How would the United States respond to major military defeats?

The Mexican American war, dozens of Indian wars, the Spanish American war dozens of police actions and the ARW don't count because....?

Those are mostly irrelevant because this is the AFTER 1900 forum. Plus I don't really think one can "win" a police action...I'm going to go back to lurking now.
 

amphibulous

Banned
If things get critical the US wouldn't bat an eye over nuclear holocaust

...Although it would fill its trousers over any possibility of nuclear retaliation. (Really: any nation less sane than North Korea would.) So unless the WW3 is the USA vs Belgium - and only then if the Belgians hadn't had much time to prepare - this probably isn't relevant.
 
Last edited:
The United States has a pretty good 20th century military record. The only big defeat was Vietnam, but even that did not result in the destruction of the US military, foreign occupation, or terms being forced on the United States.

If the United States were to suffer a defeat pre 1914 at the hands of say, an Anglo-Japanese alliance, and lost a bit of territory while also being forced pay reparations, how would the American people respond? Isolationism? Revanchism?
Much would depend on the circumstances. If it were a sudden, short conflict against the relatively tiny and grossly inexperienced U.S. military of the time, there would be a strong sentiment for vengeance, doubtless fed by the Hearst newspapers and various political groups. If there was a slow build-up in tensions, with a corresponding increase in military forces, a decisive defeat would likely lead to an isolationist response initially, combined with a growing militarism and a Fortress America attitude and likely a naval arms race to protect the coasts and project power, White Fleet-style.
If the United States had something more humiliating than the Vietnam war happen during the Cold War, perhaps a series of major mistakes resulting in China capturing the US army in Korea and forcing the United States into various concessions?
I don't think the U.S. would accept that it had been defeated, much less grant concessions, in that scenario. It would continue the war, with the goal of reclaiming Korea, perhaps occupying one or more of China's coastal cities (Hong Kong comes to mind), and forcing China into negotiations to return captured POWs.
Some kind of major defeat in the War on Terror?
Such as the 9/11 attacks? Or are you thinking of something more devastating?
 

katchen

Banned
I read Conroy's 1901 AH about a German attack on the US in 1901 (which for those of you who have not read it, is something of an Americawank, even to the point of giving William McKinley a convenient heart attack to get Teddie Roosevelt into the White House). It occurred to me that if such an attack had occurred one year earlier, the scenario might have led to a quick US settlement.
The difference of course is, that 1900 was an election year. A German attack that occupied New York City and possibly Connecticut, Rhode Island and perhaps even Massachusetts in say, June or July 1900 would be an attack the McKinley Administration would have needed over with by the time of the November elections, simply because these were Republican states whose elections would be interfered with, potentially costing McKinley enough electoral votes for the Democrat William Jennings Bryan to win (has anyone done a Bryan victory in 1900 TL?) Since McKinley was initially against the Spanish American War to begin with, yes, I could see McKinley throwing in the towel and ceding Germany Cuba, the Philippines, Hawaii, a free hand in Venezuela and perhaps even Alaska to get them out of New England before they totally screwed up the election (which he would probably lose after throwing in the towel anyway).
The US is at it's most vulnerable to making a dishonorable and humiliating peace (the definition of surrender changed for us when we put unconditional before it during WWII) when it is at a military disadvantage during an election year (and at it's least vulnerable after the election has been held).. Jefferson Davis and George McCllelan and Abraham Lincoln all understood this in 1864. Ho Chi Minh and Pham van Dong understood this in 1968. Ayatollah Khomeinei understood this in 1980 (and preferred to deal with Ronald Reagan). Kaiser Wilhelm IOTL never did understand this, not in 1900 and not in 1916--or he wouldn't have instituted unrestricted submarine warfare against US shipping. And Konoe and Tojo didn't understand this either--or they would have taken Southeast Asia starting in June 1940, monsoon season or no,, knowing that thereafter it would be a fait accompli for what would likely be a Wilkie Administration.
Granted, if a McKiney Administration had to make a humiliating peace there would be demands for revenge against Germany, particularly from Southerners. But the US would likely simply bide it's time until 1914 and then join the Entente--and WWI three years earlier than IOTL.
 
And how in the name of Christ is Germany going to launch and supply a cross Ocean invasion?

