True but 20th century superpower America is a very different beast to 1860s America- a country only just entering the first world.
Things just don't work that way. I don't know how to explain just how much is wrong with going off ancestory is here.
So the Union looses a war with the British then what?
- Thread starter Tielhard
- Start date
True but 20th century superpower America is a very different beast to 1860s America- a country only just entering the first world.
Ghost 88, I always knew you weren't a real American.
Real Americans might piss on the grave of the grudge but then they dig it up and go to a taxidermist.
Tielhard, specifics aside, once Germany is on the rise, how do you convince the British to throw out their view on a Europe united by another power being an implicit danger to them?
Real Americans might piss on the grave of the grudge but then they dig it up and go to a taxidermist.
Tielhard, specifics aside, once Germany is on the rise, how do you convince the British to throw out their view on a Europe united by another power being an implicit danger to them?
eh... what? I was saying that the US/UK alliance in this scenario isn't likely to happen. The US will still likely sell supplies to the UK, but isn't going to go to war on their behalf. After all, the UK interfered in a war that was none of their business, ravaged the east coast, took US territory, and generally humiliated the US. And if the CSA gets it's independence, that'll just make it worse. Economic realities will bring the US back to trading with the Brits, but an alliance against Germany? Don't think so...
Now, if the CSA was still defeated, but the US was still subjected to all that other stuff, then the US might ally with the UK against Germany, but the price will be the return of all those territories taken from her in the war....
I'm not I'm a Democrat real Americans are Republicans.
If you don't believe me just listen to Lush Limppaw or G.Gordan Libby Prison.
MrP
Banned
1) I'm not sure I understand the reason for an expanded military. The South is unlikely to pose a substantial military threat, and is likely to slide into economic insignificance and factionalise. Canada ITTL had its outer defences overrun by American militia. I think that America would have been better served in this period with a larger standing army and navy, though. I can see the Navy being increased and modernised in response to its failure to defend the coastline. Provided the Canadians/British adopt a sensible policy of reconciliation (which is uncertain, of course), there's no need for a large army on that border either.
2&3) The OTL defence analysis of Canada pointed out that the place couldn't be held in a long war against a single-minded USA. The only sane option is closer ties. Of course, plenty of war's are utterly insane, but still . . .
4) While the quick intervention might not change matters significantly in Europe (though I have my doubts, given France's penchant for miraclulous defensive weapons IOTL), there's the potential for France to have messed about with Mexico to a far greater degree than OTL. That'd really change the geopolitical balance of power from OTL.
5) A refusal to sell materiel (presumably Federal legislation prohibiting private companies?) or accept British financial assurances would be very bad news for the Entente (well, they couldn't prosecute an offensive war, losing lots of men). However, I am not convinced of the inevitability of WWI ITTL. IOTL it took state-sponsored assassination, prize idiocy from half a dozen national governments and a lot of little niggling minor details to cause it. I wouldn't say such a war is impossible, but I question how closely it'd follow OTL.
6&7) Didn't America do this IOTL?
8) Sounds a bit like Britain surrendering basing rights in WWII to America in exchange for this and that. As for territorial adjustments, it's worth noting that Canada is surely independent by this time.
Perhaps I'm just being blind, but I don't see how the events laid out here make British actions responsible for America being ripped in twain.
America is in the middle of a civil war. Then she picks a fight with the British, even invading Canada. The British subsequently fight back and smash a few coastal bits and bobs. Lincoln and Seward have destroyed their own economy and cut off their own access to arms. Britain was quite cheerily selling things before Trent. Though we do have yet to obtain a consensus on whether Britain would be happy to do so thereafter to a nation that just unreasonably attacked them.
MrP
Banned
A tactful and (I suspect) doomed attempt to get people back to considering what's happening in the immediate aftermath of the war rather than what everyone believes will happen half a century later.
67th Tigers
Banned
Depending on how things go in the West (Pacific Republic), the huge influx of immigrants in the late 19th C might not have happened. Or rather it may have gone to the CSA instead.
Not really, the British will continue to make sure they have a disposible expeditionary force, and it will only really make a difference of the US chooses to invade Canada during a major war with someone else.
