US-UK War in the 20s or 30s.

[stevep]

But that's what I meant. I had thought you meant that Newfoundland became Canadian in ~1930. In 1949, it became *Canadian*.

I think Newfoundland was an independent state in the 1920's but ran into economic troubles in the early 30's [didn't everybody] and became a colony again. [I.e. Britain took over responsibility for at least foreign affairs and probably general financial matters]. It then joined Canada in 1949 as a new province.

Steve

 

[stevep]

Depending in what year could be this possible war UK-US we would see giant battleships battles because with all these tensions and diferent situation: no treaty of Washington in 1922, so if for example the war happens in from 1928, we would see not only the battleships scrapped in OTL by the Treaty also new constructions.

Surely, although possibily could be the war where the first important use in combat of carriers in battles, it would be the war of the battleships.

Some interesting information about possible constructions in a World without Washington Treaty could be seen in the page of Admiral Furushista fleet http://www.combinedfleet.com/furashita/furamain.htm (the page is centered in an alternate World War II in the sea but makes mention that in this world the Washington Treaty is only implemented in 1926 and not in 1922, so there are some interesting articles about different kind of warships that could be built in a World without Washington Treaty), for example http://www.combinedfleet.com/furashita/owari_f.htm about the Tosa/Owari class in the japanese also the page remind us that withouth Washington Treaty the Akagi and Kaga had been battleships and not carriers.
Also for example the United States would have for example the Lexigton class of battlecruisers http://www.combinedfleet.com/furashita/lexing_f.htm
And to the Royal Navy remember for example that in a world without Washington Treaty the Hood Class had had more members apart of the Hodd of OTL http://www.combinedfleet.com/furashita/stvinc_f.htm

It would in the naval segment of the war the war of the "Leviathans"

Iñaki

One of my favourite scenarios, seeing some of those giants slogging it out. As you say since a lot of ships that became carriers would be big gun ships instead and coupled with the increased investment in such ships carriers would be latter developing, although they would probably start to become highly influential in such a conflict, if nit yet decisive.

Unless you have a markedly different POD you are unlikely to see more Hoods however. Its 3 sisters had been cancelled because it was realised they wouldn't be needed in WWI and there was already doubt about the design. It wasn't too bad for its time and probably would have had an edge on a Lexington and given an Amagi BC a good fight. However, by then enough had been learnt from the war that much better ships were being developed. You would have seen the G3 and N3 class ships entering service, both about 48-49ktons, 9x16" with 32kts and 9x18" with 23kts respectively. Either of them against the US South Dakota class of BB ~43ktons, 24kt, 12x16" would have been a hell of a fight all other things being equal.

Steve

 

[stevep]

Prior to an during WWI relations between the US and Britain were friendly and cooperative. Presume WWI ended early but surely not before say 1916, then this leaves six years to the Washington Treaty of 1922 to have the relationship completely breakdown. After all, the treaty was principally designed to limit Japanese naval ambitions and to curb unnecessary military expenditure by Britain and the US. The two powers colluded towards this end by sharing sensitive intelligence information and trumping all Japanese moves to gain an advantage no matter how small.

It was not just Canada who objected to a renewal of the UK Japan alliance, both New Zealand and primarily Australia were adament that it should not be renewed. Faced with the unanimous objections of the Dominions the UK had no choice. Even if some alternate British government had recklesly chosen to ignore these objections, the civil service and the navy would work behind the scenes to change policy. Not to mention the press and popular opinion and most MPs all of whom regarded the Empire as Britain in partnership with the Dominions. As Collingwood said, 'these people are as British as us and our common sense of freedom and kinship must never be diminished.'

Even the establishment all the way up to the palace shared the same views. In the 1930s Baldwin would not make a decision of the abdication crisis until he had first consulted the PMs of all the Dominions and got their agreements on the course of action to be followed.

To have Britain follow a diplomatic course that would lead to a possible war with the US would mean that not only some rouge government would be installed in London but all the Empire's leaders would suddenly lose all their political sense simultaneously. This seems highly unlikely. Throw into the mix the fact that the vast majority of US intellectuals and leaders as well as opinion makers were pro-British and echoed Kiplings desire to have a partnership between John Bull and Brother Johnathon, then the shift in attitudes and beliefs among both the British leadership and population and their American counterparts is vanishingly small.

Mark

I would have to disagree on a number of points. There was tension between UK & US during and after the war on a number of issues. Including the allied blockage of Germany. Just that the US objected less to us stopping war materials reaching the Central powers by turning back ships than they did to German U-boats sinking ships.

The primary reason for the naval treaty was that the big three wanted for various reasons to end the naval race that threatened to start. There was growing discontent in Britain about the alliance but also still strong support for it, both because of the influence on the US and also on Japan. In my view it was a mistake killing it, especially under those circumstances and Britain paid a heavy price for doing so.

Actually, from what I have read dominion opinion was divided. Canada backed the US in wanting to end the alliance, because they wanted good terms with America. For the same reason, i.e. they wanted good terms with the nearer Japan, Australia and New Zealand were in favour of continuing it. All three were opposed to Japanese immigration, which was a source of tension but that had existed for a while and was generally accepted by the Japanese.

I do agree however it would have taken something dramatic and stupid on either or both sides for a war between Britain and the US.

Steve

 

[stevep]

First of all could be a large array of possible scenarios about a possible victory of Germany in World War I (as my former post indicates one possible)

Second well not necessarily losing Great Britain, you has to think that in a situation where France is in desarray surely the Great Britain could occupy by security some french colonies to administrate, apart of this respect to Great Britain possibily the germans although has won effectively the World War I the situation with Great Britain is more a draw.

