How to get a American occupied Britain ?

[Lateknight]

I was debating on we're to put this here or pre 1900s and well I feel that there's a possibly of this happing back this way is more realistic. It's strange because a war that could end probably couldn't happen until post 1900s but most pods for this war would be back in the 18th or 19th century. So my question is basically this how do get a Britain that's occupied by America?

 

[Admiral Halsey]

Get a Fascist/Communist US VS a Fascist/Communist Britain in an ATL WW2 where they're on opposing sides of the war. Side US is on goes for unconditional surrender and win the war. US occupies Britain postwar.

 

[RLBH]

Cold War era UK seriously cocks up industrial relations and the economy. A hardline Leftist movement becomes dominant in the Labour Party that's seriously talking about kicking the Americans out and letting the Soviets in. Civil unrest turns into outright conflict. The US sends in troops - probably by invitation at first - to restore order, and finds that it has to knock more heads together than expected. Though there's legally still a British government, in reality the head of the American peacekeepers in control.

 

[B-29_Bomber]

Get a Fascist/Communist US VS a Fascist/Communist Britain in an ATL WW2 where they're on opposing sides of the war. Side US is on goes for unconditional surrender and win the war. US occupies Britain postwar.

Don't even need to go that far.


The UK, out of a desire to weaken the US, covertly supports the Confederacy during the ACW. War takes longer, more lives lost, but the Union wins. A vengeful US goes on to be very confrontational towards the UK.

US allies with Russia and Germany and Britain allies with France. Ultimately both sides wage an alt-WWI and the Americans invade Britain. France falls a few months later.

During those months and in the interceding time before the peace treaty is signed Britain is occupied by the United States.

 

[MikeTurcotte]

28 days later?

 

[wilji1090]

The UK, out of a desire to weaken the US, covertly supports the Confederacy during the ACW. War takes longer, more lives lost, but the Union wins.

Interesting thought, but what about the Venezuelan Crisis in 1895? I see that as being the real turning point in Anglo-American relations.

But in a post-1900 scenario? If the Entente lost World War I and had the knee jerk reaction that Germany did, you might see Mosley stepping up as Lord Protector of the British Empire (analogous to Hitler's title of Führer) which would make the United States extremely nervous. Especially if Mosley openly declared any intentions of reclaiming Britain's "wayward children" which might be reciprocated if the right steps were taking to not only ensure American neutrality, but a total Central victory.

 

[Minchandre]

Post 1900, any successful Sea Lion or fascist British government will probably see an American-occupied Britain before war's end.

 

[NamelesStatistic]

I was debating on we're to put this here or pre 1900s and well I feel that there's a possibly of this happing back this way is more realistic. It's strange because a war that could end probably couldn't happen until post 1900s but most pods for this war would be back in the 18th or 19th century. So my question is basically this how do get a Britain that's occupied by America?

Pre 1900: Virtually impossible, America will fight a land war vs Canada (which they will very likely win) but it will end up under a blockade until it comes to terms with Great Britain. In the 1800s the US doesn't even have the naval force to stop a British blockade of the Atlantic, let alone muster an invasion of the UK. Now America could theoretically win a war with the UK via some sort of negotiated peace allowing them to claim territory in Canada (how the US would force the UK concede this is another story) but they dont have anywhere near the naval to go on the offensive at sea.

To conquer Great Britain you first have to defeat the Royal Navy. America simply doesn't have the the Navy to defeat the RN prior to the period between world war 1 and world war 2. Furthermore, Great Britain maintains the world's largest ship building capacity up until world war 1 so there is simply no way that the Americans can catch up to the UK if it is an all or nothing Naval race prior to world war 1 (when the UK went from having by far the most foreign assets of any country on earth at the start, to being heavily indebted to the US at the end). Furthermore prior to 1923, Great Britain is allied to Japan which is a powerful naval force in its own right, and declaring war on the UK would mean having to fight the Japanese in the Pacific as well. Furthermore, the UK only refused to renew the Anglo-Japanese alliance to avoid getting entangled in a future US-Japan war, if they are facing a hostile America, it is doubtful they would give up this alliance. The question then becomes when can the US defeat the combined navies of Japan and the UK? In any case having the US and UK make war in the 1930s and beyond and you likely have the US grinding down the Royal Navy to the point where Great Britain can be blockaded and starved until it surrenders.