I'm not sure how much tonnage they have but I guarantee you that it is not enough look at the US Pacific campaign in WWII for how hard it was supplying the taking individual islands now x that by a 100.
 

katchen

Banned
From Wikipedia: German invasion of the United States:
n March 1899 when it was clear that the US was about to take control of the hoped-for Caribbean bases of Puerto Rico and Cuba, the Kaiser ordered the invasion plans redrawn by von Mantey.[1] Rather than the reduction of important shipyards, the new plan involved a two-pronged land invasion of New York City and Boston. Some 60 warships and a massive train of 40 to 60 cargo and troopships carrying 75,000 short tons (68,000 t) of coal, 100,000 soldiers and a large amount of army artillery would cross the Atlantic in 25 days. Following a major naval battle to obtain superiority over American surface vessels, German troops were to be landed at Cape Cod and armed with artillery. The ground units were to advance upon Boston and fire into the city. The all-important attack on New York required high speed for success: it would begin with a troop landing on the island of Sandy Hook, New Jersey, while warships worked to reduce the harbor fortifications, especially Fort Hamilton and Fort Tompkins. Next, the warships would advance to shell Manhattan and other areas of New York, hopefully causing American civilians to panic.[1]

This is the plan the Germans had from 1899 until December 1900. The Germans apparently had the logistics to pull off at east the initial stages of it. Refined to include a takeover of Trenton NJ, making possibly 4 states completely occupied by Germany and the most important part of a fifth and it would have created havoc in the advance of an election.
 
I can tell you right now that that plan is both impossible and going to backfire horrifically.

Look at any amphibious invasion in WWII and the months of organising and freakish tonnage of supplies necessary.

The Germans had no amphibious landing craft so their effectively going to be paddling their way onto a defended beach.

The Endicott Board's recommendations would lead to a large scale modernization program of harbor and coastal defenses in the United States, especially the construction of modern reinforced concrete fortifications and the installation of large caliber breech-loading artillery and mortar batteries. Typically, Endicott period projects were not fortresses, but a system of well-dispersed emplacements with few but large guns in each location. The structures were usually open-topped concrete walls protected by sloped earthworks. Many of these featured disappearing guns, which sat protected behind the walls, but could be raised to fire. Mine fields were a critical component of the defense, and smaller guns were also employed to protect the mine fields from minesweeping vessels.

Trying to fight your way through that would be hell.

Carrying supplies of the beach would also be extremely difficult so they need to seize the forts that control the ports.

Your also talking about troops sailing across the ocean and then going into combat at the other end with no break. They will die, a lot.
 
I'd think it would depend on just when it happened. If during the first couple decades of the 20th century, when the USA was militarily weak, the USA would respond with anger and a desire for revenge, which it would be capable of doing. If after WW2, then the USA is likely to hunker down and rebuild, since this is deep in the Cold War and we can't let those commies win. If it happened now, I wonder if we wouldn't see a resurgence in isolationism; 'those foreigners just ain't worth it'...
 
Why start a war without an army?

If tensions were high enough that war was seen as probable it would build an army before hand.

Look at the build up from 1938 and that was as a reaction to events in Europe.

deathscompanion1

I didn't say the US would. Although it has done so in the past. However I also said that if there was a period of tension and a US build-up the allies would be responding. As always the devil is in the details but to quickly overrun a prepared Canada before aid could be supplied would take substantial forces.

Steve
 
They had plans to gas Halifax in Nova Scotia, IIRC. There would have been mass casualties and IMHO, Britain might have used gas back, against say Boston, New York or even Washington.

What delivery method?

Also the US Coastal defences around it's major cities were formidable. New York especially would be a bitch to attack.

I recall reading about War Plan Red and Halifax being gased. One of the opening moves, I think it said. I could be wrong on that, I read it a while ago.

I've heard the same.

I was referring to the British retaliation I can't see them gassing cities at random (very effectively anyway)

I'd assume naval shells would be effective, but then I'm not an expert. Even a British attempt at a gas counter-strike would be effective in 'whipping up the masses' to ensure a counter-counter. "They gassed us, we'll gas them" and so on.
Maybe not a city target per se, the Halifax plan was because it was a naval base. Was Norfolk a major naval base before WW2?

Guys

A bit pushed for time so a bulk reply. I was thinking of reports of gassing Halifax and possibly other crucial targets in Canada as suggested in the 20's & 30's. Not sure whether the delivery method would be by sea or air.

Assuming that if the US did make such attacks the allies would definitely retaliate. Depends on the circumstances but Britain would have a considerable experience from WWI. [Both in producing and delivering gas, in protective equipment and knowledge of suitable tactics.

If the US started attacks on civilian targets then things could get very nasty. Britain has a lot of bases around the Caribbean, Atlantic and in Canada plus in the probable scenario mentioned, with a shorter WWI it also has some experience of strategic bombing and probably a markedy superior carrier fleet. As such a lot of coastal targets would be vulnerable.