In fact surely the loser is France, Great Britain has a situation of draw with Germany (one thing is not winning a war another is losing, is possible the draw, in this case between Great Britain and Germany).

Iñaki

I take your point about how stupid things can occur. However, while Britain might not do too badly in the short term in a war in which France and/or Russia is defeated quickly, it still loses heavily in relative terms. Unless somehow Germany has been drained by a long and bitter war while Britain has avoided involvement, Germany is still Europe's industrial powerhouse. Furthermore it no longer has to fear its neighbours and has almost certainly gained territories and economic resources.

Under those circumstances baring the death of Wilhelm II and a drastic change in German policy the Kaiser will still want his navy and now has vastly greater resources to throw at it. In those circumstances Britain will have both eyes firmly fixed on the situation in Europe. About the only UK/US conflict I could see at all likely in this is if for some reason the US had a sudden and very serious bout of imperialism and made a grab for Canada. Think this is highly unlikely, especially since any intelligent American will have it clarified that, as Teddy R said, the RN is America's 1st and best line of defence. [Not those words exactly perhaps but you get what I mean].

WWI came in part because the prolonged build up of tension plus inflexible war plans and the fear that if you didn't strike quickly you would lose. However any clash between the UK and US is unlikely to be intentional and would almost certainly be a naval incident or two. As such at least some elements on both side would be working hard to patch things up and prevent what would be a ruinous and largely pointless war for both sides and would have a good chance to succeed.

As I have said before, although still unlikely in my view, a war between the two in the 1920's is possible. However to exclude total insanity on either, both sides you need an early allied victory in WWI with Britain emerging with its economy and self-confidence intact. Then, if you still have the US starting a naval race with its 1916 programme and directly challenging the RN there will be tensions. Think it is still unlikely to led to a conflict.

Steve

Anyway, going to ahve a look at those sites you mentioned. Many thanks.

 

[Iñaki]

Originally posted by stevep
Anyway, going to ahve a look at those sites you mentioned. Many thanks.

A pleasure steve, in fact I have a lot of links to different history sites (because this I am ever prepared to could prove some of my posts if is necessary )

I see that you are also well documented, is ever a pleasure to talk with you (your posts are probably one of the most polite and well reasoned, hmm in fact you seem an authentic gentleman when I read your posts, not rude or sarcastic words, only a polite and well justified post)

I agree with you about the possible war would be because an incident that could generate some kind of imprevisible answer from both sides but that probably both sides would have intention of negotiate with cold mind before a pointless war could begin.

Or could be a war for some territorial problems, this afternoon I was thinking about a possible scenario where an incident between US and UK could be possible, well, this is based in my former post about a possible victory of the germans.

I know that as you say probably unless that allies win the war it is unlikely to have a war between Uk and Us, but what is your opinion about this chain of events:

-1916 autumn. Victory of Germany in World War I. Armistice and peace with France and Great Britain. Two diferent treaties that show clearly the different situation of France and Great Britain at the end of the war. France loses the north occupied by the germans (principally this means the industrial northern zone) also France has to pay a great amount of indemnities.
The surprise is the relative moderate articles about other questions of this treaty: the diplomats of Germany has pressed to some german nationalists that want a draconian peace to have a quick peace to could organize the Mittleuropa of Kaiser, also is clear that Great Britain is prepared to the war if is necessary with the help of the Dominions and other allies as Japan and Italia, the fact is that the Germans want a fast peace to could prevent Russia to fall into the anarchy (in this moments there was some uprisings in Russia) apart of this the situation in Central Europe is not too much clear, the germans not trust too much in the austro-hungarian new emperor Karl and this like in OTL not trust too much in the german attitudes, but this is natural the germans are actuing with a lot of proud and without consulting too much his allies, in fact the germans are ignoring the desires of Austria-Hungary and Ottoman Empire in making the peace, for the germans is clear that both nations are in debt with Germany, without the german help is clear that Austria-Hungary had lost the war against Russia, and that the turks had lost in Gallipoli.
Naturally although justified this attitude of german proud is creating some tensions in the central powers, mainly between Germany and Austria-Hungary.
Because these tensions and the need to help the new russian allied against rebellions is clear that Germany had decided to not make a too much draconian peace with France (like in OTL in World War II the germans also has decided to permit the french to maintain the fleet because fear that this try to escape to Great Britain) the peace with Great Britain is in fact a peace of status quo: Great Britain recognises the preponderance of Germany in Europe but the germans accept that the only colonies returned to him was the Cameroon more larger because new adquisitons from french colonies that surrounded this and Tanganyka, but the Togo and South West Afrika are not returned and also is not returned Tsingtao and the Oceanic colonies.
For the germans is clear that the HSF not could contend with Royal Navy + Japanese Navy + Italian Nay, so they accept these terms.

Great Britain with problems in Ireland and that could actually not make a true effort to attempt to defeat the position of Germany in Europe this peace is also a peace of compromision.

1916-1920. The years of consolidation.

