What could lead to a war Bewteen US and Britain

The ability of both sides to mobilise is a known.

In 1898 the US mobilised for their war with Spain. Apart from their small regular army it was found that only 60,000 of the 100,000 nominal NG had ever attended drill, let alone shouldered a rifle. They had no modern artillery (even the regulars still had a black powder gun not much more advanced than those of the ACW) and were using converted ACW era Springfields as their shoulder arm.

In 6 months they raised an army of 275,000, but only the regulars and a small number of NG (mainly from NY, which had a very efficient NG) were ready for the field.

Faced with South Africa, the British sent 238,000 regulars (inc. regular reserves), 18,000 Indians, 110,000 British reservists (volunteers, militia and yeomanry), combined with 30,000 from Canada, Australia and NZ and 52,000 South African troops.

In the event of a major war, Britain can place over 300,000 troops into Canada, in addition to the 200,000 Canada can be expected to field. Any ideas of overwhelming US numbers are based on a very prolonged war, which the US will have a great deal of trouble prosecuting (as their coastal cities burn, their main war industries are destroyed, and a British blockade makes the production of war material impossible).

For the US to win a war against the UK before 1914 (perhaps even later) they need to win quickly.

Finley explicitly pointed out that Britain and the US already fought a war in 1838 and the latter wants 'revenge'; it is not, therefore, terribly improbable that the US has a larger regular force, a larger reserve force, and has better equipment and training for both. Similarly, it is likely that such a US WOULD participate in the Dreadnought race, and would have more formidable coastal defenses than OTL, so total superiority of the RN is not as much of a given as it was OTL at this period.
 

Dure

Banned
The mind literally boggles...

Where to begin?

It's readily apparent that you've done no research beyond looking at a map and remembering a few names for your school history classes. You've absolutely no understanding of the period in question, whether it be military, political, diplomatic, economic, or technological.

The laughable inclusion late in the post of the Wright's "secret weapon" and it's effect on the war neatly illustrates everything that wrong with the content your timeline: All you've really done is throw together some "kewl" ideas in a pseudo-historical pastiche.

Aside from the extremely poor content, the format of the timeline is wretched also. It fails in every aspect of basic English composition beginning with the lack of paragraphs. Your grammar is poor and, considering that spell checking is so easy, your spelling errors are indefensible. Your word choices betray the all to common homophone confusion of the sub-literate "vid-iot" generation as does your constant misuse of capitalization.

I find it hard to understand why a native English speaker cannot compose a simple, coherent sentence in their native tongue.



I think Bill that your post above is un-gentlemanly and mean spirited. I urge you to retract it. The idea put forth by its originator are unquestionably weak and poorly presented but constructive criticism is far more in the spirit of the site and likely to be productive in helping young Emerson Finley (who is apparently orbiting the planet as we speak:eek:) to produce better threads in the future. Your post was the internet debate equivalent of clubbing baby seals to death whilst singing ‘tomorrow belongs to me’, it is just not on.

PS: I note that you are banging on again about inglisH and splong and yet you have a significant error in your own text. Please stop with the negative waves they are not doing anyone any good, least of all yourself.
 
Dure,

True, I did leave out a verb and used "to" instead of "too".

Other than that my post will have to stand as written. You can't unscrambled an egg.


Bill
 
The mind literally boggles...

Where to begin?

It's readily apparent that you've done no research beyond looking at a map and remembering a few names for your school history classes. You've absolutely no understanding of the period in question, whether it be military, political, diplomatic, economic, or technological.

The laughable inclusion late in the post of the Wright's "secret weapon" and it's effect on the war neatly illustrates everything that is wrong with the content your timeline: All you've really done is throw together some "kewl" ideas in a pseudo-historical pastiche.

Aside from the extremely poor content, the format of the timeline is wretched also. It fails in every aspect of basic English composition beginning with the lack of paragraphs. Your grammar is poor and, considering that spell checking is so easy, your spelling errors are indefensible. Your word choices betray the all to common homophone confusion of the sub-literate "vid-iot" generation as does your constant misuse of capitalization.

