought that USA would not react to the tentative of genocide against french Quebecers because they were french, forgetting that the USA president was Huey Pierce Long former governor of the french-speaking states of Louisianna when the CIA showed him proof of the atrocity committed by this regime, legend says that he directly leave the white house to make a war speech on the road.
I would disagree with this, Napoleon changed the European system, the Iberian peninsula was indeed wrecked by him, the British peninsula suffered a lot of this system.
Although many areas gained a lot of benefits from this, the Western Rhineland, Lombardia, and Swiss departments are nowadays the economic core of France and have a huge GDP per capita, Germany, Poland, Austria, Denmark the Ottoman Empire and even Russia profited of this in the long term, it allowed them to develop their industry and develop new trade road.
eadmund
Banned
And this is why nobody takes you seriously. The Irish population was barely 10 million before Mosley came to power, and yet somehow he's supposed to have killed 30 million of them? Yes, many people did die from starvation (not 80 million, though). Not just in Ireland, India, and Africa, but in Britain too. And many of those deaths were caused by the Franco-American blockade.
And just a reminder that many starved after the invasion, while the Americans and French looked on and did nothing.
How awful that nationalist and "loyalist" terrorists were sent to internment camps.
I wasn't just referring to the island. That extra twenty million came from all over a world spanning empire, hell reportedly some didn't even know they were
irish, but britain was systematic enough to find them anyway. And do you really think that with a recruitment pool of freedom-fighters in the multi millions that sham of an empire would've been able to hold anything? And American-French forces spent money almost rivaling the gdp of Scotland rebuilding the UK. granted, some got more than others, but seriously, the Allies didn't 'do nothing.' Especially considering they still had to defeat Japan. And before you say anything, America has repeatedly apologized for the nukes. Meanwhile Japan won't even acknowledge their war crimes happened, let alone apologize.
The Mosely governments system of lets face it death camps that were spread along as far as Quebec, Ireland of course, Africa, New Zealand, and india are still there. The Mosely government left behind tons of proof of their actions including sending 2 year old children into the camps and gassing them. He's regarded as the biggest monster of the 20th century for a reason.
That doesn't mean all british were evil, I mean we have all watched Churchill's list, Winston worked hard to save the lives of the innocent people on Mosely's list of social inferiors. And of course Margarat Thatchers family successfully hid a family from Moselys death squads for the duration of the war. Lets also give credit where credits due. The Australians refused to be a part of Mosely's butchery and rebelled to save their people from that mad man.
But even for all of this it can not be denighed that after the shear amount of atrocities were uncovered that there was no way we could allow the british empire to continue to exist. To prevent another Tubaiste the empire had to be dismembered.
eadmund
Banned
You're now saying all 10 million Irish died, as well as another 20 million from god knows where?
Why do you insist on spreading this story that Mosley hated the Irish? He was Anglo-Irish himself, he opposed extreme measures in Ireland during peacetime to the point of leaving the Conservatives over it, and Joyce was Irish.
Yes, internees were allowed to bring their families. No children were executed - Britain is not America, where American Indians were slaughtered because their relatives joined the British and the murderers of blacks go unpunished. Conditions only deteriorated later on the war, and while that did result in many deaths (including those of children), those deaths were still unintentional.
He's regarded as a monster because the Americans and the French won.
Winston Churchill was the American Secretary of the Navy.
You're confusing him with Winston Spencer-Churchill, who was Mosley's Home Secretary and friend.