Clearly there is a naval race (with the exception of France that is not permitted by treaty to build more ships only to reemplace the ships when is necessary: so if the french fleet at the moment of armistice is for example 4 battleships, they could not build new units to reinforce this 4 only reemplace these units by other -the british opposed to draconian conditions to scrap the french fleet-) between the potences.
Mittleuropa continues his construction with nations as Holland and Denmark joining the new economical structures, but there are a lot of tensions between for example Austria-Hungary and Germany and also Germany and some minor countries, all this caused by the very proud attitude of the germans in forming this Mittleurope.
there is a new russian-german alliance in that Germany supports the new views of the tsar in the Far East (Mongolia is occupied by russian troops after a rebellion against China and a petition of help to Russia from Mongolia),in Manchuria there is new clashes between russian and japanese troops (not war only military incidents).
This strengthens the alliance between Japan and Great Britain and Italia( alliance that is joined by Portugal), also the Dominions are creating quickly an interesting independent navy.
France in bankrupcy andcontinue unrest could not maintain the large empire because the great economic disaster that has mean the World War I, naturally France not want to give it to Germany. Indochina is now under joint british-french protectorate, the same with New Caledoni under joint australian-french protectorate.

1921. The french civil war. As almost happened in Germany in OTL the french situation ends in a civil war, clearly France is in anarchy, while the germans not want to make any movement that could bring the german troops in a guerrilla war, the germans profit this to occupy formally the north France and annex it and alos the atlantic ports, this causes similar movements from Great Britain to annex formally Indochina and from Australia annexing New Caledonia. There are similar movements, also the french colonies are loyal to government faction but is clear from late 1921 that france has at least three governments that says that are legitime (the jaurists -socialists and other leftists movements-, the republican government -centrists and loyal republicans- and some militars that under the command of Petain has decided that the true way to reborn France is returning to some kind of strong militar government ( a lo Napoleon))
Because mainly this fracture in the army between who supported the republican government and who supported Petain (the jaurists have the most part of support mainly based in socialist militias but litlle regular military units) the situation in the colonies is mess, an attempt of military coup in Argelia is followed by unrest in the most part of the colonies, the germans that also has his same kind of problems in Russia (with guerrillas in Ukraine and an incipient movement of protest in Baltic States and Poland about the fact that although independent in name these states are only german puppets) there is also islamic uprsings in Central Asia and a the tension in Far East that has determined the germans to send an expeditionary corps to Siberia and Vladivostock to help the russians in possible hostilities with Japan, also the situation in China is a total mess with different warlords fighting, the germans so consider that is not now in situation of try to profit in the french colonies this situation of total mess (the royal navy with the addition of the own navies of the Dominions and the navies of Italy and Japan + little navies of Greece and Portugal is too much for the germans that only could count with the Austro-Hungary navy and the Austro-Hungary are making his own politic to the irritation of Germany -more or less like Romania of OTL in the Warsaw Pact- and the weak russian navy).
But the british decides to act to preserve some situation of stability, is not the finality of these lines to explain in other theatres what happen with the french colonies, only the caribbean will be explained here, in the caribbean the french colonies are in a situation of tension without knowing who is the legal government and also it seems that some militar commanders are followers of Petain, for stop this the Royal navy makes a show of force landing in Dominica and Guadaloupe in name of the republican government of France to reestablish the order (the french republican government has accepted this state of things because it is impossible to to sen reinforcements with the situation in Metropolitan france and because the apparent disposition of some military commanders in caribbean to join Petain), naturally the british have their own reasons, apart to stop any possibility of french civil war extended to Caribbean, it is clear that this could provide the british with some new bases and to stop any possibility of the germans to take profit in the caribbean of this situation.
but the republican government of the US consider this a situation that could be under some kind of Monroe Doctrine, for the US is sufficient bad this treaty Japan-Uk alliance although US understand that because the international situation with Germany and Russia could be not more solution for the british, but another thing is seeing the british expanding in fact his bases in the caribbean.
It is decided that if the Royal Navy could make a show of force also the US navy, an expedition is sent to St Pierre and Miquelon, a relative quiet and little colony, for the US is an interesting objective that seems adequate to make a show of force without a direct confrontantion with the Royal Navy (in fact Sant Pierre and Miquelon are not showing any kind of unrest as the caribbean islands and is a little colony so the United States think that is unlikely that british see this colony as important), in fact but it seems that although the british dont want to occupy Sant pierre the canadians have some interest (well if the australians have occupied New Caledonia and New Zealand some islands of the French Polynesia why not the canadians could make some territorial occupation in Sant Pierre et Miquelon) and the british say yes to help the Canadian Navy to make this seizure.
Naturally this two expeditions could neutralize if one of them arrive first (because if the RN-Canadian navy arrive first the americans have no intention of make a war and also if the americans arrive first the RN-Canadian navy possibily stop the expedition, anyone want a war against US- naturally the two expeditions are secrets and any of the possible contenders imagine that the other want the Sant Pierre et Miquelon)
Unfortunately as almost happened in OTL in Norway in 1940 (when british and german expeditions to Norway almost make coincidence in time) the two expeditions by a serie of casualities as more or less the kind of Gavrilo Princip in that street in that time because he wanted eat a sandwich find the archduke, arrive at the same time at the islands and well the situation almost ends in a confrontation when some warning shots are fired, some orders are confounded and some minor units of both sides almost begin a real fight.

At the end the situation is solved, but for the historians of this ATL is clearly one of the most stupid situations that almost cause a war between US and UK.

 

[Karlos]

The problem I see in this is that in OTL there was a perception in both countries as allies, too many cultural, social and political ties. To change that you need another war after the last one in 1812. Maybe a british intervention in the American Civil war in 1863, and a bloody one, on the CSA side. This way USA can begin the XX century seeing the british as kind of hostile and viceversa. Otherwise it's quite unthinkable.

