US-UK War 1940-1990

ar-pharazon

Banned
So the subject of a third US-UK war is a fairly popular one in alternate history. Though the period of which this war is said to occur is from say the 1830s to 1930s(at the absolute most latest war plan red and all that).

I would be interested in seeing a US-Uk war in the second half the 20th century.

With a POD of 1925 how can we have such a struggle happen?
 
So the subject of a third US-UK war is a fairly popular one in alternate history. Though the period of which this war is said to occur is from say the 1830s to 1930s(at the absolute most latest war plan red and all that).

I would be interested in seeing a US-Uk war in the second half the 20th century.

With a POD of 1925 how can we have such a struggle happen?

Well I mean, Suez goes hot somehow and Eden decides it's a great idea to throw a rock in the face of a 800 lb Silverback Gorilla?
 

ASUKIRIK

Banned
Trotsky instead of Stalin

communist revolt in US at 1930's (bonus army problem explode), French undergoing Communist uprisings and riots. Chinese communist toppled ROC in 1930's too.

Emboldened USSR invade Europe in 1938, British Empire deemed Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy as the lesser evil, alongside Scandinavian countries and Empire of Japan. US Fascists under the (reluctant) leadership of MacArthur also joined the axis.

WW2 is fought between Comintern and Axis.
 
So the subject of a third US-UK war is a fairly popular one in alternate history. Though the period of which this war is said to occur is from say the 1830s to 1930s(at the absolute most latest war plan red and all that).

I would be interested in seeing a US-Uk war in the second half the 20th century.

With a POD of 1925 how can we have such a struggle happen?

Well, broad strokes here, but if we look at the situation in 1956, we can see several things about the region and how it had developed and work backwards from that, at least as far as I can see. The two dominant power blocs were the Soviet Union with its allies and the U.S. with its allies. Britain and France sought to solve the nationalization of the canal by invading it, and protecting their economic interests as well as there perceived power on the world stage, which is very closely tied with actual power. A paper tiger will scare you until it folds. So, how do we maneuver the British and U.S. to be the two largest constituents, thus forcing them to butt heads? Well, if 1925 is our POD date, we can broadly put some ideas out there for change.

The Imperial Federalization idea, or forming the Dominions and states under loyalty to the British Crown, into a more federated and represented body, might ensure that its power does not wane in the post-war years, since the countries will have already been "independent" from the British Isles, but still under the rule of the British Crown. The likely governmental change may well have seen a superstate body of parliament, with members of parliament elected from each "Imperial" Dominion, as well as each dominion retaining autonomy in its own affairs through their own parliaments. This, likely, would lead to a more stable post-war British Empire, of course renamed to the Imperial Federation or somesuch to encapsulate the areas beyond the British Isles. Let us retain our assumption that Stalin comes to power in the Soviet Union, since the idea of Trotsky becoming the primary leader in such a state is, as far as I see, not in-line with his character. Stalin, however, pushed and manipulated his way to the top, killing and replacing those who were not loyal.

So, if events unfold in the Second World War as they did OTL, but with the key difference of united offensives against the Soviets by the British and Americans prior to operation Barbarossa, then perhaps the sunk cost of human lives against the fascist and communist menace might have led the Allies to pursue capitulation of both. Likely, if this was their strategy, and it was acted upon to the point of no turning back, they would intentionally push for the two to war with each other over resources. The allies would, near the end of the war, work to possibly atomic bomb targets in Soviet territory in late 1945, since they did not have atomic weapons themselves OTL until 1947. The likely course of action for the Allies would be to, once significant aspects of the German Fascists had been dealt with, attempt to organize the german state into an anti-communist state, more as a puppet than an ally. Obviously once the war against the soviets had gone far enough, both the British and the Americans would realize that each other would be the largest powers in the world, but their likely cooperation during the war would lend the good feelings to linger for a few years after the war.

So, might a "Cold War" between the British and Americans occur after this period? Likely so. The British would operate continental europe much akin to how the U.S. operates south america in the latter half of the 20th century OTL. The need for ideological differences in war seems odd to me, since while it is true that the second world war, as well as many wars before it, had strong ideological undercurrents, they are not a necessity. The Cold War would likely see the USA attempt to undermine and strip the British of any Imperial Federation partners, likely escalating into small wars, where the use of nuclear weapons would be too great and too risky, resorting to the British using "conventional" warfare instead. The Chinese would likely undergo their civil war with the Communists losing in some manner, near the end of the war, due to joint British-US aid. But after such victory is gained? China would be the largest neutral party in this, seeing it better to fix the country after the civil war and benefit from both sides, rather than choose one and be a battleground between the two.

My thought for when this entire situation might occur, the more outright hostilites between Britain and USA, are pegged for "starting" in the early 1970's, or perhaps the late 1960's.

I guess the alternative build up to the British and Americans becoming world powers would be if the British had intervened against Hitler more decisively in the 30's, and had invaded Germany along with the Polish/Czechs. The german state would then be subject to Franco-British whims primarily, and Soviet/Allied Power struggle would then occur, likely if the Republicans had won the Civil War, and the Italians had gone more the way of Gabrielle D'Annuzio, instead of Benito Mussolini. The division of power between the French and British might come when the French system collapses, and the states of former French control, become independent. This would certainly allow for more interesting proxy wars and intrigue, with the French more closely aligning with the USA, to assist in their former colonies to fight the British Federalized ones.

Who might the winner be? Well if Nuclear options are used, nobody. But in the long-term, my money would be on the USA, for three reasons: Personal Bias (source: am USA man), strategic positioning between the Atlantic/Pacific with excellent defensive terrain and resources, and finally the Gorbachev factor. The Gorbachev factor here might be the liberalizing and freeing of the Imperial Federation, simply through the legal process of proving on of its member states was initially annexed illegally into the British Crown, and therefore is not bound to the Federation.

Those are my thoughts, hopefully they aren't too muddled.
 
Top