Odd idea 1 Could Britain and Japan have ended up allied against the US?

There were links between Britain and Japan. There was a lot of suspicion in Britain of China.

Had Japan's policies and tactics been less outragous and there had been other stresses in the UK/US relationship is it possible???
 
There were links between Britain and Japan. There was a lot of suspicion in Britain of China.

Had Japan's policies and tactics been less outragous and there had been other stresses in the UK/US relationship is it possible???

Derek

Technically it could have occurred OTL. The 3rd edition of the Anglo-Japanese alliance [1911-21] allowed for Britain not to be committed to supporting Japan if it was attacked by America. [Basically saying that the treaty wouldn't apply if Britain had a treaty of arbitration with the attacker. This was something that Japan objected to strongly as it was obviously directed at the US, which Japan was feeling threatened by, but it signed the alliance renewal. Then the US dropped the ball by refusing to sign the treaty of arbitration offered by Britain. Basically this would have committed both powers to settle any dispute by seeking independent arbitration if they couldn't agree between themselves].

Hence, if the US had attacked Japan between 1911-21 [or afterwards if the alliance had been renewed on the same terms] Britain would have been treaty bound to support its ally.

I vaguely remember that the 2nd edition of the treaty was more open in that if either power was attacked in the Far East the other would have bound to aid them. Or the 1st edition if a member was involved in a war and attacked by a 2nd power. So in theory if during the Russo-Japanese war America had attacked Japan you would have got the same condition but I think that would have been pretty ASB.;)

I think you might have got a conflict in the 1920's but would have needed a pretty OOT US government. Its possible but fairly unlikely.

Steve
 

Bearcat

Banned
You probably need a POD before 1914. After that, it gets progressively more difficult to imagine.
 
You need an America that comes out of the nineteenth century as a crazy Bolivarian-ish tinpot dictatorship. Yet I don't see such a republic becoming and staying a continental power, nor do I see the still wealthy disUnited States of an alternate Civil War outcome going down the path of Paraguay under Solano López.

Liberal anglophone America wouldn't fight liberal anglophone Britain after the process of industrialisation .
 
I wrote an ATL with the POD of the Russians breaking the defenses of Plevna much earlier than OTL in the 1877-78 Russo-Turkish War, leading to the Russian conquest of Constantinople.

That timeline's WWII involved an Anglo-Japanese Alliance facing off against a US-Russia one.

I will post the TL sometime later if anyone is interested.

Re: Magniac's point, IIRC there was an Anglo-US war scare sometime in the late 19th Century over Venezuela, no banana republic needed.
 
Re: Magniac's point, IIRC there was an Anglo-US war scare sometime in the late 19th Century over Venezuela, no banana republic needed.

The Venezuelan crisis (war scare) was not exactly the Spanish American War. It wasn't even the Trent affair. Edmund Morris has written about it being a misunderstanding & that TR and his British equivalents never thought 'war between the English speaking peoples' possible.

Though looking at Derek's OP I suppose that a British/Japanese alliance need not lead to any military posture against the United States (let alone actual war making), it only has to be non-aggression pact aimed at inconveniencing the US in the Far East.
 
Possibly no US entry into WW1, leading to a negotiated peace tilted slightly in favor of Germany, but fairly neutral towards Britain, would do the trick as a POD. Obviously you'd have no Washington Naval Treaty, with Britain essentially choosing closer relations with the US over the Anglo-Japanese alliance.

It'd be tough to get to actual war between the US and Britain, IMHO, even if Japan went to war with the US, no matter what the Anglo-Japanese treaty said.
 
Yes it was WWI that made Britain realize it needed American support against Germany more than Japanese help against Russia. It was American pressure in the 1920s that caused the end of the Anglo-Japanese Alliance.

It would take two developments IMO for such a war. First no American help in WWI, and second American alliance with either Russia or Germany.
 
A Central Powers victory scenario seems the most likely, imo. Then we have a right wing government take over in Britain after loss of territories in Africa, war reparations, and a harder hitting Great Depression. This government would certainly be closer to Japan than the US, and might decide to go on Japan's side whenever the Pacific decides to blow up. Sort of like TL 191, except the US is still a single country.
 
Anglo-American naval rivalry

I could see a Japanese/British alliance against the US as an outgrowth of a post-World War I US/British naval arms race. Historically the US was in a position to easily win any such race after World War I, which is why the British were willing to accept equality in capital ships with the US instead of their traditional insistence on being able to match the next several navies.

The peaceful transfer of predominant naval power from Britain to the US was an unusual phenomenon, and I could see it coming unglued if the British were less drained by World War I, or if it hadn't been so obvious after World War I that if they tried to maintain superiority the US could out-build them.
 