 

[JimmyJimJam]

the situations are differents: the HSF from the beginning count with less ships than the Grand Fleet, the japanese had initial superiority in the sea in december 1941 -and after Pearl Harbour an owerwhelming superiority (and by luck the carriers was not at Pearl Harbour)- if the japanese had winned in Coral Sea sinking also the Yorktwon in Coral Sea and not having the Shokaku heavy damaged and the aircraft of Zuikaku more intact, in Midway there was 6 japanese carriers against 2 carriers -Yorktown is sunk and Zuikaku and Shokaku is present- apart of this in an important part of the victory of the americans in Midway was a question of luck

"At 0430 on 04 June 1942 Nagumo's Carrier Striking Force turned into the wind, launching the first wave of fighters and bombers against Midway. Search planes from the carriers Akagi and Kaga as well as seaplanes from the battleship Haruna and the heavy cruisers Tone and Chikuma immediately followed, seeking the American fleet. Completed in 1938 and 1939 respectively, Tone and Chikuma were Japan's latest, most modern cruiser design. Measuring 650 X 61 X 21 feet and displacing 15,200 tons, they carried eight 8-inch guns in four turrets forward, eight 5-inch guns in secondary batteries amidships, up to fifty-seven 25mm antiaircraft guns and twelve 24-inch torpedo tubes. Purpose-built for scouting operations, the after decks were fitted catapults, cranes and facilities for five seaplanes. Ideal reconnaissance platforms, Tone and Chikuma were given the center lanes of the planned search pattern.

As it had at Pearl Harbor, however, fate intervened once again. The catapult aboard Tone malfunctioned, delaying the launch of its aircraft until 0500. Engine trouble also prevented the Chikuma from launching her seaplane as scheduled. Its flight path would have taken it directly over the American carriers a scant 215 miles away, but further engine trouble caused it to turn back early. Consequently it was not until 0820 that Nagumo received confirmation of the presence and location of the American carriers from Tone's aircraft. By then it was too late. American torpedo planes and dive-bombers were already inbound."

link to the complete article in Military History online here http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/general/articles/whatif.aspx

If the american carrier fleet had been wiped out in Midway (and in this possible scenario of 6 against 2 well is very possible) who knows how the World War had been -and I remember that Japan had developed bacteriological weapons in unit 731 and Japan was disposed to employ these, if you want to add the possibility of some possible radiological weapon, well if West Coast with Japan far better positioned than in OTL because the Midway victory is attacked with all the interesting weapons that Unit 731 had, the USA could not have more solution to accept negotiate a peace with Japan.

"The first of the giant boats, I-400, completed in December 1944. She and the two Type AM boats formed Submarine Squadron One, commanded by Captain Tatsunosuke Ariizumi. I-401 and I-402 joined as they completed, forming a potential underwater carrier group of 10 airplanes after I-402 had been converted to carry fuel.
Vice Admiral Jisaburo Ozawa ordered them prepared for Operation PX. The submarine-launched planes would be used to spread germ warfare agents across American West Coast urban areas. General Yoshijiro Umezu, Chief of the Army General Staff, considered this a “crime against humanity” and ordered the operation cancelled. Instead, after some discussion of other targets, Ariizumi’s strike force was ordered to prepare for its original mission: a strike against the Panama Canal."

link to the entire article here http://www.avalanchepress.com/JapaneseSubs.php


Apart of this and respect to the HSF yes there was a superiority of 33 battleships against 18 but the german strategy was not suicidal and could be effective for defeat the Grand Fleet
From wikipedia article the battle of Jutland

"
Since in 1916 the High Seas Fleet had only 18 battleships to the Grand Fleet's 33 and the Germans were falling increasingly further behind as the war progressed, there was no chance of defeating the British in a head-to-head clash of battleships. Instead, they planned to divide and conquer: by staging raids into the North Sea they would lure out small British squadrons which could then be attacked and destroyed. Since the British Admiralty, unknown to the Germans, had gained possession of the main German code books, German naval radio communications picked up could be deciphered, and the Admiralty was therefore usually quite well aware of German plans.
The plan for May 1916 was to station a large number of U-boats off the British naval bases and lure Beatty's battlecruiser squadrons out by sending a fleet under Hipper to raid the coast of Sunderland. After attrition from the submarines, the British would be drawn by Hipper towards the German dreadnoughts under Scheer and destroyed."

What if the german code was not decyphered, Who knows? one thing is clear the Grand Fleet would have very bad days.

The plaussability is interesting and we have to think in plaussible scenarios but with flexibility (because OTL is with Hitler and all the decisions before and during World War II one of the best examples of how the plaussability and probability is not necessarily the only possibles way)

Some wars has begun for nonsenses and things that some us had not thought never.

