Latest American Defeat

TFSmith121

Banned
True - and not to get pedantic about it, but

The US didn't really oppose the NVA's last invasion, which was why it succeeded.

I'd still call the whole thing a defeat overall, but a lot of misinformation is being spread in this thread.

Anyhow, if Vietnam is the kind of defeat the author is talking about, then any country can be defeated at any point in history and the thread is pointless (since any country could through stupidity get into a fight where it has no clear national interest and where because of divided politics it lacks the will to press hard enough).

True - and not to get pedantic about it, but the US had withdrawn its last combat forces from the RVN in 1973, when the ARVN had a payroll/ration strength of more than 700,000 men; the only country defeated in 1975 was the Republic of Vietnam.

Best,
 
yeah, that's right. the general consensus seems to be that after 1900 the USA could out produce any enemy, so that in a full scale war they would win.

Really? Let's try Operation Unthinkable: the United States and the United Kingdom go to war against the Soviet Union after the fall of Nazi Germany in 1945.

Probable result: Anglo-American defeat, Soviet hegemony across mainland Europe, a war incredibly expensive in blood and money for the Americans (and for the British too, of course) and with no benefit at all for them. The Americans had nuclear bombs, but not many of them left after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the Soviet advantage in conventional forces was very considerable.

Obviously Operation Unthinkable was absurdly unlikely in OTL's 1945, but give it some very early PoDs (let's say the USSR has different leadership from 1924 onwards and we could change an awful lot of things) and it could happen.

Alternatively, if the USA never entered WW1 and we go with the familiar Kaiserreich scenario of German intervention in the Russian Civil War that defeats the Bolsheviks (it'll be unlikely but throw in some early PoDs and it can happen), we might (in this theoretical ATL with a very early PoD) somehow end up with a Germano-Russo-Japanese alliance of convenience against France and the United Kingdom (let's say that the Germans, Russians and Japanese covet the British and French colonies in Africa, British power in South Asia and the British and French colonies in East Asia, respectively). If the USA steps in to support the French and British, it's unlikely to be able to defeat a Germano-Russian alliance on mainland Eurasia, even if it does pull off Operation Downfall.

It takes an extremely powerful opponent or set of opponents to defeat the United States in a full-scale war after 1900… but I do not think such opponents are impossible in alternate history. In most situations, a Germano-Russian alliance could do it (I don't suggest OTL's Nazi-Soviet Pact because that was never going to last anyway) if fighting on its own turf, that is to say Eurasia rather than North America. In some situations, Germany or Russia alone could manage, again, if and only if they're fighting on their own turf. With Germany, for instance, it's easy to imagine a situation with a 1920s PoD where Germany doesn't go Nazi but still ends up with war at the USA… and probably develops nuclear weapons first.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
The question needs to be better defined; but given the "before 1900"

Really? Let's try Operation Unthinkable: the United States and the United Kingdom go to war against the Soviet Union after the fall of Nazi Germany in 1945.

Probable result: Anglo-American defeat, Soviet hegemony across mainland Europe, a war incredibly expensive in blood and money for the Americans (and for the British too, of course) and with no benefit at all for them. The Americans had nuclear bombs, but not many of them left after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the Soviet advantage in conventional forces was very considerable.

Obviously Operation Unthinkable was absurdly unlikely in OTL's 1945, but give it some very early PoDs (let's say the USSR has different leadership from 1924 onwards and we could change an awful lot of things) and it could happen.

Alternatively, if the USA never entered WW1 and we go with the familiar Kaiserreich scenario of German intervention in the Russian Civil War that defeats the Bolsheviks (it'll be unlikely but throw in some early PoDs and it can happen), we might (in this theoretical ATL with a very early PoD) somehow end up with a Germano-Russo-Japanese alliance of convenience against France and the United Kingdom (let's say that the Germans, Russians and Japanese covet the British and French colonies in Africa, British power in South Asia and the British and French colonies in East Asia, respectively). If the USA steps in to support the French and British, it's unlikely to be able to defeat a Germano-Russian alliance on mainland Eurasia, even if it does pull off Operation Downfall.

It takes an extremely powerful opponent or set of opponents to defeat the United States in a full-scale war after 1900… but I do not think such opponents are impossible in alternate history. In most situations, a Germano-Russian alliance could do it (I don't suggest OTL's Nazi-Soviet Pact because that was never going to last anyway) if fighting on its own turf, that is to say Eurasia rather than North America. In some situations, Germany or Russia alone could manage, again, if and only if they're fighting on their own turf. With Germany, for instance, it's easy to imagine a situation with a 1920s PoD where Germany doesn't go Nazi but still ends up with war at the USA… and probably develops nuclear weapons first.