There was a great concern during the intra-war period that the next great conflict would see widespread use of gas against civilian targets and that the death toll would be huge. See the 1sty part of the film 'The Shape of Things to Come' as probably the most well known example. It was also a reason why appeasement was so strong in the late 30's. In the period before radar was developed the potential destruction was just about unthinkable.

Now things might not be that bad if such a war came about. However airborne gas attacks on targets would be very difficult to stop and could do huge damage. Not to mention the panic that would result in such cases and the disruption of production [if not widespread civil order] as a result.

Steve
 

Rex Mundi

Banned
The Mexican American war, dozens of Indian wars, the Spanish American war dozens of police actions and the ARW don't count because....?

Because this is in the After 1900 board, because the OP specifically mentioned America's "20th century" war record, and because we've been discussing America in the 20th century.

If you really want me to address those wars, though:

The Mexican-American War took place just two or so decades after Mexican independence, and involved the annexation of areas that were largely uninhabited. Given the disparity between American and Mexican resources and the fact that Mexico borders us, it would've been a ridiculous humiliation if we had lost. Bragging about beating Mexico at that time, and under those circumstances, is like a professional boxer bragging about beating high school student.

The Indian wars were not so much real wars as rape. It was the brutal exploitation of a FAR weaker people, the kind that even middling European powers engaged in, and shouldn't be used as evidence of our military competency.

We did win the Spanish-American War fair and square. I would argue that it was an easy war in which the odds were stacked in our favor, but it was a legitimate victory against an established European power.

For "dozens of police actions," see Indian wars.

The American revolution was won by the French.
 
Because this is in the After 1900 board, because the OP specifically mentioned America's "20th century" war record, and because we've been discussing America in the 20th century.

If you really want me to address those wars, though:

The Mexican-American War took place just two or so decades after Mexican independence, and involved the annexation of areas that were largely uninhabited. Given the disparity between American and Mexican resources and the fact that Mexico borders us, it would've been a ridiculous humiliation if we had lost. Bragging about beating Mexico at that time, and under those circumstances, is like a professional boxer bragging about beating high school student.

The Indian wars were not so much real wars as rape. It was the brutal exploitation of a FAR weaker people, the kind that even middling European powers engaged in, and shouldn't be used as evidence of our military competency.

We did win the Spanish-American War fair and square. I would argue that it was an easy war in which the odds were stacked in our favor, but it was a legitimate victory against an established European power.

For "dozens of police actions," see Indian wars.

The American revolution was won by the French.

Fine 20th Century.

Fighting wars you can easily win seems to be a pretty good argument for military competence. And given that many European commentators thought that the Mexicans had the stronger army in that war and the sheer one sidedness of the affair is pretty impressive anyway but I never heard that wars had to be difficult to be victories.

The Korean War (could arguably be called a draw, the aim was to defend the South but changing the objectives and get beaten back spoiled this but the initial objectives were achieved and it was an honourable peace.

The First Gulf War true the odds were definitely in the coalitions favour but it was still impressive just how decisively they smashed the Iraqi Army.

Greneda, Panama ect (lumping them together because frankly it would be embarrassing for these to be defeats but they were well executed.

As for the French winning the war, that's like saying that Russia won the Pacific war for the allies. The Americans had been fighting for years against one of the world greatest powers with significant local support and remained in the fight and even managed to force the British to concede large parts of the country almost permanently to rebel control before the French joined.
 
This is plausible-ish (no situation with the US and UK fighting is really plausible - they had MUCH stronger financial reasons to stay friendly than China and the US do now and no equivalent of Taiwan) but it's not really a **major** defeat.
Given that real income (adjusted for inflation) has severely fallen the past few decades for the vast majority of Americans, cheap import from China is along with consumer debt the reasons American living standards haven't fallen very much. I just don't understand how it would be less devastating 2013 than 1900.
 

Rex Mundi

Banned
Fine 20th Century.

Fighting wars you can easily win seems to be a pretty good argument for military competence.

America has exactly two borders; one with Canada, and one with Mexico. Neither of those countries has ever had the ability or inclination to invade us. To our east is a bigass ocean, and to our west is another bigass ocean. We have always been able to pick and choose which wars we wanted to fight. Germany attacked France and not the United States, not because we were geniuses and the French were retarded, but because of the Atlantic ocean. As a corollary, all of the wars we have lost or fought to a wasteful draw were ones that we initiated at our own discretion and leisure.

That is not to say that the American armed forces are unimpressive. It's the greatest concentration of military power that has ever existed on earth. I just don't see any evidence that it's particularly effective or efficient relative to its size and resources. And given the fact that our military is so large and well-equipped, we've had a terrible track record in the last 50 years.
 