For example begin a war caused by a soccer match

"Tensions continued to mount during June 1969. The soccer teams of the two nations were engaged that month in a three-game elimination match as a preliminary to the World Cup. Disturbances broke out during the first game in Tegucigalpa, but the situation got considerably worse during the second match in San Salvador. Honduran fans were roughed up, the Honduran flag and national anthem were insulted, and the emotions of both nations became considerably agitated. Actions against Salvadoran residents in Honduras, including several vice consuls, became increasingly violent. An unknown number of Salvadorans were killed or brutalized, and tens of thousands began fleeing the country. The press of both nations contributed to a growing climate of near- hysteria, and on June 27, 1969, Honduras broke diplomatic relations with El Salvador."

link to the entire article http://www.onwar.com/aced/data/sierra/soccer1969.htm

and also the relations between british and americans was not so good in OTL

"A most revealing incident occurred in 1921, when the British government was about to renew its expiring treaty of alliance with Japan. American relations with Japan at that time were so strained that they suggested the possibility of war. Renewal of the treaty would have poisoned Anglo-American relations, which weren’t too cordial then either.
The prospect was intolerable to Canada. Rather than be dragged into a position of hostility toward its powerful neighbor, best friend, and closest relative, Canada would, if necessary-, break with Britain. So the Canadian prime minister spoke quietly but plainly to the British government. His veto was effective. The offending alliance was dropped."

entire article here
http://www.historians.org/projects/GIRoundtable/Canada/Canada_4.htm

So althoug not probable I think that the project of Blochead is possible and personally I have a lot of curiosity how Bloch could develop this possible confrontation US-UK.

This is a good example of a lot of random information..

 

[HARRY]

After prohibition alcohol flowed south across the border from Canada and a group of angry prohibitionist in the style of John Brown decide to do something about it. A convoy of cars full of armed zealots cross the border to raid the Canadian town of Winsor and burn down Hiram Walker and Seagram distilleries. Shots are fired a guard is killed others are wounded,they escape back over ther border. Ottawa tries to calm things down by talking with Washington to get the shooter returned to Canada for trial. The American don't react quick enough and the brother of the dead man gets pissed off. He smuggles some explosives in to Detroit to teach the damn Yanks a lesson and bombs the Ford motor company.

 

[Redbeard]

The negotiation in Washington in 1921/22 failing to produce a treaty IMHO contains a fairly plausible start for a UK-US war TL, even if everything is OTL until then.

Have some incident (like a 1921 Amritshar massacre) get the full spin during the negotations, and let it severely limit the compromise mandate of the US delegation.

So the naval race seriously starts while anti-British sentiments in USA pretty much sets the agenda in USA. In UK this produces the same feeling as when the Kaiser did all his speeches before WWI and not many British will quetsion the need for a strong RN to defend the Empire.

British economy wasn't as clapped out after WWI as is usually claimed, but short of serious external threats there was a strong expectation of taking home the peace dividend - ie substantial tax cuts.

With the USA building and threatening that is all changed and the British are really "back to normal business" - ie. building to keep her navy superior.

Although USA has by far the greatest long term indutrial war potential, they have a serious problem in legitemating why such a long term war should be fought - what are the goals for the USA? Should Americans die to liberate the British colonies?

In contrary the British have their wellknown strategic defensive situation of defending the Empire.

In a short term war the British have the best chances, not for invading USA or something like that, but for winning the naval engagements such a war is likely to caractherised by.

Apart from superior numbers the RN of the interwar years is also much better balanced than the USN, which seriously lack cruisers and BC's to do the scouting. The British designs on the slips at Washington also were at least a generation ahead of the US.

If wise the USN will stay in harbour, but US overseas possesions are doomed. OTOH Canada really can't be defended from a determined US assault. Annexing Canada after an invasion really is a non-starter and will provide eternal causes for unrest.

The USA might cause the British serious trouble in especially India though, if the indeoendence movement can be effectively backed. That is difficult however, as the RN is likely to keep firm control of the seas.

I guess a peace agreement is soon found pretty much expressing a draw, but if the USA keep up the anti-Imperial line, British rule in India is in for further trouble.

If this means an earlier British withdrawal from India, British presense in the Far East (and the Med.) is really meaningless and Japan will next have an almost free go. The British-Japanese alliance is likely to stay alive or be renewed though, and USA might soon find itself in "splendid" isolation on the North American continent.

In this atmosphere of war and tension I fear nationalist and fascist movements will be further boosted.

Regards

Steffen Redbeard

 

[Iñaki]

Originally posted by JimmyJimJam
This is a good example of a lot of random information..

Better is say that is a good example of information that shows that in fact things are more complex that one can think.
Apart that all these information is known by the historians and showed as true examples as the luck and little decisions plays an important paper in the battles and also the final outcome of a war.
Also the bacteriological advances of the japanese in the World War II are well known and feared by the historians. (the plans to use bacteriological weapons in US are also a theme well known)
The strategy of HSF is also known and clearly shows that if the naval codes of the german had not decyphered the HSF strategy had can have bad effects to the british.
These are examples that some things popularly accepted (a necessary victory of the US in the Pacific and the victory of Royal Navy against he HSF in the World War I) are not so clear when you looks all the data.
Respect to the stupid decisions that can make great events appart of the example of soccer war you has can see in a former post three examples of a chain of apparently stupid and luckily chain of events that conduced to 1. World War I. 2.World War II. and 3. The final defeat of Napoleon.

Originally posted by Karlos
The problem I see in this is that in OTL there was a perception in both countries as allies, too many cultural, social and political ties. To change that you need another war after the last one in 1812. Maybe a british intervention in the American Civil war in 1863, and a bloody one, on the CSA side. This way USA can begin the XX century seeing the british as kind of hostile and viceversa. Otherwise it's quite unthinkable.

Yes, I agree with you, to make possible with good probabilities this possible war is necessary some POD that makes the Great Britain and the USA being hostile.
In fact as say in former posts I agree that the only possibility to make possible this war would be a chain of unlucky and stupid decissions, this is highly umprobable but (and this is because I also put the examples about some stupid chain of events/decisions) possible if some kind of tensions and sudden events happens that could make some kind of clash.