I find it hard to understand why a native English speaker cannot compose a simple, coherent sentence in their native tongue.

Wow thanks for insulting my grammar, you should realize that English is not my first language Spanish is and though I may have been born and live in America my first language is fairly different from that of your own. So I just want to thank you again for trying to me feel like an idiot because it will actually make me strive harder to do better and assimilate into the American culture.
I had already asked at the beginning of this topic please don't be too harsh and insulting I guess that was too hard. Now on to the criticizing of my timeline. Did you remember that many things would undoubtedly change after the Americans lost the War of 1838? But yes my understanding of this time period is not as full as yours seems to be, but maybe a little constructive criticism would be better than out right insulting me. Why does everyone seem to think that the airplane "dropping of bombs" was what made them so important in my timeline, I even said
find vulnerabilities along with dropping small bombs on the enemy
the key words were "along with" there main purpose in my mind was finding the vulnerabilities in the enemy lines and then sending back the information so that the forces on the ground could exploit them to the fullest of there abilities. The airplane that I had in mind would be very similar to the Wright model B. The war in Canada was already basically over the use of the airplane would simply helped affirm it. But you will be happy to know that in my next draft I will reduce it even further, this was after all just a rough draft.
 

67th Tigers

Banned
My pointing to the Civil War mobilizations was on urgency, not the raw number, since as it's been pointed out, the US was able to send 4-5x the Civil War numbers in the AEF a scant 10 years from this TL's date.

Ummm, the AEF. Where to begin....

The AEF started in a much more forward state than the 1903 US. The Stimson Plan had brought in massive reforms in 1912-15 creating the basic organisation of the US Army.

However, in 1903 these reforms haven't happened. 9 months after declaring war the US had 175,000 troops in the field, and almost all their heavy equipment was British or French, with just 1 battle ready division. Without Stimson it would take at least an extra 6 months to reach this point. Of course, after this troops would start arriving in the field at a more rapid rate, about 50,000 a month. During the March-July 1918 crisis only 90,000 Americans would actually fight. When a major US force of 500,000 would take the offensive in 1918 it was frankly embarrassing.


Finley explicitly pointed out that Britain and the US already fought a war in 1838 and the latter wants 'revenge'; it is not, therefore, terribly improbable that the US has a larger regular force, a larger reserve force, and has better equipment and training for both. Similarly, it is likely that such a US WOULD participate in the Dreadnought race, and would have more formidable coastal defenses than OTL, so total superiority of the RN is not as much of a given as it was OTL at this period.

So, how much smaller is their economy after 1. higher taxation, 2. lower emigration and 3. not paying off their ACW debts?
 
The mind literally boggles...

Where to begin?

It's readily apparent that you've done no research beyond looking at a map and remembering a few names for your school history classes. You've absolutely no understanding of the period in question, whether it be military, political, diplomatic, economic, or technological.

The laughable inclusion late in the post of the Wright's "secret weapon" and it's effect on the war neatly illustrates everything that is wrong with the content your timeline: All you've really done is throw together some "kewl" ideas in a pseudo-historical pastiche.

Aside from the extremely poor content, the format of the timeline is wretched also. It fails in every aspect of basic English composition beginning with the lack of paragraphs. Your grammar is poor and, considering that spell checking is so easy, your spelling errors are indefensible. Your word choices betray the all to common homophone confusion of the sub-literate "vid-iot" generation as does your constant misuse of capitalization.

I find it hard to understand why a native English speaker cannot compose a simple, coherent sentence in their native tongue.

Unnecessarily harsh, if I may say so, and that's not cool, Bill. Trying to drive potential alt-historians from the forum solves nothing, while helping them to see their mistakes can aid them in becoming every bit as competent as yourself. Also, if you're going to correct someone on their grammar it's generally advisable not to include mistakes in your own post. I spotted two in yours. ;)
 
So, how much smaller is their economy after 1. higher taxation, 2. lower emigration and 3. not paying off their ACW debts?

