German-American War of 1889

67th Tigers, that's just absurd.:rolleyes:

In a crisis between the US and Germany there will be no American invasion of Canada.

Dubya won't even be born for another @70 years.;)
 

67th Tigers

Banned
67th Tigers, that's just absurd.:rolleyes:

In a crisis between the US and Germany there will be no American invasion of Canada.

Dubya won't even be born for another @70 years.;)

:D

Sorry, the usual "Britain won't get involved because of Canada" came up.

I've been reading up on the US Army of the post-ACW era, and am very disturbed by just how far behind Europe they got. In 1898 troops were going to war with Trapdoor Springfields!
 
Ah. I see. Well, no big deal.:)

We all know the US would have Canada for lunch.:D*




*Since it is Canada which usually treats the US to breakfast or Sunday brunch and they split the check for dinner.
 

Germaniac

Donor
With Germany at war with the united States the US wont be able to stop Germany from taking Danish colonies in the Caribbean.
 
With Germany at war with the united States the US wont be able to stop Germany from taking Danish colonies in the Caribbean.

Taking or purchasing? If by taking, that comes with the risk of losing all diplomatic support. And, if the conflict actually goes beyond a few colonial skirmishes and naval potshots before negotiated peace then you run the risk of having both sides military resources coming more to bear. I think the US would be able to take, retake or keep the islands much more easily than a Germany across the Atlantic.
 

Germaniac

Donor
It is very likely that they will purchase them because without the threats of the United States there is little to stop them,
 
this seems mostly like a war that can't really go anywhere... neither side can really get it's army in contact with the other... seems like it will be mostly a naval war, which could go either way, as neither side has a real advantage here.
Why would any other European power take an interest in this war? None seem to have anything at stake...
 
Why would any other European power take an interest in this war? None seem to have anything at stake...

Agreed, but perhaps the postwar diplomacy changes the course of some states. Like mentioned, perhaps the US decides it needs to seek 'friends' now that a hostile power might be working to thwart her. France would be all too happy to encourage and work to strengthen any kind of relationship with a newfound foe of Germany. Subtle and simple at first, such bonds might grow over time in world affairs. These type of actions or overtures have ripple effects with various other nations.
 
It is very likely that they will purchase them because without the threats of the United States there is little to stop them,

Except for the actual war going on, when the islands are defenseless and far closer to the U.S. than to Germany and Germany does not have naval superiority. Buying them is just asking for the U.S. to occupy them, and they aren't getting returned.
 
. Buying them is just asking for the U.S. to occupy them, and they aren't getting returned.

Agreed ... Let's change course. Flash forward 13 years to The Venezuela Crisis. How would a quick and fruitless 1889 war change things in 1902?

Or if too many butterflies involved, lets take it one step away from the the topic's year let's ask what about a German-American war then ... 1902.
 
A thought comes to my mind about Canada.

Going on what others said that the war would come to nothing and the act of war itself would jolt the Americans out of her own isolation, this would probably lead to a military expansion.

This could over the decades lead Canada to rethink her relations with Britain, especially if France-USA and Germany-?? come to blows. In the 1910's and 20's, Canada drifted from Britain. In this scenario, Canada might not and might be more receptive to British calls for more Imperial cooperation.

Union of Canada and Britain, anyone?:D
 
A thought comes to my mind about Canada.

Going on what others said that the war would come to nothing and the act of war itself would jolt the Americans out of her own isolation, this would probably lead to a military expansion.

This could over the decades lead Canada to rethink her relations with Britain, especially if France-USA and Germany-?? come to blows. In the 1910's and 20's, Canada drifted from Britain. In this scenario, Canada might not and might be more receptive to British calls for more Imperial cooperation.

Union of Canada and Britain, anyone?:D

You bring up a very good point: If the US gained any territory from an invasion of Canada, (or even failed to) as a result of British involvement in this German-American War Canada may not have gone the independence route, or it may have been delayed for decades longer than it was.

Then again, Canadians may have become disenchanted with supplying Canadian bodies for the British war machine as the horrors of the battlefield were brought to their doorstep in what could easily be perceived by them as an entirely unnecessary conflict. If this were the case would Canada have sought independence sooner after the ATL German War, and if so and Britain was unwilling, do we have the Canadian War of Independence? Perhaps aided by a southern neighbor equally disenchanted with British interference in the Western Hemisphere?