Originally posted by Harry
After prohibition alcohol flowed south across the border from Canada and a group of angry prohibitionist in the style of John Brown decide to do something about it. A convoy of cars full of armed zealots cross the border to raid the Canadian town of Winsor and burn down Hiram Walker and Seagram distilleries. Shots are fired a guard is killed others are wounded,they escape back over ther border. Ottawa tries to calm things down by talking with Washington to get the shooter returned to Canada for trial. The American don't react quick enough and the brother of the dead man gets pissed off. He smuggles some explosives in to Detroit to teach the damn Yanks a lesson and bombs the Ford motor company.

An interesting POD but surely because this is a POD between particulars, not between armed forces of both nations, the events that surely follow this would be probably a collaboration between the two nations to bring both group of offenders to the justice.

 

[stevep]

The negotiation in Washington in 1921/22 failing to produce a treaty IMHO contains a fairly plausible start for a UK-US war TL, even if everything is OTL until then.

Have some incident (like a 1921 Amritshar massacre) get the full spin during the negotations, and let it severely limit the compromise mandate of the US delegation.

So the naval race seriously starts while anti-British sentiments in USA pretty much sets the agenda in USA. In UK this produces the same feeling as when the Kaiser did all his speeches before WWI and not many British will quetsion the need for a strong RN to defend the Empire.

British economy wasn't as clapped out after WWI as is usually claimed, but short of serious external threats there was a strong expectation of taking home the peace dividend - ie substantial tax cuts.

With the USA building and threatening that is all changed and the British are really "back to normal business" - ie. building to keep her navy superior.

Although USA has by far the greatest long term indutrial war potential, they have a serious problem in legitemating why such a long term war should be fought - what are the goals for the USA? Should Americans die to liberate the British colonies?

In contrary the British have their wellknown strategic defensive situation of defending the Empire.

In a short term war the British have the best chances, not for invading USA or something like that, but for winning the naval engagements such a war is likely to caractherised by.

Apart from superior numbers the RN of the interwar years is also much better balanced than the USN, which seriously lack cruisers and BC's to do the scouting. The British designs on the slips at Washington also were at least a generation ahead of the US.

If wise the USN will stay in harbour, but US overseas possesions are doomed. OTOH Canada really can't be defended from a determined US assault. Annexing Canada after an invasion really is a non-starter and will provide eternal causes for unrest.

The USA might cause the British serious trouble in especially India though, if the indeoendence movement can be effectively backed. That is difficult however, as the RN is likely to keep firm control of the seas.

I guess a peace agreement is soon found pretty much expressing a draw, but if the USA keep up the anti-Imperial line, British rule in India is in for further trouble.

If this means an earlier British withdrawal from India, British presense in the Far East (and the Med.) is really meaningless and Japan will next have an almost free go. The British-Japanese alliance is likely to stay alive or be renewed though, and USA might soon find itself in "splendid" isolation on the North American continent.

In this atmosphere of war and tension I fear nationalist and fascist movements will be further boosted.

Regards

Steffen Redbeard

Steffen

Possibly the most obvious single potential flash point might be Ireland. If say hard liners on either or both sides win out. [I.e. Britain will not accept an Irish state or the Irish insist on ruling Ulster]. Continued bitter clashes and the Irish American community in the US kicks up a big stink about the alleged British excesses. Worsening international relations between the two powers with the navalists on both sides becoming more and more outspoken about their aims and intentions.

I could see the Washington talks failing as a result and as all three powers continue their programmes. A prolonged period of tension and poor relations. Things were fairly tense at time in OTL between the US and UK and they could be a good bit worse under those conditions.

However I still think it would be unlikely to led to war. Britain has cheaper production for capital ships, better designs and a greater motivation. The US has much greater potential. What might change things, either way, might be the Tokyo earthquake in 1923. This would make it almost impossible for Japan to continue the race, given its economy was already under great strain. If hard liners were in power in Washington they might feel they had victory in their grasp and be prompted to push for a 'victory' in terms of producing a larger fleet. If more moderate elements then a desire to end the naval race and possibly also a degree of compassion for the Japanese after such a disaster prompts a new round of naval talks.

To have a conflict I think you would have to have prolonged tension and differences, possibly including several clashes in various areas and a pre-WWI type attitude. [After the historical conflict Britain especially was strongly prone to avoiding war, hence the disaster of appeasement in the 30's]. Most likely you would probably need the loss of democracy in at least one of the powers.

Another alternative I have considered for a possible flash point. For whatever reason the Filipino independence movement becomes active again or is not totally suppressed. A continued guerrilla conflict causes tension with other powers and economic and social stress in the US. Evidence emerges that foreign citizens are supplying arms to the rebels. [For financial gain, belief in their cause, a desire to hinder the US or some combination therein]. If British or Japanese citizens are arrested under such circumstances and charged you have the potential for a serious increase in tension. With disputed evidence and accusations of dirty tricks by both sides they are found guilty by a US military court and sentenced to long terms of imprisonment or to be executed. Coupled with the increased tension there are attacks on civilians belonging to both countries in various areas. Especially with a US/Japanese clash you would also have strong racial tension.

Under those conditions you might see enough tension for fighting to break out. Also you might see Britain willing to back up Japan rather and see its ally crushed and itself isolated. Especially if public opinion in Britain thought that the US was trying to bully Japan.

Steve

 

[stevep]

A pleasure steve, in fact I have a lot of links to different history sites (because this I am ever prepared to could prove some of my posts if is necessary )

.....