Though looking at Derek's OP I suppose that a British/Japanese alliance need not lead to any military posture against the United States (let alone actual war making), it only has to be non-aggression pact aimed at inconveniencing the US in the Far East.

Magniac

Good point. I only noticed that when looking at the thread again now. The OP just mentions an alliance, which could be directed against the US, rather than it actually leading to fighting, although I suspect that's what Derek intended. As such technically the condition was meant OTL?

As other posts say you really need either Britain or the US going seriously off the rails for a major clash to be likely between the two. Suspect David Floyd is right that even a US attack on Japan may not have meant Britain declaring war. [A Japanese attack would definitely not as the alliance was defencive and Britain would not in any way be drawn into such a conflict, expect possibly on the US side].

Steve
 
DaleCoz, actually the British had been fading for some time.

By the time WWI began the British had gone from a navy which could handle any three to a navy which could handle any two to a navy superior to any one...the ugly trend was clear.:(
 
Well, a US that goes Fascist during the Great Depression (Nazis, the US and Italy vs Japan, the UK and the USSR: democracy is probably screwed, except just possibly if the US is fighting a "seperate war" with the UK and Japan and has no real interest in fighting across the Atlantic to help the Reich).

Bruce
 
Here's the rough outline of my TL, since Adam wanted to see it:

-The Turkish defense of Plevna crumbles earlier and the Russians seize Constantinople before the British can intervene. The end result is a much larger Bulgaria, with Constantinople and the Straits as a Russian Hong Kong.

-Alexander II's assassination is butterflied away and he creates a successive constitutional monarchy, although the nobility remain strong in the rural areas (because the land reforms left them with the forests and the like, which they could charge the peasants for.

-Russia and Germany fought a very nasty war around the time of OTL's WWI that led to the creation of an independent Poland as a buffer state. If I want to wax apocalyptic, perhaps I'll have A-H disintegrate first and everyone grabs a piece, then realizes they're next if they keep this up.

-War between Britain and Russia breaks out over Persia, with the Japanese and the rump Ottoman Empire jumping in on the British side.

-The Russians basically bribe the US with valuable economic concessions to put the screws to the Japanese economically. They launch an attack on the Phillippines, bringing the US into the war against the Japanese. The US and Britain are not at war at first, but the Irish in America HATE Britain and will likely cause trouble, and support anti-British political candidates.

-The British get nukes first and use them against the Russians and loan them to the Japanese, who use them against the Americans. In TTL, Pearl Harbor gets nuked. The US declares war on Britain.

-At some point, American forces liberate Ireland. The British nuke the forts defending St. Petersburg from attack by sea and conduct landings along the Baltic coast.

I think the later parts of the TL need work, as the British would strip everything bare to defend Ireland against an American landing, which would be seen coming from far away.

Basically, the premise is that some 19th Century trends--America's friendliness with Russia and dislike of Britain, the "Great Game" between Britain and Russia in Central Asia, and the British-Japanese alliance--all continue.
 
Well, a US that goes Fascist during the Great Depression (Nazis, the US and Italy vs Japan, the UK and the USSR: democracy is probably screwed, except just possibly if the US is fighting a "seperate war" with the UK and Japan and has no real interest in fighting across the Atlantic to help the Reich).

Bruce

Why would a Fascist US necessarily ally with the Nazis? I could imagine a race war with the Japanese for control of the Pacific, but that could set them AGAINST the Germans, particularly if the Germans mess with American trade with Britain.

America's national interests are still America's national interest, regardless of who's in power. Look at Russia after WWII going for Constantinople again (the reason for the Truman Doctrine)--that's 19th Century Czarist behavior, being done by a Communist.
 
Why would a Fascist US necessarily ally with the Nazis? I could imagine a race war with the Japanese for control of the Pacific, but that could set them AGAINST the Germans, particularly if the Germans mess with American trade with Britain.

I'm assuming Fascist US is also big on reversing the humiliation of the Treaty of Ghent.

Bruce
 
I'm assuming Fascist US is also big on reversing the humiliation of the Treaty of Ghent.

Bruce

Not being able to take Canada?

I think by the 20th Century, the Pacific was considered the big thing. We had the conquest of the Phillippines, the China lobby, etc. And if the American fascists are racist, which they more than likely are, the notion of a non-white imperial power would likely bother them.
 
Not being able to take Canada?

I think by the 20th Century, the Pacific was considered the big thing. We had the conquest of the Phillippines, the China lobby, etc. And if the American fascists are racist, which they more than likely are, the notion of a non-white imperial power would likely bother them.

Considering that in 2010 so many board members are enthusiastic about the idea of annexing Canada... :D

Bruce
 
Top