PS: Of note the US never actually considered a war plan that envisioned conquering the UK. Even the objectives of War Plan Red in 1930 were limited to conquering Canada and British colonies in the Caribbean, then adopting a defensive stance and preventing RN interference.

PPS: Having either Great Britain or America on the side of the Nazi's makes for an interesting scenario.

 

[Superman]

If literally everything goes right for Hitler and the Nazis and literally everything goes wrong for the British, maybe a successful Sealion would require an American liberation of Britain before launching Overlord or its equivalent.

 

[B-29_Bomber]

Interesting thought, but what about the Venezuelan Crisis in 1895? I see that as being the real turning point in Anglo-American relations.

But in a post-1900 scenario? If the Entente lost World War I and had the knee jerk reaction that Germany did, you might see Mosley stepping up as Lord Protector of the British Empire (analogous to Hitler's title of Führer) which would make the United States extremely nervous. Especially if Mosley openly declared any intentions of reclaiming Britain's "wayward children" which might be reciprocated if the right steps were taking to not only ensure American neutrality, but a total Central victory.

Meh, I'm not convinced. It's too late. By 1895 US and British Interests are too intertwined for something like that to damage it. You can argue that 1861 is too late, but at least here the British have a credible shot at weakening the US, even if it's not at all likely to succeed.

And also, the 1861 premise is part of a backstory I'd developed for a HP fanfiction that's been stewing for a few years. If you'd like me to PM you the details I'll be happy to do so.

 

[Johnrankins]

Pre 1900: Virtually impossible, America will fight a land war vs Canada (which they will very likely win) but it will end up under a blockade until it comes to terms with Great Britain. In the 1800s the US doesn't even have the naval force to stop a British blockade of the Atlantic, let alone muster an invasion of the UK. Now America could theoretically win a war with the UK via some sort of negotiated peace allowing them to claim territory in Canada (how the US would force the UK concede this is another story) but they dont have anywhere near the naval to go on the offensive at sea.

To conquer Great Britain you first have to defeat the Royal Navy. America simply doesn't have the the Navy to defeat the RN prior to the period between world war 1 and world war 2. Furthermore, Great Britain maintains the world's largest ship building capacity up until world war 1 so there is simply no way that the Americans can catch up to the UK if it is an all or nothing Naval race prior to world war 1 (when the UK went from having by far the most foreign assets of any country on earth at the start, to being heavily indebted to the US at the end). Furthermore prior to 1923, Great Britain is allied to Japan which is a powerful naval force in its own right, and declaring war on the UK would mean having to fight the Japanese in the Pacific as well. Furthermore, the UK only refused to renew the Anglo-Japanese alliance to avoid getting entangled in a future US-Japan war, if they are facing a hostile America, it is doubtful they would give up this alliance. The question then becomes when can the US defeat the combined navies of Japan and the UK? In any case having the US and UK make war in the 1930s and beyond and you likely have the US grinding down the Royal Navy to the point where Great Britain can be blockaded and starved until it surrenders.

PS: Of note the US never actually considered a war plan that envisioned conquering the UK. Even the objectives of War Plan Red in 1930 were limited to conquering Canada and British colonies in the Caribbean, then adopting a defensive stance and preventing RN interference.

PPS: Having either Great Britain or America on the side of the Nazi's makes for an interesting scenario.

He is talking about the POD not the actual invasion and there he would be right. If the POD is farther back then there is more time for the TLs to converge. Maybe fifty years or mere after the POD the invasion actually occurs.