Iñaki

Its an interesting scenario and something like that could combine the necessary key points on both sides to maximise the chances of a clash. [I.e. US belief in its Monroe doctrine, especially in a period of crisis, British desire for stability and possible Canadian desire for removing the potentially disruptive French presence in the important fisheries].

I have actually seen that site before. Not sure its the most likely in that some of the designs, such as the Superb with 6x20" guns seem a bit outlandish. Also the merging of the G3 and N3 designs, especially since they provide the best of both, 33kt and 9x18" guns on the same tonnage. Given the concern about ensuring adequate protection, especially after Jutland I don't think the RN would go that way.

Steve

 

[Tyr]

The problem with that is I don't see it happening.
Britain won't stand in the way of Irish independance if they want it and I doubt America will take its Irish decendant idiots too seriously when they rant about wanting to help Ireland conquer a group of people who want nothing to do with them.
The only way would be having a nigh on fascist government in place in the USA which takes us down a altogether different path.

 

[stevep]

The problem with that is I don't see it happening.
Britain won't stand in the way of Irish independance if they want it and I doubt America will take its Irish decendant idiots too seriously when they rant about wanting to help Ireland conquer a group of people who want nothing to do with them.
The only way would be having a nigh on fascist government in place in the USA which takes us down a altogether different path.

Lee

Ah! Actually that's what I use in a scenario to led to a conflict between an Anglo-Japanese alliance and the US starting in 1929. Think with tension and differences of opinion being strong enough you could have war without it. However unlikely to be a really knock-down slug them out battle to the end rather than the settlement of terms after tempers cooled and both sides realised how costly such a conflict could be.

Steve

 

[David S Poepoe]

Iñaki

I have actually seen that site before. Not sure its the most likely in that some of the designs, such as the Superb with 6x20" guns seem a bit outlandish. Also the merging of the G3 and N3 designs, especially since they provide the best of both, 33kt and 9x18" guns on the same tonnage. Given the concern about ensuring adequate protection, especially after Jutland I don't think the RN would go that way.

Steve

A few years ago I read the ships of the "Admiral Furushista fleet" and was fairly impressed, but as I became a more serious naval historian I recognized that most of them were utter junk - if not worse. These days I wouldn't touch that site with a ten foot pole.

The best, at least most authorative, site will be: http://www.alnavco.com/c_collector_series.htm

and there Special Edition Ships Histories (pdf). Its probably the more completely researched 'WI No Washington Treaty' essay on warships around, outside the various articles put up in Avalanche Press' Daily Content.

I think over time the distinction between Fast Battleship and Battlecruiser became blurred - at least for HMS Hood. This probably would also apply for the G3s. I'm not necessarily convinced that the N3s would have gotten off the drawing boards.

 

[Iñaki]

Thank you very much for the link David

 

[stevep]

Thank you very much for the link David

I'll echo that. Only had a quick look as fairly late here and tired but downloaded it for more detailed examination later. Didn't realise how many designs for mega ships the USN had.

From what I have been told on a naval website I'm a member of the Tildman ships were not meant to be that serious. I.e. senator Tildman was concerned about the steady growth in ship size [and cost] and hence wanted to know what for him was worst case scenario.

Steve

 

[MarkA]

Mark

I would have to disagree on a number of points. There was tension between UK & US during and after the war on a number of issues. Including the allied blockage of Germany. Just that the US objected less to us stopping war materials reaching the Central powers by turning back ships than they did to German U-boats sinking ships.

The primary reason for the naval treaty was that the big three wanted for various reasons to end the naval race that threatened to start. There was growing discontent in Britain about the alliance but also still strong support for it, both because of the influence on the US and also on Japan. In my view it was a mistake killing it, especially under those circumstances and Britain paid a heavy price for doing so.

Actually, from what I have read dominion opinion was divided. Canada backed the US in wanting to end the alliance, because they wanted good terms with America. For the same reason, i.e. they wanted good terms with the nearer Japan, Australia and New Zealand were in favour of continuing it. All three were opposed to Japanese immigration, which was a source of tension but that had existed for a while and was generally accepted by the Japanese.

I do agree however it would have taken something dramatic and stupid on either or both sides for a war between Britain and the US.

Steve

There was tension but not at such a level that either the US or Britain would dream of calling home their respective ambassadors or even exchange nasty diplomatic notes much less at a level that could lead to war.

Before during and after the Washington Treaty negotiations the British and US intelligence and diplomatic servicesworked closely together exchanging information each had deciphered from Japanese military and civil codes. They then used that information to collude against the Japanese and achieve their respective aims. Hardly the act of arch rivals!

I must disagree with you on the Japanese accepting their exclusion from the Dominions. They were livid!

 

[Redbeard]

Steffen

Possibly the most obvious single potential flash point might be Ireland. If say hard liners on either or both sides win out. [I.e. Britain will not accept an Irish state or the Irish insist on ruling Ulster]. Continued bitter clashes and the Irish American community in the US kicks up a big stink about the alleged British excesses. Worsening international relations between the two powers with the navalists on both sides becoming more and more outspoken about their aims and intentions.

I could see the Washington talks failing as a result and as all three powers continue their programmes. A prolonged period of tension and poor relations. Things were fairly tense at time in OTL between the US and UK and they could be a good bit worse under those conditions.