Last edited:
America has exactly two borders; one with Canada, and one with Mexico. Neither of those countries has ever had the ability or inclination to invade us. To our east is a bigass ocean, and to our west is another bigass ocean. We have always been able to pick and choose which wars we wanted to fight. Germany attacked France and not the United States, not because we were geniuses and the French were retarded, but because of the Atlantic ocean. As a corollary, all of the wars we have lost or fought to a wasteful draw were ones that we initiated at our own discretion and leisure.

That is not to say that the American armed forces are unimpressive. It's the greatest concentration of military power that has ever existed on earth. I just don't see any evidence that it's particularly effective or efficient relative to its size and resources. And given the fact that our military is so large and well-equipped, we've had a terrible track record in the last 50 years.

Mexico did have the ability and inclination to fight against the USA they just didn't really have the logistics or competence (at the higher levels) to fight successfully.

Canada as an extension of Britain had the ability for a substantial period of time, they just really never had the inclination, logically enough.

I never said it was an amazing record I just don't see how you could claim they never really won a war except WWI and WWII. They won plenty of wars they just didn't tend to be spectacular on the other hand they never killed of an entire generation so that's a definite plus over many of the more military "successful" nations.

And the last 50 years have had several major successes (militarily speaking that is, politically, socially and economically there has been plenty of complete cluster fucks.)
 
Although it's very ASB, I like to think of any American defeat post 1970/80's to be similar to David Gerrold's "War against the Chtorr" USA.

America gets involved in a war in Pakistan to defend Israel, but the entire third world gets it's act together under Soviet-Sino leadership to get the U.S to back down after Israel ( under U.S command) uses Nuclear weapons.

Basically a treaty of Versailles against America ensues, (No army, Navy, Airforce; Large reparations.)

However the U.S only "pretends to lose the war- for instance we create a "Teamwork army" that practices drills with shovels instead of guns. It takes 6 weeks to train a man to use a gun, so that army could be mobilized and ready to fight in 6 weeks. We are forced to sink our gunships in the gulf of Mexico, We seal them in acrylic first(maintains water-tightness)- then fish them up whenever we need it.

No Nukes? No problem, we've investeed in space travel- who needs atomic weapons when you can just drop asteroids on them. And hey , we ship 500,000 teachers over seas to third-world countries; their next generation will grow up with American values. Also the dept is paid off with goods instead of currency which requires a re gearing of industry to those lines, which can easily be switched over to a war-footing.

So I sort of see any American-military defeat as short term, even when we lose we win
 
Although it's very ASB, I like to think of any American defeat post 1970/80's to be similar to David Gerrold's "War against the Chtorr" USA.

America gets involved in a war in Pakistan to defend Israel, but the entire third world gets it's act together under Soviet-Sino leadership to get the U.S to back down after Israel ( under U.S command) uses Nuclear weapons.

Basically a treaty of Versailles against America ensues, (No army, Navy, Airforce; Large reparations.)

However the U.S only "pretends to lose the war- for instance we create a "Teamwork army" that practices drills with shovels instead of guns. It takes 6 weeks to train a man to use a gun, so that army could be mobilized and ready to fight in 6 weeks. We are forced to sink our gunships in the gulf of Mexico, We seal them in acrylic first(maintains water-tightness)- then fish them up whenever we need it.

No Nukes? No problem, we've investeed in space travel- who needs atomic weapons when you can just drop asteroids on them. And hey , we ship 500,000 teachers over seas to third-world countries; their next generation will grow up with American values. Also the dept is paid off with goods instead of currency which requires a re gearing of industry to those lines, which can easily be switched over to a war-footing.

So I sort of see any American-military defeat as short term, even when we lose we win

Still no one has answered the OP. Its not impossible for the US to lose a war an invasion (aside from a coalition Napoleon style) however is ASB. But if (using an earlier example) the US were to get involved in a war and was actually bested by a regular professional army of another country instead of guerillas and insurgence how would Americans react?

As an American i have no idea, i would certainly have a "its about time" attitude but i think all it would do is bring americans into the modern age.
 
Well, there was the AEF during WW1. They sustained approximately 300000 casualties, but only about 50000 were killed in combat, the rest were wounded or died of non-combat causes (disease etc).

They could have easily suffered far more heavily than they did in OTL (bad intelligence/plans being discovered/leaked to the Germans meaning they were ready for them etc), perhaps suffering several hundred thousand dead and even more wounded. I don't know, not being an American, what that would do for US foreign policy etc, but it would potentially cause the US to become even more isolationist than in OTL, and less willing to get involved in WW2 (certainly in Europe) with regards to boots on the ground
 
Top