You have to create a reason for the US to want to intervene in Europe. I know I spoke on this on another thread somewhere, and who it was I was discussing with did point out that the US attacking the Spanish possessions in the Pacific were thought, by some, to be a US violation of the Monroe doctrine, as they fought outside of the western hemisphere. While it wasn't a major concern, the US intervening against the Spanish there was thought to have the chance of giving Europe a free hand.
In that same vein, attacking the Canary islands would be a direct assault on the Spanish metropole. While technically in the western hemisphere, this would be the US invading the homeland of a European country, and would have risked escalating the war. So, you'd need a reason for the US have gone that far.
Which, frankly, aren't many. This would be a US that had completely succeeded in the Caribbean and the Pacific. There wouldn't be much of a Spanish fleet left. I guess if you stretched it to the point that the Spanish fleet managed to escape and were preparing a counterattack and the US decided to launch a preemptive strike? Highly doubtful for the US to operate that far from its supply lines against Spain's strongest fleet.
The other option is to have the US interested in attacking the Spanish Sahara (I did outline the scenario in the prior case) and as such be forced to at least subdue the Canary Islands. This doesn't necessarily mean invasion, just the blockade of the port and sinking Spanish ships.
There simply wouldn't be a need. A US that would even contemplate that has already secured Spanish possessions in the Pacific and the Caribbean. A recalcitrant Spanish government may refuse to surrender, but with the situation having unfolded as such on the ground, it'd sound better to just sit on it and try to get other nations to put pressure on the Spanish government while integrating the territories.
Here's the thread I'm referencing:
https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/ah-challenge-usa-in-the-old-world.406502/
Can you please elaborate on the "free hand" part here?
What about a U.S. desire to establish a military presence--even a small one--near Europe?
Didn't the U.S. completely succeed against Spain in the Caribbean and Pacific in our TL, though?
Couldn't the U.S. want the Canary Islands as a supply base if it also wants the Spanish Sahara, though?
Integrating its newly acquired Caribbean and Pacific territories, you mean?
Thanks!![]()
The thread describes it better, but the free hand was as thus: the Monroe doctrine prohibited European expansion of empires in the New World, but could be read to include the qualifier "so long as the US acts only in the New World". As such, if the US started playing around in Europe's sphere, they might give the European nations a reason to start fighting in the Caribbean or the Americas in General. If the US started messing around in Europe proper... That gives an even greater reason for the various Empires to mess around in the New World.
Nonexistent. The US goals to expansion, historically, have been in the Caribbean as the primary one, and secondarily in the Pacific. If you want the US to make noise in Europe, it would have to happen incidentally.
They defeated the Spanish Fleets and managed to occupy the key points. Here I mean that the US would, instead, have occupied every bit of Spanish Territory and completely ended any resistance, and even at that point Spain wouldn't surrender.
My thought wasn't that the US would keep the Spanish Sahara in that thread, more that they would be keep Ifni as a naval base. The US doesn't want the Spanish Sahara for any reason (as it was just leftovers from the Scramble for Africa); only Spain, Morocco, and France does. My theory in that thread was (after a PoD a few decades earlier changing a few things) the US ends up officially making Morocco a protectorate (with Ifni serving as an alternate Guantanamo), but would leave the Spanish Metropole Alone.
Correct; sorry.
No problem.
United Fruit?This is a stretch but if the reverse African American migration to Liberia & Sierra Leone had been larger, with stronger ties to the US, then perhaps, the old USN North African Station would become a quasi naval base ashore, ect... In that case controlling the Canaries might fit the ideas of the Jingoists, United Fruit, a African caucus, & other associated US groups. Some African states might see this as a good thing, thinking the US a ally or counter to European colonization.
How would you make it happen incidentally?
Spanish territory in Spain proper?
Wouldn't the U.S.'s hostility to imperialism make it more likely to support an Open Door policy in Morocco (a-la China)?
United Fruit?
...
United Fruit Company. Had huge interests in Central American nations. Monopolies. Quite nasty.
Yeah... that lady on the Chiquita banana is such a gangsta... haha (Chiquita is the name United Fruit goes by today)The Maines had a cynical saying in the 1920s: 'Making Latin America safe for United Fruit'. Variants substituted Carribean, Nicaragua, Haiti, Santa Domingo, ect... for Latin America. "Banana Wars" was another cynic appeliation for the 30+ years of Marines intervening in Latin America. This is what Marine General Smedley Buetler was refering to in his speech on how his career was that of a "gangster". A enforcer or thug for the interests of big business.
