French Panama Canal?
- Thread starter Scarecrow
- Start date
Max Sinister
Banned
Maybe the canal would be internationalized. But as long as the French don't send soldiers there, the US shouldn't really have a problem. After all, France and the US aren't enemies and wouldn't suddenly become... uh...
David S Poepoe
Banned
Max Sinister said:
There are already French forces in the other French possessions in the Caribbean, why would there not be French soldiers to protect the French Panama Canal?
However, taking the Suez Canal as an example, its likely that security for the canal would primarily be provided by the Panamanian Government - or realistically the Colombian Government. The foreign investors won't step in unless there is some serious problem.
Coumbia retains Pamana, and it's share of the Revenues. Well some is siphoned off, enuff remains to allow for more development in columbia. the canal Zone is a source of Jobs, and development, North Columbia and the Isthmus are more stable,
No Roosevelt and his big Stick, US /LatAmer relations are slightly better.
No Roosevelt and his big Stick, US /LatAmer relations are slightly better.
I believe that the US would have most certainly seen a French built canal in Centrla America as a violation of the Monroe Doctrine. From 1850 (when California became a state) onward the US looked for ways to begin construction of a canal. The French effort was not seen as threat because it was poorly concieved and didn't get anywhere.
Had France been successful the US would have used every effort to take control or at least internationalize the canal. French troops would not have been allowed to police the canal unless accompanied by US troops as well. The US would have had the covert and if need be overt support of Britain because they too did not want the canal controlled by any one nation, especially France.
France would have been forced out by 1917, perhaps as a deal for US entrence into WWI, at the latest or, more likely, the day after the canal was finished at the earliest. Perhaps the canal could have passed to an international company to be policed by mercenaries. I like the idea of Gurkhas, Legionnaires, Swiss Guards, and Pinkertons working together to protect this vital waterway from banditos, banana republic dictators, Asian triads and their hired ronins, and shemeing henchmen loyal only to the Kaiser.
Benjamin
Had France been successful the US would have used every effort to take control or at least internationalize the canal. French troops would not have been allowed to police the canal unless accompanied by US troops as well. The US would have had the covert and if need be overt support of Britain because they too did not want the canal controlled by any one nation, especially France.
France would have been forced out by 1917, perhaps as a deal for US entrence into WWI, at the latest or, more likely, the day after the canal was finished at the earliest. Perhaps the canal could have passed to an international company to be policed by mercenaries. I like the idea of Gurkhas, Legionnaires, Swiss Guards, and Pinkertons working together to protect this vital waterway from banditos, banana republic dictators, Asian triads and their hired ronins, and shemeing henchmen loyal only to the Kaiser.
Benjamin
David S Poepoe
Banned
The easiest way to figure this whole thing out is simply to look at the newspapers of the time and see what the editorials say - if anything. From the 1880s onward there would not have been that much bad blood or misconception of Republican France by the US as is being perceived here.
I think the Colombians would be perfectly capable of defending their canal.
I think the Colombians would be perfectly capable of defending their canal.
Wendell said:
I'd call that selective...
The monroe doctrine was of course an excuse for imperialism, and America turned a blind eye (usually) to his 'chum'...
Wendell said:
And it was used as ironically to enforce american interests wherever possible and crush communists...
In OTR, the primary reason America became motivated to finish the canal was what happened during the Spanish-American War, when the USS Oregon had to sail 14,000 miles around South America to join up with the Atlantic fleet. Granted, it set a new record of making the journey in only 66 days, but during that time, people along the coast of Florida and the Carolinas were terrified that Spanish warships could just show up and start shelling them with impunity. Of course, what no one knew was the comletely terrible state the Spanish ships were in, unable to fight, barely able to steam at all.
So if the French had completed thier canal, I believe that the US would have realized that the defense of the nation rested solely on the goodwill of a foriegn power, the French, being willing to allow them to pass through the canal. This would be intolerable to Roosevelt, the man who's actions in creating the nation of Panama coined the term 'Big Stick Diplomacy'.
So would this lead to negotiations for the US to purchase the canal? Or, perhaps, leading to military action to seize both ends of the canal? By 1904, the US was in the midst of building a modern, big gun naval fleet to compete with the European powers. Maybe they would have been put to the test, acclerating the deployment of the new Dreadnought class ships that the US was so very slowly building. William Sims' ideas and innovations that could have revolutionized the American Navy might have found a more welcome reception if there were a naval conflict with the French Navy.
Would the French risk their battleships in a fight against the US? They had just seen their ally Russia get nearly their entire fleet destroyed by the Japanese.
And let us not forget the Japanese. They had just recently proven their competence in naval warfare by crushing the Russians in the Russo-Japanese war, and were a major worry for the US. If they saw a chance to exploit a situation where the American Pacific fleet had to be withdrawn from the Philipines to fight a war with France, would the exploit it?
The root causes of WWI came from battleship expansion, the first Superweapon, so could something like this lead to the war starting a decade earlier as a series of naval engagements?
P.S. Colombia's opinions in the matter would be given less thought than a gnat's fart. If you have no battleships, you have no voice.
So if the French had completed thier canal, I believe that the US would have realized that the defense of the nation rested solely on the goodwill of a foriegn power, the French, being willing to allow them to pass through the canal. This would be intolerable to Roosevelt, the man who's actions in creating the nation of Panama coined the term 'Big Stick Diplomacy'.
So would this lead to negotiations for the US to purchase the canal? Or, perhaps, leading to military action to seize both ends of the canal? By 1904, the US was in the midst of building a modern, big gun naval fleet to compete with the European powers. Maybe they would have been put to the test, acclerating the deployment of the new Dreadnought class ships that the US was so very slowly building. William Sims' ideas and innovations that could have revolutionized the American Navy might have found a more welcome reception if there were a naval conflict with the French Navy.
Would the French risk their battleships in a fight against the US? They had just seen their ally Russia get nearly their entire fleet destroyed by the Japanese.
And let us not forget the Japanese. They had just recently proven their competence in naval warfare by crushing the Russians in the Russo-Japanese war, and were a major worry for the US. If they saw a chance to exploit a situation where the American Pacific fleet had to be withdrawn from the Philipines to fight a war with France, would the exploit it?
The root causes of WWI came from battleship expansion, the first Superweapon, so could something like this lead to the war starting a decade earlier as a series of naval engagements?
P.S. Colombia's opinions in the matter would be given less thought than a gnat's fart. If you have no battleships, you have no voice.
Last edited:
SteveW said:
The creation of the nation of Panama was effected by Roosevelt parking several large ships off of the coast of Colombia in 1903 and supplying the 'rebels' with arms and money to fight for independence. The papers at the time described it as gunboat diplomacy, so this is the reason I believed it to coined for Teddy.
But looking on Wikipedia, I see that it is much older than that. I should have used the term 'big stick diplomacy'. In fact I believe I will edit the post to reflect that. Thanks!