The US OTOH may try and keep a credible Navy, which is quite expensive. However, remember the British don't make permanent friends or enemies, neither do the US. Being allied to France in the AWI didn't stop the Psuedo-War etc.
This one I don't see. Assuming WW1 occurs on schedule (which it may not, plenty of time for butterflies to build up here. Disaffected Germans don't move to America, weakening Germany etc.), the allies were winning WW1 before the US intervened. Also, Canada *did* keep large forces back to oppose the US before 1917 (The CEF in Europe represented roughly 1/4 of the Canadian Army)
These I don't understand at all. The Union (a net importer, whose money is/was guaranteed by Western Gold and Silver and Southern Cotton, Tobacco and Rice exports) is utterly stuffed, at least economically
.
A tactful and (I suspect) doomed attempt to get people back to considering what's happening in the immediate aftermath of the war rather than what everyone believes will happen half a century later.
well, either the CSA will lose, or they won't... no one seems to agree on just what'll happen here. If the CSA wins, US/UK relations will be surly for quite some time, although I think trade will resume pretty quick. However, the results of this war will have an impact on future relations, all the way to WW1. It's not as if this war will have no impact half a century down the road...
IF the CSA gets it's independence.... we haven't decided that crucial point yet...
If your raised by a culture that honours thier forefathers and for multiple generations pass down thier traditions and morals then ancestory does have a bearing.
Months ago in a thread you attempted to debunk the myth that every American boy was born with a Kentucky Rifle in his hand. That it is a myth I will not dispute. A part of the Myth is the "Don't Tread on Me" attitude that many Americans still hold.
If the UK declared war on the US over something as trivial as Trent in our eyes, while we were fighting to preserve our country, it might take a little longer than a day or two to forgive. Hell there's still people in the south that have yet to forgive the North for the ACW, what makes you think we'd forgive a "bunch of stinking furriners". At least while Granpapee who lost his arm at Plattsburg, was still alive?
it won't be so minor if the CSA wins the war.
And I'm not talking about 'stewing for revenge'. I'm saying there won't be a US/UK alliance in WW1 (if WW1 does roll around). Is that so hard to believe? I haven't said the US would not trade with the UK or would ally with Germany or anything really drastic. The US would sell them supplies... and that'd be it.
MrP
Banned
LOL!
You hardly need my character reference for support at the moment, old boy. You've not baited a single American yet. Most disappointing
I can't remember such a thread....
And this war isn't Britain's fault.
Its Americas fault for pushing such a trivial issue to the extent Britain has no choice but to give them a bit of a kicking. I don't know about America but in British democracy if such a thing happened the government would get a lot of the blaim.
It is quite hard to believe. IOTL the US was very close to Britain though there was no formal alliance even once it had became a wealthy country in its own right. In this timeline where America has the south cut off from it I could well see it growing even closer to Britain.
MrP, in reply...
1) I'm not predicting a million man army the day after the CSA wins, I'm talking about a long process which starts very slowly but eventually begins to ratchet up.
2 and 3) How precisely does Canada, in this situation, regain the same level of friendship and demilitarized borders with the US without, at some point, being seen as stabbing the UK in the back?
4) A serious drain on French forces while Bismark marches to Paris, followed by a humiliating surrender 2-3 years later than OTL?
5) What the? I said no intervention, not no sale of goods.
6 and 7) Agreement. Superb.
8) So there is no chance of an economically and militarily gutted Canada being 'persuaded' to adjust the borders by a much more powerful US and a UK eager to resolve the debt crisis?
67th Tigers, in reply...
1) The great flow of population to California wasn't until much later. There is NO possibility of the immigration diverting to the CSA. Period.
2) The US without commitments and openly friendly to the British still had the third fleet in the world in 1914 and probably the first by the 1920s. To what degree will Canada agree to be defenseless in the hopes that the British will spend vast sums of wealth and lives to restore what Canada didn't even try to keep? If the US swamps an unarmed Canada...stop salivating, Dave...and then offers to return most of it in return for modest adjustments, would an embattled UK refuse to consider the arrangement?