Would it have been plausible for the U.S. to invade the Canary Islands during the Spanish-American War in 1898?
If so, what exactly would the consequences of this have been?
The U.S. did buy the Danish West Indies in 1917in our TL, though.How about annexing Danish West India or the Virgin Islands ?
Basically, the US doesn't naturally have a drive towards Europe; we've seen this OTL. You have to make any actions from the US consistent with its prior ones.
For example, in the other thread, I outlined a path that would perhaps lead to the US maneuvering into Africa. Liberia starting out as a small, government-sponsored endeavor instead of a private one spiraling into Liberia becoming a small US territory in Africa. (This happened prior to the Monroe Doctrine OTL, so if a similar Doctrine evolves, likely, the African colony would be grandfathered in). Continue this on for a while, making Liberia the homestead for free blacks and, after the Civil War (practically inevitable), allowing them to immigrate there and settle the territory.
Or, if you want fewer butterflies, have everything continue as per OTL, but with a shorter war, the US doesn't suffer nearly as terribly in terms of demographics (2% of the prewar population died during the Civil War). The US wouldn't be as isolationist after the war; failing the Santo Domingo annexation, perhaps a deal is worked out with Liberia so that freed slaves are allowed to immigrate there as well, with guaranteed land and provisions to settle, with the end result being that Liberia ends up as a US territory.
However you make it work out, that is a requisite step.
From there, the US (healthier from the war not being as terrible), ends up a little better prepared during the war, which acts out the same, save the addition of a US African Squadron which carries out operations in Spanish African colonies (for ease, I'd say Equatorial Guinea and Western Sahara, but there have certainly been enough butterflies to change the scramble). Here, the US is faced with a bit of a conundrum; with so many African territories, a good naval base wouldn't be terrible, and Ifni isn't a bad location. Morocco wants it back, but they'd also like the Sahara, the US manages to dismantle that as well.
No. All of the territory in the Philippines, along with every single island in the Pacific, and all that be completely occupied. The US is relatively safe at this point, as any Spanish Fleet would have to sortie out and either meet the US in relative neutral grounds favoring the US (the Philippines) or on their home turf (the Caribbean). There's no point to driving and taking land overseas, as the US certainly doesn't desire or need it in Africa absent any other changes from OTL.
Basically, such a protectorate, I envisioned, would be based on the semblance of Morocoo deeming the US as the one great power that could be neutral in its affairs, compared to Germany and France and all of the eyes looking jealously at it, especially as the US would mainly be there in a relatively undeveloped naval base on the fringe of its territories. That's the only reason to go with it; if anything, consider it an extension of the US repaying the favor offered by Morocco back during the Barbary Wars, where they freed US sailors and ordered their pirates to cease hunting American ships (something the other states refused). Here, they end up shielding Morocco from a world away and allow them quite a bit of autonomy in the meantime. Frankly, they'd likely take the hands off approach outside of Ifni.
That would definitely earn the enmity of some European nations, but if it is presented as a fate accompli (and if the US has a stronger navy, Germany/France/the colonial flavor of the day would be less likely to intervene).
Call it the Swiss solution: no one really is happy (US is unsure about establishing protectorates, general populace would be iffy no matter what) (European countries would be worried about encroaching US influence and not getting what they want) (Morocco still doesn't like admitting to any sort of protectorate, no matter how light it is.) Therefore, it is the correct solution.
United Fruit Company. Had huge interests in Central American nations. Monopolies. Quite nasty.
Why exactly would the U.S. government want to keep control over Liberia, though?
OK; however, I just want to clarify something--the U.S. acquires both Infi and the Canary Islands in this TL, correct?
Why exactly does every single Spanish island--even small ones--in the Pacific need to be occupied by the U.S. in this TL, though?
Wouldn't genuine independence with U.S. protection be better for Morocco, though?
OK; however, what exactly does this have to do with Africa?
Yeah... that lady on the Chiquita banana is such a gangsta... haha (Chiquita is the name United Fruit goes by today)
I'm not arguing the US would seize the Canaries, but I am going to give reason why they MAY for those who seem to be so adamant about the US having no reason. Historically the US had economic, diplomatic, and military interests in the Mediterranean. ... ... Spain may have caused trouble with Morocco or being our ally Morocco started a war that is going bad and need our help, we grab Canaries just 'cuz. There's plenty of real cause for the US to get it, but you need an early POD.