The earliest year where the US would arguably win in a war against Britain?

Any time after 1865. It might take awhile. But the industrial strength of the US is too great long term. The UK would never have the huge army that the US could have. After 1890, the UK turns into Japan of the 1940's. Able to win battles with a bigger starting Navy. But not able to build has fast, to replace losses nor able to survive a blockade. Food is the number one weapon in this war. The US has it . The UK does not.
 
Could the US ever take India pre-1945?

Probably not alone. During the Raj though I could certainly see the US giving tons of support to any in India willing to rebel against British rule. If that provokes a Great Mutiny level conflict while Britain is busy fighting the US you could see Britain losing the Raj no matter how the war with the US goes.
 
As per usual a lot of people are forgetting the big important defining factor of history- economics.
Pre WW1 Britain was super dominant. It merely had to mutter that it didn't much care for another country to send stop markets tumbling. It takes WW1 for Britain to completely lose its credit rating and the US begin to emerge as the financial centre.
I really think in 1865 the US economy is still too weak to be able to weather the storm British displeasure would bring; just consider the massive mess the Trent Affair caused in the US economy. Really, pre....I don't know, somewhere in the long depression, the US economy was very much ancillary to the British economy.
This may not be such a big deal for many countries but considering capitalism is at the core of what America is....war with Britain wouldn't be pleasant even without any shots being fired.
For a very good analogy just imagine what would happen if the US decided it didn't like the UK today, Britain would surrender without America having to do anything military. Our economies are just so intertwined and the UK is the junior partner. The mid-late 19th century was very much the same but in reverse.

More like the 40s. Even before the war was over, the US already had by far the world's largest navy.

A navy isn't the key thing for invading across the atlantic IMO. More important is the air force to clear the way for the invasion ships to cross. Its not until we get firmly into the cold war that aircraft become quite solidly long distance.
 
Last edited:

Ancientone

Banned
As per usual a lot of people are forgetting the big important defining factor of history- economics.
Pre WW1 Britain was super dominant. It merely had to mutter that it didn't much care for another country to send stop markets tumbling. It takes WW1 for Britain to completely lose its credit rating and the US begin to emerge as the financial centre.
I really think in 1865 the US economy is still too weak to be able to weather the storm British displeasure would bring; just consider the massive mess the Trent Affair caused in the US economy. Really, pre....I don't know, somewhere in the long depression, the US economy was very much ancillary to the British economy.
This may not be such a big deal for many countries but considering capitalism is at the core of what America is....war with Britain wouldn't be pleasant even without any shots being fired.
For a very good analogy just imagine what would happen if the US decided it didn't like the UK today, Britain would surrender without America having to do anything military. Our economies are just so intertwined and the UK is the junior partner. The mid-late 19th century was very much the same but in reverse.



A navy isn't the key thing for invading across the atlantic IMO. More important is the air force to clear the way for the invasion ships to cross. Its not until we get firmly into the cold war that aircraft become quite solidly long distance.

A grown-up response. Others please note.
 
Allies

In any such massive war, it's very likely that other nations would be dragged in--there's too much to gain/loose. Of course, that dragged in could be by being neutral in a way one nation doesn't like--and getting slammed. And when it looks bad for one, opportunists grab what's grabbable.

One problem the British face early on: The USA requires very little in the way of imports; Britian needs them. And Canada's in reach of the US Army--the USA has no prime targets the British can march to.

By the end of the Civil War, railroads can suplement coastal trade--poorly, but they can. And between coastal fortresses and railroads, the USA should be able to keep its domestic economy going.

Starting around 1900 or so, Britain is in deep trouble if the USA has some time to prepare as tensions ramp up. America's military was tiny--but its abilty to produce was HUGE.

Incidently, the USA never signed the treaty outlawing privateers...
 
Top