Then they’re 30 YEARS too late. Britain and the US had been sharing the Pacific since 1818 in the Oregon country, and had ended up splitting the area between them permanently in 1846.
Did Britain fucked up when they didn't alied themselves with Germany in the late 19th century?
- Thread starter Femto
- Start date
Then they’re 30 YEARS too late. Britain and the US had been sharing the Pacific since 1818 in the Oregon country, and had ended up splitting the area between them permanently in 1846.
That’s true, but the first War turned them into a debtor state and the second war destroyed them. By the end of it, they were reduced to being America’s Jr. partner.
Reddit is not evidence of...uh...anything actually.
Its also completely irrelevant. Global policy is not based on stupid reddit jokes from 150 years in the future.
No I didn’t. Jokes on reddit are not a place to go for national policy of literally anyone.
To be frank, if Britain followed your suggestions of fight everyone all the time who could ever surpass them the outcome is not an eternal British empire. It’s an exhausted and broke Britain getting pounded flat by a coalition of everyone else who are sick of getting fucked over for no reason by them.
Femto
Banned
Who said they should've fought everyone? I said they should've discouraged the USA from bullying Mexico, with French and probably Spanish help. That's hardly “attacking everyone”. Hell, they would be the “good guys”.
France invaded Mexico for absolutely no reason to install a puppet monarch, and they didn't got a coalition in their asses. Why would Britain be the target of one by defending a minor power?
Last edited:
Here's the thing: if Britain entered into a German Alliance and still fought in (and likely have won) the WWI analog, how would it not change the fact that they'd have been exhausted physically and financially? The Great War bled everyone involved white.
Femto
Banned
Fighting France and Russia is a lot easier. All the French colonies would be rip for taking and the war would be primarily a naval/colonial one for the British. The Ottomans and AH would still fight in Germany side, with the probable addition of Italy(and I'm not even talking about Japan). That's why this war would probably not be fought, the odds are too overwhelmingly in favor of the British/German alliance that Paris and Moscow would abstain of fighting(the optimal outcome). But if war do erupt, it would probably be over by 1915.
Last edited:
If they enter a German Alliance then France and Russia won't be so bellicose because they'll genuinely wonder if they can even win. All of a sudden you've got a naval blockade of France while Britain slowly snipes away her colonies. Russia has to garrison the Far East and Central Asia because the British might show up at any moment (or the Japanese in the Far East depending on how the late 19th century alliances play out).
And any war with such a lopsided alliance probably ends far sooner than OTL with millions fewer dead and much less money being spent.
No you didn’t. You said:
“Of course, they should've supported AH and Mexico before the Germans and the Americans rise.”
France was barely mentioned as an afterthought until several posts later. And was about to have its government overthrown. Spain wasn’t mentioned, and was in the middle of the Second Carlist War regardless.
But here’s the thing, your fundamental argument is that Britain doesn’t want to ever be a junior partner in anything, and in 1848 Britain being weaker than the pitiful US was LAUGHABLE. The Americans barely had a military, and their economy was afraction of Britain’s juggernaut, they didn’t even have as many PEOPLE.
If Britain has decided that smashing the United States is that important they are going to see the same threat in France. And Austria. And Prussia. And Russia. And Sweden. And every other power. Including Mexico come to that.
Britain isn’t defending a minor power. They are actively trying to cut down a smaller power by your own admission. One who is, from a legal standpoint, fighting a defensive war since Mexico attacked the US army first.
And I would note that the belligerent idiocy of Nappy left him alone and friendless when he went looking for help against the Prussians. He’d alienated or pissed off every potential ally, and no one cared when he jumped into his own grave.
Femto
Banned
That's a question of perspective. This can be both things at the same time, the fact is that Mexico is the underdog and helping them sort things out isn't an expansionist act that would lead to Britain being hated by all of Europe. You are overplaying things cuz you don't want to accept this for some reason.
This is hardly the same thing as being the target of a coalition, like you said the British would be.
Last edited:
Yes, because Napoleon was just looking to expand his own power, not trying to crush potential future rivals just because they might, one day in the distant future, he more powerful than him.
Hardly. Mexico had an army of 18,000 regular against the American army of 7,000 in 1845. Zachary Taylor’s initial force of under 4,000 was literally half of the entire army. And Mexico’s army would always be larger than the American army during the war. It just didn’t win the war for them.
And? That doesn’t actually support your central argument. It comes down once again to you arguing they should have acted to contain a country that might one day be more powerful. Not a THREAT mind you. Just a senior partner rather than a subordinate. That’s a terrible foreign policy.
Femto
Banned
There's a BIG difference in between crushing and containing.
The USA had a smaller army than most third-rate countries' til the 20th century. You are ignoring the fact that the US had a stronger economic and population base than Mexico at that time.
And then the British knew that the Americans had a lot of living space to grow their population core and were reaching for more.
Not wanting to be the junior partner is bad foreign policy? Get out of here.
Isnt the Mexico discussion rather irellevant? With or without these territories the USA will become more powerful than the British Empire someday.
Britain isn't going to be bled white, in the short term it's pretty low cost high reward war and with Britain on side id expect Italy to honour it's alliance, at least once it looks like France is going to lose.
Britain may not like the new very German state of affairs in Europe aftereards but as a consolation prize they get to make off with the choice parts of french empire, curtail the Russian threat in central Asia and with a seat at the table they can influence to some degree the extent of German domination.