The question needs to be better defined; but given the fact this is posted on the "before 1900" board, given the economic, technological, and political realities, seems reasonable to expect any such conflict would be in the Western Hemisphere.

Open it up to the "post-1900" world, and yes, a Eurasian power that dominated Europe and adjacent lands in Africa and Asia would be far less vulnerable to military forces being supported from the Western Hemisphere; there were reasons the US intervened in the world wars and remained engaged in the Eastern Hemisphere during the Cold War...and afterwards.

Best,
 
The question needs to be better defined; but given the fact this is posted on the "before 1900" board, given the economic, technological, and political realities, seems reasonable to expect any such conflict would be in the Western Hemisphere.

Open it up to the "post-1900" world, and yes, a Eurasian power that dominated Europe and adjacent lands in Africa and Asia would be far less vulnerable to military forces being supported from the Western Hemisphere; there were reasons the US intervened in the world wars and remained engaged in the Eastern Hemisphere during the Cold War...and afterwards.

Best,

Yes, fair enough. It is probably off-topic for me to post that in this thread. I just objected to the statement that the USA couldn't possibly lose a full-scale war in the 20th century, which is just like the statement that the UK couldn't possibly lose a full-scale war in the era of the Pax Britannica (let's say, 1815 to 1914, a nice 100 years precisely); just because it never faced any enemy or group of enemies capable of overpowering it in that time-period IOTL doesn't mean it couldn't have done in any plausible ATL.

It is (mostly) about home turf, I'd argue, though not as simple as 'home turf = you win'. There is an advantage to fighting far away from your own country—your enemy's industrial heartland can be damaged and yours can't; one might call it the Arsenal of Democracy Effect—but it's outweighed by the disadvantage of supply, except in the very specific type of situation that existed (bizarrely enough) in both world wars IOTL.

{edit} To clarify: I'm not claiming that you said that 'home turf = you win'; I'm only sharing a few thoughts.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Nope, understood. I think your points are valid

Yes, fair enough. It is probably off-topic for me to post that in this thread. I just objected to the statement that the USA couldn't possibly lose a full-scale war in the 20th century, which is just like the statement that the UK couldn't possibly lose a full-scale war in the era of the Pax Britannica (let's say, 1815 to 1914, a nice 100 years precisely); just because it never faced any enemy or group of enemies capable of overpowering it in that time-period IOTL doesn't mean it couldn't have done in any plausible ATL.

It is (mostly) about home turf, I'd argue, though not as simple as 'home turf = you win'. There is an advantage to fighting far away from your own country—your enemy's industrial heartland can be damaged and yours can't; one might call it the Arsenal of Democracy Effect—but it's outweighed by the disadvantage of supply, except in the very specific type of situation that existed (bizarrely enough) in both world wars IOTL.

{edit} To clarify: I'm not claiming that you said that 'home turf = you win'; I'm only sharing a few thoughts.

Of course, I'm the "time and distance" advocate, so presumably I would...the home court advantage isn't a guarantee, but it never hurts, either.

But put it this way - having once been responsible for getting various and sundry units from Point A to Point B on time and on budget, I never underestimate the realities.

Best,
 
Really? Let's try Operation Unthinkable: the United States and the United Kingdom go to war against the Soviet Union after the fall of Nazi Germany in 1945.

Probable result: Anglo-American defeat, Soviet hegemony across mainland Europe, a war incredibly expensive in blood and money for the Americans (and for the British too, of course) and with no benefit at all for them. The Americans had nuclear bombs, but not many of them left after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the Soviet advantage in conventional forces was very considerable..

The Soviets in 1945 were exhausted.

I wouldn't be cheap and easy by any means, but a UK and US v USSR fight in the middle 40's isn't one where the Soviets have the advantage. I've seen this debate come down to 'how many Americans die before its over?' too many times to believe for a second that 'Anglo-American defeat' is the probable result.
 
What is the latest time that the USA could be defeated by a single other power?

It seems that every mention of the USA in a war after 1900 reaches the conclusion that they out-produce and steam-roller the enemy, which is why I have put this in the Pre-1900 section.

Also, to clarify: defeat is anything less than status quo i.e. the USA having to give something up (territory, money, sphere's of influence, rights (e.g. naval limitations) etc.)