United North American Federation?
 
You bring up a very good point: If the US gained any territory from an invasion of Canada, (or even failed to) as a result of British involvement in this German-American War Canada may not have gone the independence route, or it may have been delayed for decades longer than it was.

Well I think it was the consensus that no other country would become directly involved in such a conflict (war) so I'm not sure that Canada would have any worry of lost territory. The shifting of alliances and such after the war might have the Canadians much more concerned or effected if the US drifts into an alternate camp from the Maple leafs. But as you say ... any such events would force a much closer bond between the two states. I think them pulling further away wouldn't happen. Unless Britain positioned themselves into a posture that didn't properly defend Canada (if such a think is possible). That might convince some of those that friendly relations with the US were more important than the historical and governmental ties to mother England.
 
Well I think it was the consensus that no other country would become directly involved in such a conflict (war) so I'm not sure that Canada would have any worry of lost territory. The shifting of alliances and such after the war might have the Canadians much more concerned or effected if the US drifts into an alternate camp from the Maple leafs. But as you say ... any such events would force a much closer bond between the two states. I think them pulling further away wouldn't happen. Unless Britain positioned themselves into a posture that didn't properly defend Canada (if such a think is possible). That might convince some of those that friendly relations with the US were more important than the historical and governmental ties to mother England.

Historically, Canadians fiercely loyal to Britain in the early 20th Century, so Canadians wouldn't abandon her without something very big happening.

In this TL, Britain is going to be far more leery of a better armed United States, and without a doubt, the Canadian question of defence will be asked sooner and in better detail than OTL (in OTL, Canada was never "properly" defended, because it was unassailable from any of Britain's more percieved enemies, this changes all that dramatically).
 
You bring up a very good point: If the US gained any territory from an invasion of Canada, (or even failed to) as a result of British involvement in this German-American War Canada may not have gone the independence route, or it may have been delayed for decades longer than it was.

Then again, Canadians may have become disenchanted with supplying Canadian bodies for the British war machine as the horrors of the battlefield were brought to their doorstep in what could easily be perceived by them as an entirely unnecessary conflict. If this were the case would Canada have sought independence sooner after the ATL German War, and if so and Britain was unwilling, do we have the Canadian War of Independence? Perhaps aided by a southern neighbor equally disenchanted with British interference in the Western Hemisphere?

United North American Federation?

One problem here. At the time Canada was already basically independent. The Act of Confederation in 1867 essentially gave Canada everything it needed to be independent. The Canadian government simply chose to wait due to the knowledge that it had a lot more safety and influence the closer it remained to Britain.
It wasn't until the Alaskan border dispute in 1903 that the Canadians decided they needed more of a voice when the British supported the US government in regards to the Alaskan border. It was from that point on that Canada started to demand more of a say in international affairs, while still relying on the British military. The Canadian government was simply bereft of opportunities to show off their new found independent attitude until WW1.

Anyways in TTL, if Britain and Germany joined sides, Canada would probably remain close to Britain. Canada's favourite sport is complaining about the US, so if Britain became less friendly with the US, Canada would support it. But Canada would definitely be asking Britain to send over more troops, and may even increase its military spending (although this is dangerously close to ASB, considering Canada's past history with the military).
Now if Britain did send more troops to Canada, expect Canada to stay close to Britain. The majority of Canadians were very patriotic, and even the ones who weren't always said they would defend their homes against all comers. So as long as its not Britain declaring war first, most Canadians would be unhappily supportive.
If Britain refused to send over at least a token force, then things would be different. In that case the Canadian leaders and elites would be supportive along with a large part of Ontario and the major cities, as well as English Quebec. But the West, French Quebec, and and a lot of the smaller towns and cities would likely be more cautious. And if they thought Britain was being reckless these groups may start demanding a distancing from Britain. But it would probably take at least one less than successful war to get Canada to part ways with Britain.
If the war was a success even with a high casualty rate, Canadians would see it mostly as a victory for themselves, and the Glorious British Empire. In this case it would ensure that Canadian and British relations remain firm. If they lost badly, well most of Canada would be a US territory, and the remaining bits would be clinging desperately to Britain hoping they aren't gobbled up next, so it wouldn't matter.
But if Canada lost a lot of people and didn't get anything, or lost some territory but only minor areas, then it would cause a big rift between Britain and Canada. Especially if Canada believed that Britain had deserted them to support Germany.
In this case no North American Federation. More like a Canada armed state grudgingly remaining with Britain, praying that the still much stronger US doesn't decide to finish it off.
 