 

[NamelesStatistic]

If literally everything goes right for Hitler and the Nazis and literally everything goes wrong for the British, maybe a successful Sealion would require an American liberation of Britain before launching Overlord or its equivalent.

Nope, even under ideal conditions sea lion fails. Aside from the fact that they had no surface fleet to protect the invasion AND no merchant marine to supply the invading army AND no control of the air (thus they cant even really stop the RN from sinking any German ship in the channel), this isnt even the worst thing. All they have for transporting troops are EXTREMELY slow river barges, that would have literally taken DAYS to cross the channel, and will sink in anything but ideal conditions (when they wargamed out this scenario in the 1970s they found that even the wake from a passing RN destroyer would sink the river barges. So for the German army to successfully pull off sea lion, they have to load their troops into their barges, spend over a day crossing the channel (and hope the barges aren't all just sunk by some rough seas), and then somehow supply the landed army (presumably via the same barely sea-worthy barges?). In short literally the only way this can work is if the entire RAF and Royal Navy Home Fleet is destroyed beforehand (which is frankly impossible), because the Germans are about as badly equipped for an amphibious invasion as possible. Put it this way, even Hitler, who was an absolutely terrible ground strategist and knew even less of air and naval warfare recognized Sea Lion as a bad idea.

The German's chances of success in Sea Lion are so laughably bad, that implementing it likely WOULD bring about a quicker end to WW2... by hastening Germany's defeat.

Now the Americans are a whole different story...

 

[Johnrankins]

Pre 1900: Virtually impossible, America will fight a land war vs Canada (which they will very likely win) but it will end up under a blockade until it comes to terms with Great Britain. In the 1800s the US doesn't even have the naval force to stop a British blockade of the Atlantic, let alone muster an invasion of the UK. Now America could theoretically win a war with the UK via some sort of negotiated peace allowing them to claim territory in Canada (how the US would force the UK concede this is another story) but they dont have anywhere near the naval to go on the offensive at sea.

To conquer Great Britain you first have to defeat the Royal Navy. America simply doesn't have the the Navy to defeat the RN prior to the period between world war 1 and world war 2. Furthermore, Great Britain maintains the world's largest ship building capacity up until world war 1 so there is simply no way that the Americans can catch up to the UK if it is an all or nothing Naval race prior to world war 1 (when the UK went from having by far the most foreign assets of any country on earth at the start, to being heavily indebted to the US at the end). Furthermore prior to 1923, Great Britain is allied to Japan which is a powerful naval force in its own right, and declaring war on the UK would mean having to fight the Japanese in the Pacific as well. Furthermore, the UK only refused to renew the Anglo-Japanese alliance to avoid getting entangled in a future US-Japan war, if they are facing a hostile America, it is doubtful they would give up this alliance. The question then becomes when can the US defeat the combined navies of Japan and the UK? In any case having the US and UK make war in the 1930s and beyond and you likely have the US grinding down the Royal Navy to the point where Great Britain can be blockaded and starved until it surrenders.

PS: Of note the US never actually considered a war plan that envisioned conquering the UK. Even the objectives of War Plan Red in 1930 were limited to conquering Canada and British colonies in the Caribbean, then adopting a defensive stance and preventing RN interference.

PPS: Having either Great Britain or America on the side of the Nazi's makes for an interesting scenario.

He is talking about the POD not the actual invasion and there he would be right. If the POD is farther back then there is more time for the TLs to converge. Maybe fifty years or mere after the POD the invasion actually occurs.

 

[Dan]

Cold War era UK seriously cocks up industrial relations and the economy. A hardline Leftist movement becomes dominant in the Labour Party that's seriously talking about kicking the Americans out and letting the Soviets in. Civil unrest turns into outright conflict. The US sends in troops - probably by invitation at first - to restore order, and finds that it has to knock more heads together than expected. Though there's legally still a British government, in reality the head of the American peacekeepers in control.

I think this is most feasible post 1900. Early 70's most likely.