USA wins in 1812

Canada never fought against Japan in WW2 so would this ATL make a difference?
I believe Canadians took part in the Liberation of Hong Kong. ?Or was it the Fall of Hong Kong? Anyway there were Canadian solders in the Asian Theatre during WW2.
 
Naval blockade utterly failed to bring the rebellious colonies to their knees in 1775-1783. The USA is economically much sturdier here. True, there is the issue of NE loyalty. However, if Madison can provide very tangible fruits of his war (the liberation of Upper & Lower Canada from the British, complete Yankee control of former BNA) that were conquered in the first phase of the war, then NE shall grit their teeth and stay loyal to the war effort. A US Canada would bring significant economic benefit to nE, which would gain an important new market on their backyard. Not to mention the patriotic upsurge from completing the liberation of the continent from the Redcoats.

In 1775-83 Britain was viewing the colonies as an area in civil war rather than an hostile state. Furthermore because of French, Dutch and Spanish intervention and problems elsewhere Britain struggled to retain control of its vital supply lines.

This time around Britain has overwhelming control of the sea and can do a lot of damage. Once Nappy started to fall, which may be delayed by things going less disasterious in 1812 but not by much, the RN can go from the limited blockage of 1812-13 to the far more vigerous one that shuts down just about everything. This will really hurt NE as it did OTL and as OTL they will rightly blame the war hawks in Washington. Not to mention its not just ecternal trade and fisheries. Especially with the US still very much centred around the east coast and pre-railway, coastal shipping is very important as far the easiest and most cost effective way of moving bulk goods. That will be strangled as the RN did for French coastal trade.

Presuming that somehow the Americans conquer more of BNA and they can't conquer all of it. The BS propaganda about 'liberating Canada' might full a few idiots and idealogs but will be recognised for what it is. Most people will be more worried about the economic and human cost of the war that the hawks continue to seek to expand. The war will get more and more unpopular until something cracks. US determination to make conquests will just increase the British determination to liberate the seized territory and teach the aggressors a lesson.

They were exausted pretty much the same way the Entente powers were after WWI, or Anglo-Americans after WWII. I.e. even if they might still theoretically have the resources to fight yet another major war just after winning a first really big one, they have pretty much exausted the social and political will to. Not to mention that in the 1810s the UK was brewing a big lot of social troubles. Luddites, anyone ?

The closest comparison there is with the US after WWII. True Britain had controbuted more in the Napoleonic wars than the US did in WWII but it was the top dog by a very long way, financially, economcially and industrially. Don't forget it was rich enough and wise enough to cancel allied war debts, thereby enabling the Europeans to have the funds to buy goods from, guess who? However while the US was gradually dragged out of its isolationist traditions in the late 1940s Britain already had a long history of foreign interaction and entanglements. Furthermore you have a US still stupidly insisting on trying to keep the gains it had somehow made while the giants back was turned. Britain could not and would not ignore that. To suggest otherwise is getting into aquatic feline territory.

Steve
 
I believe Canadians took part in the Liberation of Hong Kong. ?Or was it the Fall of Hong Kong? Anyway there were Canadian solders in the Asian Theatre during WW2.

Fall of Hong Kong. We sent (two?) battalions there, to get blown up.
 
If any of the possible outcomes of alternate history was possible,I would say this might be it. It's hard to realise that nothing was gained by this conflict,you would think something would be taken from the land that would one day be called Canada.:p
 
In other words talking to General Zod is a complete waste of time.

No inconvenient facts or historical evidence shall ever sully his positions.

I'll let Zod enjoy his ASB scenarios in peace and put him back on the ignore list.
 
Thoughts for the Americans to make limited gains in War of 1812

Here are some thoughts for the Americans to make limited gains in the War of 1812

1.) POD being in 1807 with no Embargo Act - With no Embargo act, New England trading economies would not be as hurt. New England would not be as disinclined with the Democratic Republicans foreign policy in 1812 having no knife put in their backs in 1807. Impressment would go on from 1807 through 1809, New Englanders at this point might be even more inclined to finally stand up to the British. (It would be interesting to know if any New England Congressmen voted for the Embargo Act)

2.) As with some of the previous responces, what if prior to the 1812 Declaration of War, the US deals with the Indians more effectively either by treaty or by eliminating them as a threat in the Northwest by building up a stronger military presence and settler presence in Indiana and Michigan sooner. Could this have happened with better roads extending the limits of civilisation from Ohio to Indiana to Michigan? Could the US afford to have more of a military presence in the Northwest and who would pay for it? What if instead of the embargo acts, Congress has the forsight in 1807 to slowly build up the US military and settler presence in the Northwest to the disadvantage of the Indians. And what if there was a professional US military that dealt with the Indians more effectivly, more successfully than OTL in the preceeding years?

With a greater US presence, when war is finally declared on the British in 1812, the main US thrust is from Michigan and over Lake Eerie. The Niagara front is defensive. The US forces then simply overrun the British from west to east at Niagara and Kingston, Ont. The British forces at Niagara are under seige. Kingston might be harder, but falls after Niagara. The US is in posession of Upper Canada.

