A Spanish saboteur on U.S. soil?At that point in time there were a lot of people in the US clamoring for war in order to "free" Cuba. They most likely would have found a way to pin the blame for the explosion on a Spanish saboteur.
Yes. IOTL the reason the U.S. went to war was already dumb enough by making it seem like a conspiracy by the Spanish to threaten the U.S., which would've been akin to shooting themselves in the foot. I would have no trouble believing that in an alternate reality there's a news headline from 1899 that states "SPAIN DESTROYS SHIP ON AMERICAN SOIL!".A Spanish saboteur on U.S. soil?
Soil usually refers to a sovereign countries territory both on land and sea in the context of geopolitics. Or at least, that's how I've seen it used all my life.What the heck is the Maine doing on soil? US Waters, more likely. If it were on land either it ran up on some rocks and the tide went out or it is being repaired.
But if it did blow up in US waters then the people who wanted the war would find another reason no doubt
One of the US military plans to justify a war against Cuba during the Cold War was to crash planes onto the US and claim that the Cubans did it...A Spanish saboteur on U.S. soil?
What does that have to do with 1898? Don't think the US can do that with airplanes. And frankly I'll need to ask for a reliable source on your Cold War claim as well, since it sound more like 911 conspiracy crap.One of the US military plans to justify a war against Cuba during the Cold War was to crash planes onto the US and claim that the Cubans did it...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_NorthwoodsWhat does that have to do with 1898? Don't think the US can do that with airplanes. And frankly I'll need to ask for a reliable source on your Cold War claim as well, since it sound more like 911 conspiracy crap.
I doubt that the Maine would be the causus belli if it blew up elsewhere; warships do that. (I think the USA was fortunate to lose only one battleship to spontaneous disassembly) Britain lost some, Japan lost Mutsu in World War II, Italy lost one in World War I, and I know that others blew up. That said, somene would find another reason for war...
Harbour explosions were quite common, yes - one suspects the US was saved partly due to their navy being quite small.
Other such ships lost: Bulwark Natal Vanguard Iena Liberte Mikasa Mutsu. (The Germans apparently were better at preventing it.)
ED: full list.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Ships_sunk_by_non-combat_internal_explosions
Well, they did have not as much navy in those days.My understanding is that unti the 1890's the German propellant was even more prone to spontaneous explosion than those used by the other powers. They had a bigger problem earlier, so they corrected it and ended up with a safer propellant than everyone else.
Indeed. I suspect that's why they got away with dodgy propellant without having any actual ship losses to it. I would also assume that the German use of cased charges in their later naval guns was a significant factor in preventing detonation.Well, they did have not as much navy in those days.
So, could we actually see a German-U.S. alliance against Spain in 1898 in this TL?With the USS Maine not being the main reason for war, the USA would probably send other naval units to Havana Harbor, tensions would rise between USA and Spain and with a press clamoring for action it still might lead to the Spanish-American War but a little later.
Germany had an eye at expanding in the Pacific at Spain's expense. If the USA and Spain do not go to war in the spring/summer of 1898, it may be likely that the Philippines and Guam wind up in German hands only to wind up Japanese in WWI. WWII still occurs, may be same as OTL. USA does not have Philippines or Guam, reinforces Wake to defend against invasion.
In the Caribbean,
So USA might pressure Spain for Cuban Independence. Without Cuba, Spain may actually sell Puerto Rico to the USA.
USA would still have growing international influence.