67th Tigers

Banned
What Britain would send in event of a war in 1889 is probably about 10 infantry divisions and 2 cavalry divisions*. This is a fairly substancial regular force and certainly enough to secure Canada against the force the US could throw at it**.



* In South Africa 1899 they fielded 11 divisions and 2 cavalry divisions, but one of those was the existing garrison. The infantry divisions were fairly large all arms organisations with about 8,000 infantry, 18 guns, 8 machineguns and usually an attached mounted infantry force in addition to the divisional cavalry squadron (total of about 1,000 mounted men).

** The US army swelled to about 275,000 in 6 months in 1898 with the addition of volunteers, but their quality was bad, and they had no modern weapons for the volunteers, who were equipped with modernised versions of ACW vintage weapons. Given the expected timeline the US might be able to throw 100,000 men at Canada with 6 months lead in, but they'd be outnumbered, outgunned and outclassed.
 
I've been reading up on the US Army of the post-ACW era, and am very disturbed by just how far behind Europe they got. In 1898 troops were going to war with Trapdoor Springfields!

That didn't really change until after the SAW... and in that war, some US units were actually using lever action Winchesters! More were armed with a gun imported from Sweden (IIRC). The US lagged in arming its troops with smokeless powder too. Of course, when you look at the history of the US in the 19th century, there was essentially the War of 1812, then nothing major until the Mexican War, then nothing major until the ACW, then nothing major until the SAW... the US scarcely had any reason to go into hyperactive weapons development... unlike the Europeans, who were beating each other up nonstop, or sitting next to nations who were their eternal enemies, and also going out and fighting wars of colonization over most of the globe. It wasn't until after the SAW that the US really started looking at having to possibly fight wars outside of N. America, and thus needed to upgrade its military. But even then, IIRC, we went into WW1 still rather far behind in weapons tech...
 
What Britain would send in event of a war in 1889 is probably about 10 infantry divisions and 2 cavalry divisions*. This is a fairly substancial regular force and certainly enough to secure Canada against the force the US could throw at it**.



* In South Africa 1899 they fielded 11 divisions and 2 cavalry divisions, but one of those was the existing garrison. The infantry divisions were fairly large all arms organisations with about 8,000 infantry, 18 guns, 8 machineguns and usually an attached mounted infantry force in addition to the divisional cavalry squadron (total of about 1,000 mounted men).

** The US army swelled to about 275,000 in 6 months in 1898 with the addition of volunteers, but their quality was bad, and they had no modern weapons for the volunteers, who were equipped with modernised versions of ACW vintage weapons. Given the expected timeline the US might be able to throw 100,000 men at Canada with 6 months lead in, but they'd be outnumbered, outgunned and outclassed.

true enough... but again, I have to ask, just why the hell is Britain getting involved in a German/American war, and just how is such a war going to lead to a US invasion of Canada? Really, I can't see any war being anything other than a naval war between the none-too-large navies of the US and Germany... and probably a war that winds down to a negotiated settlement (unless one side or the other really pulls off something spectacular at sea)...
 
Wait if this is a German-American war way are we so bent on having the US invade Canada? I'm confused ????:confused:

I mean if Germany and the US are in conflict why would the US invade a party totally unrelated to said conflict? That would be akin to the US invading Mexico after 9-11 just because it was there. It makes no sense!!

And another question why would Britian join Germany in a war against the US? It makes no sense I mean at this time British investors are pouring money into American industry why would the British throw all that away to ally with a nation the never really ever trusted and was seen as a major potential rival?

Britian could placate a militarily powerful US with ease by using the American military buildup as a market for British weapons. Britian has far more investment in the US and can gain far more in the long run by having a US that is friendly than having one that is hostile.

In the event of a war in 1889, even a very short one, would open the US as a large market for modern and surplus European weapons and vessels. Neither Britian or France would want to jeopardize that market to support the Germans.
 
Top