However I still think it would be unlikely to led to war. Britain has cheaper production for capital ships, better designs and a greater motivation. The US has much greater potential. What might change things, either way, might be the Tokyo earthquake in 1923. This would make it almost impossible for Japan to continue the race, given its economy was already under great strain. If hard liners were in power in Washington they might feel they had victory in their grasp and be prompted to push for a 'victory' in terms of producing a larger fleet. If more moderate elements then a desire to end the naval race and possibly also a degree of compassion for the Japanese after such a disaster prompts a new round of naval talks.

To have a conflict I think you would have to have prolonged tension and differences, possibly including several clashes in various areas and a pre-WWI type attitude. [After the historical conflict Britain especially was strongly prone to avoiding war, hence the disaster of appeasement in the 30's]. Most likely you would probably need the loss of democracy in at least one of the powers.

Another alternative I have considered for a possible flash point. For whatever reason the Filipino independence movement becomes active again or is not totally suppressed. A continued guerrilla conflict causes tension with other powers and economic and social stress in the US. Evidence emerges that foreign citizens are supplying arms to the rebels. [For financial gain, belief in their cause, a desire to hinder the US or some combination therein]. If British or Japanese citizens are arrested under such circumstances and charged you have the potential for a serious increase in tension. With disputed evidence and accusations of dirty tricks by both sides they are found guilty by a US military court and sentenced to long terms of imprisonment or to be executed. Coupled with the increased tension there are attacks on civilians belonging to both countries in various areas. Especially with a US/Japanese clash you would also have strong racial tension.

Under those conditions you might see enough tension for fighting to break out. Also you might see Britain willing to back up Japan rather and see its ally crushed and itself isolated. Especially if public opinion in Britain thought that the US was trying to bully Japan.

Steve

Very good post Steve

Yes of course - Ireland - how could I overlook it. I'm not aware though how the tensions were in N.Ireland in the interwar years. The British demanding back the rest of Ireland would require its own PoD's - like an overwhelming British victory in WWI. But anyway the many Irish in USA would form a good basis for anti-British sentiments.

But you are right that such a war probably requires a long period of tension to start and that GB in the interwar years had a strong urge to awoid war. I do believe howver, that a very important reason for GB to go so far with appeasement was Hitler's continental limits. After the Anglo-German naval agreement of 1935 the British felt their Empire was pretty safe and small obscure countries on the European continent were not really worth risking it all for.

In this context I believe an aggressive US LANDpower woould be allowed practically anything, even taking Canada, but aggressiveness combined with strong naval power would immediately cause alarm and combat readiness. The aggressiveness is perhaps the most determining factor, as the US naval programme of the early 20th century caused practically no concerns in GB, whereas the German, combined with the Kaiser's speeches cause hysteria.

Perhaps PoDing an eloquent (and mad) Irishman into the white house would do the trick?

Regards

Steffen Redbeard

 

[stevep]

Very good post Steve

Yes of course - Ireland - how could I overlook it. I'm not aware though how the tensions were in N.Ireland in the interwar years. The British demanding back the rest of Ireland would require its own PoD's - like an overwhelming British victory in WWI. But anyway the many Irish in USA would form a good basis for anti-British sentiments.

But you are right that such a war probably requires a long period of tension to start and that GB in the interwar years had a strong urge to awoid war. I do believe howver, that a very important reason for GB to go so far with appeasement was Hitler's continental limits. After the Anglo-German naval agreement of 1935 the British felt their Empire was pretty safe and small obscure countries on the European continent were not really worth risking it all for.

In this context I believe an aggressive US LANDpower woould be allowed practically anything, even taking Canada, but aggressiveness combined with strong naval power would immediately cause alarm and combat readiness. The aggressiveness is perhaps the most determining factor, as the US naval programme of the early 20th century caused practically no concerns in GB, whereas the German, combined with the Kaiser's speeches cause hysteria.

Perhaps PoDing an eloquent (and mad) Irishman into the white house would do the trick?

Regards

Steffen Redbeard

Steffen

I was thinking more of Britain never recognising an independent Ireland, possibly accompanied by the Irish rebels refusing to accept a compromise over Ulster. If Britain had had a much easier WWI and still feeling more confident it might not be willing to accept the loss of what it views as part of its homeland - a bit like the US and the Confederacy. Also there was at least initially very little support for the rebels and never really understood why it developed given the relative kid gloves with which it was handled.

However a long bloody guerrilla conflict could easily cause a lot of resentment, with Irish Americans and other Anglophobic elements complaining bitterly about it while Britain protests Us aid to the rebels/terrorists. [Bit like a reversal of the Filipino crisis I mentioned] Or for instance De Vellera is executed for his part in the Easter rebellion instead of being reprieved because he was a US citizen.

Not so sure that Britain's tolerance of Hitler's early activity was because it was land based. From what I have read it was concerned about the decline of British power and industrial base and the danger of facing Germany, Italy and Japan simultaneously. [And of course ended up doing that only when we were weaker and they were stronger than if we had faced them earlier!]. There seemed to be both a concern that Britain was economically too weak for a major war and that the population was too opposed to going to war. I think this would have occurred in any circumstances once we had the historical WWI and the disillusionment that developed after that.

I think that therefore a US attack on Canada would definitely prompt a strong British reaction, although they would be fighting with a sense of despair at having to go to war. Both because of the social and economic interests and because Britain could not accept such a dangerous precedent.

Not sure that the US programme was met without concern - if your thinking of the build-up before and during WWI. Just that we were so busy with the German threat and afterwards between exhaustion and dislike of the idea of a further war we were willing to accept numerical equality and unlike Germany the US was also prepared to negotiate.

Steve


Steve