I would like to say this is a very biased question considering to majority of the world, US was defeated post WW2 although in a non greatpower loss way rather than great power to great power loss.

Going back to the question, I believe the British Empire can defeat the USA since the timeline is only upto 1899. The problem I think everyone count the British empire as only the British Isles.

All the British need is to beat American navy. Yes, we know the US can challenge/irritate the British at sea. Just like the Chinese can challenge/irritate the Americans in Asia today. Sorry to say but the American Navy is not at par with the British Navy with a time limit of 1899.

Imagine if the British interferred in the Spanish American war and their fleet to support the Spanish. Imagine what happened if the Battle of Guantanamo or Battle of Santiago de Cuba was a decisive defeat which is a very high probability for the Americans.

Considering that US Navy was still into Mahan, US Navy's 7 battleships wont work vs the Royal Navy.
 
The Soviets in 1945 were exhausted.

I wouldn't be cheap and easy by any means, but a UK and US v USSR fight in the middle 40's isn't one where the Soviets have the advantage. I've seen this debate come down to 'how many Americans die before its over?' too many times to believe for a second that 'Anglo-American defeat' is the probable result.

They were exhausted, yes, so there would be morale issues and their men might not be at their very best, but they also had a considerably greater number of soldiers in Europe than the Americans, the British and the French did and they retained the ability to supply them. Especially given the morale boost of "these Anglo-Franco-American capitalist pigs we fought beside for so long have betrayed us! They're just like the fascists!" (whether or not it's true, Soviet propaganda can say so) I highly doubt it would be a question of "how many Americans die before its over?".

The western powers had lots of men, vehicles et cetera in Europe, it's true—but not as many as the Soviets, and Anglo-Franco-American equipment and doctrine weren't so vastly superior to their Soviet counterparts to tip the balance there, and both the Soviet Union and the western powers could supply their armies. The Soviets would also have the boost of lots of communist resistance fighters in France.

I would like to say this is a very biased question considering to majority of the world, US was defeated post WW2 although in a non greatpower loss way rather than great power to great power loss.

True, but what I think the OP means is losing a full-scale industrial war.

The obvious example, one might think, is the American offensive into North Korea, which was an industrial war and yet an unqualified failure.

Going back to the question, I believe the British Empire can defeat the USA since the timeline is only upto 1899.

All the British need is to beat American navy. Yes, we know the US can challenge/irritate the British at sea. Just like the Chinese can challenge/irritate the Americans in Asia today. Sorry to say but the American Navy is not at par with the British Navy with a time limit of 1899.

Imagine if the British interferred in the Spanish American war and their fleet to support the Spanish. Imagine what happened if the Battle of Guantanamo or Battle of Santiago de Cuba was a decisive defeat which is a very high probability for the Americans.

Considering that US Navy was still into Mahan, US Navy's 7 battleships wont work vs the Royal Navy.

That's true. For this, I would suggest the Venezuela crisis rather than the Spanish-American War, because IOTL the US Army was weaker in the former than in the latter. The usual retort in Anglo-American wars—"but the USA would take Canada!"—doesn't work at a time when the US Army has only 20,000 men. In that scenario, an American surrender, "peace with honour" (without reparations or territorial losses), resumption of Anglo-American trade and recognition of British Guiana's inclusion of the disputed territories between British Guiana and Venezuela sound likelier to me than some huge, expensive American recruiting effort followed by a vast campaign northward into Canada over the issue of some South American land that most US citizens don't care much about.

But it's also true that the UK would be very unlikely to go to war with the USA over either the Venezuela crisis or the Spanish-American War, however. It's not Sealion-esque impossible but I think you'd have to change British and/or American attitues significantly to make it happen. Bluntly, the UK didn't care about Spain and neither the UK nor the USA cared very much about Venezuela.

The problem I think everyone count the British empire as only the British Isles.

I don't think that's the problem—in 1900 the power of the entire rest of the British Empire was insignificant compared to that of the British Isles. Indeed, if the United Kingdom lacked most of Canada and only ruled Prince Edward Island and Jamaica (useful naval bases near the USA), it would be in a much better position in any war against the United States because it wouldn't have to defend a vast overland border from the US Army.
 
What is the latest time that the USA could be defeated by a single other power?

I am of the view that the baton really began to pass from the British Empire to the United States in the 1890s, and that was probably the latest point at which it could have been done.
 
Top