Note also that I presumed US refusing to get involved, not joining the Central Powers.
3) The Allies were dying fast prior to US entry into the war. Without the US getting involved Russia and Romania would have been followed by, at best, a stalemate in the west, which means massive German gains in the east.
4) Analysis of US economy in ACW period completely invalid. The US emerged from the war as an economic power despite having lost all of the Southern goods you mentioned.
1) I'm not predicting a million man army the day after the CSA wins, I'm talking about a long process which starts very slowly but eventually begins to ratchet up.
2 and 3) How precisely does Canada, in this situation, regain the same level of friendship and demilitarized borders with the US without, at some point, being seen as stabbing the UK in the back?
4) A serious drain on French forces while Bismark marches to Paris, followed by a humiliating surrender 2-3 years later than OTL?
5) What the? I said no intervention, not no sale of goods.
6 and 7) Agreement. Superb.
8) So there is no chance of an economically and militarily gutted Canada being 'persuaded' to adjust the borders by a much more powerful US and a UK eager to resolve the debt crisis?
67th Tigers, in reply...
1) The great flow of population to California wasn't until much later. There is NO possibility of the immigration diverting to the CSA. Period.
2) The US without commitments and openly friendly to the British still had the third fleet in the world in 1914 and probably the first by the 1920s. To what degree will Canada agree to be defenseless in the hopes that the British will spend vast sums of wealth and lives to restore what Canada didn't even try to keep? If the US swamps an unarmed Canada...stop salivating, Dave...and then offers to return most of it in return for modest adjustments, would an embattled UK refuse to consider the arrangement?
Note also that I presumed US refusing to get involved, not joining the Central Powers.
3) The Allies were dying fast prior to US entry into the war. Without the US getting involved Russia and Romania would have been followed by, at best, a stalemate in the west, which means massive German gains in the east.
4) Analysis of US economy in ACW period completely invalid. The US emerged from the war as an economic power despite having lost all of the Southern goods you mentioned.
Tielhard, I don't understand the problem. The course of history is obvious to all!
1938...a desperate coalition of the USA, CSA, Canada and Mexico try with little hope to shore up their defenses in the face of the global Teutonic Imperium and their Japanese Pacific allies. Ironically the core of the defense is the nation widely blamed for failing to save the democracies of Europe in the World War(1914-1919), which pessimists now openly refer to as World War First...
MrP
Banned
1,2&3) To be honest, I'd envisage a scenario in which the British and Canadians deliberately butter up the Americans, thus removing grounds for distrust and fear. So the British would agree with Canada's actions, not see them as betrayal.
4) Now, now, we're discussing the immediate consequences of the war in America, not the putative Franco-Prussian War. After all, a dead Bismarck killed by a fall from a horse (startled by a butterfly, of course ) would put quite a spanner in the works.
5) Sorry, old boy - I'm transferring from another thread from about a week ago (no, I'm not saying you said it then, either).
6 and 7) Had to happen eventually!
8) Why's Canada economically and militarily gutted? No . . . wait, you're trying to lure me into this fifty years later discussion. I reject your temptation!
What? A stalemate? I . . . what? How? I'll stick Wozza on you, old boy!
4) Now, now, we're discussing the immediate consequences of the war in America, not the putative Franco-Prussian War. After all, a dead Bismarck killed by a fall from a horse (startled by a butterfly, of course
) would put quite a spanner in the works.5) Sorry, old boy - I'm transferring from another thread from about a week ago (no, I'm not saying you said it then, either).
6 and 7) Had to happen eventually!
8) Why's Canada economically and militarily gutted? No . . . wait, you're trying to lure me into this fifty years later discussion. I reject your temptation!
What? A stalemate? I . . . what? How?
I'll stick Wozza on you, old boy! America isn't pushing anything it is Britian demanding this and demanding that. The British government sends a threat and the US is the one pushing it?
MrP
Banned
Hang on now - I can see how demogogues in America at the time could blame Britain for this, but it's worth noting that IOTL Seward spun the Union's climbdown as a victory for America because Britain finally accepted what the Americans had complaimed about in 1812!