How much of the Americas can the USA conquer before Europe intervenes?

We've all seen plenty of timelines featuring a United States that takes all of British North America, including Quebec, in either the Revolutionary War or another conflict with Britain soon theareafter, like the War of 1812, before conquering most or all of Mexico and then going on to annex much of the Caribbean, Central America and South America (not to mention other frequent targets of Ameriwank scenarios, like the Philippines and Liberia). But realistically, how much of the Western Hemisphere would the great powers of Europe allow the US to just have before seriously contemplating intervention?

It doesn't take a genius to look at a map and see that a country that controls both North and South America in its entirety has serious potential to become an empire that threatens the entire global balance of power. So where does Britain, France, etc draw the line? A complete conquest of Mexico? Some or all of Gran Colombia? Anything further south?
 
We've all seen plenty of timelines featuring a United States that takes all of British North America, including Quebec, in either the Revolutionary War or another conflict with Britain soon theareafter, like the War of 1812, before conquering most or all of Mexico and then going on to annex much of the Caribbean, Central America and South America (not to mention other frequent targets of Ameriwank scenarios, like the Philippines and Liberia). But realistically, how much of the Western Hemisphere would the great powers of Europe allow the US to just have before seriously contemplating intervention?

It doesn't take a genius to look at a map and see that a country that controls both North and South America in its entirety has serious potential to become an empire that threatens the entire global balance of power. So where does Britain, France, etc draw the line? A complete conquest of Mexico? Some or all of Gran Colombia? Anything further south?

The US can not take and retain British North America before WW1.

And after WW2, the US can take whatever it wants and European countries will be unable to do anything, although it will turn the US into some kind of super nazi Germany to the eyes of the world.
 

mad orc

Banned
The US can not take and retain British North America before WW1.

And after WW2, the US can take whatever it wants and European countries will be unable to do anything, although it will turn the US into some kind of super nazi Germany to the eyes of the world.

After WW2, the USA can take anything it wants, anytime it wants in Western Europe and the Americas .
 
You should read Jared's Decades of Darkness. It features a US version of the Domination of Drama and various European attempts to contain it.
 
The US struggled to take Quebec in the 1770s and British North America in the 1810s, despite having 10 times the population of the British colonies. So I'm not sure how it could suddenly gain the power to go on a hemispheric conquering spree.

Even as the US grew in strength in the 19th century, it could still easily be checked by the UK who could exploit differences within the US (e.g the Confederates), let alone the fact that Latin America probably wouldn't be the walkover that the OP assumes.

Also, does the US only invade independent countries in the Western hemisphere, or everything? As the latter would mean war with the UK and France, and possibly other powers, and would probably result in the US losing its independence.
 
After WW2, the USA can take anything it wants, anytime it wants in Western Europe and the Americas .

No, not anything after 1949 because there are « things » in Europe that have nukes and can inflict devastating damages to the US which will deter the US from trying to take anything.
 

apollo11

Banned
No, not anything after 1949 because there are « things » in Europe that have nukes and can inflict devastating damages to the US which will deter the US from trying to take anything.
From 45 to the late 50s the U.S. would have plenty of time for a conqueuring spree.
 
At the end of the American Civil War the United States could have occupied (and controlled the major port cities of) Mexico and taken as well, the southern half of Canada along with its vital ports.

With the latter, Britain’s reaction would have been to posture for war, but in the end reluctantly accept a cash buy-out.

Even today the USA could take but not hold Central and South America; the economic gain would be out-of-balance with the cost of occupation and withdrawal would be inevitable.
 
U need to have a certain POD. Have Quebec fight with America, and you get USA that will be more tolerant of non-English, and non-Protestants. They can unite the hemispheres and the Pacific. This TL is explored in @Militant_Ape's USAO TL.
 
All of Mexico and Western Canada are the most obvious major additions; smaller possessions like the Philippines and various other strips of territory are also well within reach.
 
Would Europe really care? Taking the Southern half of modern Mexico or anything South of it would only weaken the US unless America played all of its cards right for 50+ years.

The most America can realistically do to wank itself further in the 19th century would be...

Pull out unbelievably lucky win in 1812 to take Canada

Assimilate Anglo Canada

Keep Quebec characters content

Take Northern half of modern Mexico

Fill Northern México with enough immigrants and money to have decent Anglo majority by late 1800s

Take in several million extra Chinese immigrants, whose children begin to spread out (rather than concentrate) and assimilate

Avoid Civil War, peaceful abolishment of slavery.


This would increase America’s core powerbase, but how much? I doubt GDP would be more than 25% bigger.


If America decided to act more like a Great Power, then what?

It could probably build a Navy by 1890 that is comparable to Britain and an Army comparable to Germany, but that would be fairly expensive and require major changes to government. Given how fast America grew OTL that could be bad.

ITTL it could take Spain’s colonies earlier and annex Cuba.

It could take the remainder Mexico and Central America between the 1860s and 1870s and probably pacify them by 1900, but they will probably be underdeveloped money sinks that are only able to begin growth after they are largely pacified. The locals probably won’t pick up English by this point.

The US could take the Congo probably, maybe rape it as badly as Belgium and make some money while increasing power projection. That can damage race relations at home though which might weaken America more than any money they make, so maybe keep the looting to a minimum for a more reasonable kill count.

Keep Borneo somehow and take colonies in the Pacific?

Sphere of influence in China?

Claim or buy some uninhabited islands in the Southern or Indian Oceans and establish some fishing outpost and small military base?

Sign an alliance with a major European power at some point?




What more can America do? And how would it upset or scare Europe? If America tries conquering Peru, Venezuela, Brazil, Colombia, etc it would just weaken itself and probably end up embarrassed by the struggle, over extended, and in debt.
 
Last edited:
Top