There is no US hostilities towards Quebec, just defensive on Lake Champlain.

3.) End Game
- The US holds off British attempts to liberate Upper Canada, the US might even try to displace Loyalist settlers around Kingston
-the British blackde US ports OTL (New England suffers, but does not have the nasty taste of the Embargo Act this time)
- The US sees that it needs to conclude a peace
- Treaty of Ghent is signed where no one is suppose to gain territory

- US forgets to abandon the forts in Upper Canada much like the British did after the ARW, uses the time it gains to build up a little more respectable navy, brings in American settlers to the area.

The British are now challenged with having another go with the Americans, the War of 1818 or 1829 or leaving it be. The longer they leave it be, the more the US strengthens in the Upper Canada area, canals open in the 1820's and it is thoroghly linked to the US.
 
Here are some thoughts for the Americans to make limited gains in the War of 1812

1.) POD being in 1807 with no Embargo Act - With no Embargo act, New England trading economies would not be as hurt. New England would not be as disinclined with the Democratic Republicans foreign policy in 1812 having no knife put in their backs in 1807. Impressment would go on from 1807 through 1809, New Englanders at this point might be even more inclined to finally stand up to the British. (It would be interesting to know if any New England Congressmen voted for the Embargo Act)

2.) As with some of the previous responces, what if prior to the 1812 Declaration of War, the US deals with the Indians more effectively either by treaty or by eliminating them as a threat in the Northwest by building up a stronger military presence and settler presence in Indiana and Michigan sooner. Could this have happened with better roads extending the limits of civilisation from Ohio to Indiana to Michigan? Could the US afford to have more of a military presence in the Northwest and who would pay for it? What if instead of the embargo acts, Congress has the forsight in 1807 to slowly build up the US military and settler presence in the Northwest to the disadvantage of the Indians. And what if there was a professional US military that dealt with the Indians more effectivly, more successfully than OTL in the preceeding years?

With a greater US presence, when war is finally declared on the British in 1812, the main US thrust is from Michigan and over Lake Eerie. The Niagara front is defensive. The US forces then simply overrun the British from west to east at Niagara and Kingston, Ont. The British forces at Niagara are under seige. Kingston might be harder, but falls after Niagara. The US is in posession of Upper Canada.

There is no US hostilities towards Quebec, just defensive on Lake Champlain.

3.) End Game
- The US holds off British attempts to liberate Upper Canada, the US might even try to displace Loyalist settlers around Kingston
-the British blackde US ports OTL (New England suffers, but does not have the nasty taste of the Embargo Act this time)
- The US sees that it needs to conclude a peace
- Treaty of Ghent is signed where no one is suppose to gain territory

- US forgets to abandon the forts in Upper Canada much like the British did after the ARW, uses the time it gains to build up a little more respectable navy, brings in American settlers to the area.

The British are now challenged with having another go with the Americans, the War of 1818 or 1829 or leaving it be. The longer they leave it be, the more the US strengthens in the Upper Canada area, canals open in the 1820's and it is thoroghly linked to the US.

Now there's a scenario I could find plausible.

However, I'd have to take issue with the last part. The reason that the British didn't abandon the forts was that America couldn't really extend its power there and the British probably didn't really respect American authority all that much.

In this case, its different. This is not some (ok, it kinda is:p) backwater, but it is the backwater that was fought over. The Americans simply cannot hold onto the Upper Canadian forts. The minute the treaty makes its way back to the Americas, you can expect British regiments marching down to evict the Americans.

Unlike the old North west, Britain CAN project her power and her armies into upper Canada, and they will.

Thus, while I don't mind the rest of your scenario, the last part falls through.
 
In other words talking to General Zod is a complete waste of time.

No inconvenient facts or historical evidence shall ever sully his positions.

I'll let Zod enjoy his ASB scenarios in peace and put him back on the ignore list.

As much as I began to turn away from Ameriwankery as well; to see people openly disparage others is disgusting. Chill out, bubba.
 
The USA probably could win a limited victory with more luck and better leadership. The most likely way to do this, from what I know about the war, would be for the USA to remain in occupation of York (later Toronto) instead of burning and then abandoning it. If the US had left a garrison, it would have blocked the overland route for reinforcing and supplying British and Canadian troops along the Niagara frontier and the Michigan frontier. Those forces might have been weakened enough to be overwhelmed by their US opponents. At the same time, the British would probably do everything they could to keep in contact with their forces further west by water if they could not do so by land. This means that there would probably be an all-out battle between the US and British-Canadian fleets for control of Lake Ontario, something that never happened in OTL - both sides spent most of the war building larger and larger ships, but neither side ever risked a battle. Unfortunately for the US, a battle on Lake Ontario would be all-or-nothing - if the US wins, they could probably take control of most of the Upper Canadian peninsula, but if they lose, their garrison in York would be cut off and northern New York opened to attack by British and Canadian forces.

A whole series of things would have to go right for the USA, but it could happen.
 
Canada

The US annexing Canada is completely un-realistic.
The US has a vast amount of territory to colonise, I don't know why they tried to annex Canada IOTL.
There is no need for America to have Canada, it would be alot more trouble than it's worth.
 
Top