Given that this is a country which had problems with excessive budgetary surpluses by the 1890s (and had the world's largest single economy by the 1870s), I think they can have a somewhat smaller economy and still play with the big boys ;) Frankly, though, as I'm no expert on economics or history, I wouldn't hazard a guess.
 
The idea of the British deciding to give some aid to the CSA just to warn the USA but not enough to tip the balance is ludicrous.

To take an action guaranteed to offend the USA while making the sure the action isn't enough to actually make a difference would require a POD involving LSD in the London water supply.
 

Dure

Banned
A Critique

@General_Finley
I have castigated Bill for his attitude and lack of constructive criticism, I guess it is only fair that I provide some of my own. The first thing that you probably did wrong was in the first post where you simply asked:
SO I was wondering is there any way that a third war between the US and Britain could have come about between the end the war of 1812 and the begining of the twentyth century?
It is a perfectly reasonable question. It is stated fairly clearly but it could have been a little clearer. You should have run it through a spell checker as there are a couple of really bad spellings but that is not terribly important and you have made the point that you are not a native English speaker. The main problem is that you did not tell your audience that you were intending to use the responses to the question to support a time-line that you were going to present. As a result of this you got a lot of, mostly, one-liners answering your question. You then went on to clarify what you wanted a bit in a later post:
excluding the civil war cause I want to write a timeline about it but i don't want it wo involve a fractured America. Oh and thanks for the others but could you be a little bit mor specific, and name a few specific things that could lead up to the war.
First off it is not clear what you are going to write a time-line about, on first reading it appears to be the American Civil War. Then there is the fact that you don’t want America to fracture. What America are you talking about; the America of OTL 1812? the America resulting from the OTL ACW, the America resulting from a war between 1812 and the ACW or something completely different? It is simply not clear and depending on the assumptions one makes you can end up with a USA far smaller or bigger than it is in OTL all without ‘fracturing’ it.
The next couple of posts come across as rather rude, you are demanding information from apparently all posters without engaging them, by which I mean involving them in what you are trying to do and making them feel that their comments and answers are valued.
Finally in your next post you get around to telling us what you are really up to in the post below, which I have dissected somewhat for analysis.
The year is 1903 and North America is about to blow up in a war the likes of which the world has never seen. Ever sense tasting defeat at the hands of the British in 1838 the Americans have had one thought on there minds revenge.
Fine, but as you have not told us how the Caroline Affair war ended in your time-line we cannot really work out how things have changed between 1838 and 1903, which is 65 years, a long time. To start off with you have already stated that the British won so the question that needs to be answered before you can work out the rest of you time-line is how much did they win? If the USA still wants revenge after 65 years they must have taken quite a dubbing in 1838. lothaw suggested to you that:
It would be a rather quick war in Britain's favor before the US begs to turn over the guilty parties and make ammends. Possibly northern Maine and all claims in Oregon
It is not a bad estimate. As a minimum that might engender aspirations of revenge you would probably be looking for significant territorial adjustments in northern Maine, minor ones on the Great Lakes and perhaps in upper New York State with a view to better defending British access to what was then Upper Canada. To be truthful one would have to struggle to generate 65 years of festering revenge from such a settlement. A more serious set of reparations that I think could possibly engender such attitudes might include all of Maine, bits of Vermont and New York State, loss of control of the Erie Canal, loss of all or parts of present-day Michigan State and loss of all claims on the Oregon Country/then Columbia. Loss of New Orleans and some offshore islands is also a possibility.
Any peace settlement that is enough to start a 65 year quest for revenge by the USA is enough to seriously upset the politics, demographics and economics of the USA. In 1903 it is not going to be the same USA that it was in OTL.
For starters, The border with Canada is likely to be 42o not 49o. Irish emigration is unlikely to be as significant as it was in OTL, they are likely to end up in Canada with the Scots or in Australia. As a result of what happened in the German lands in response to the year of revolutions German immigration will be just as high if not higher than it was in OTL. This will change USA attitudes compared to OTL(and dilute the desire for revenge!). British investment will presumably be much less likely to go to the USA after a third ‘nasty’ war, British capital, will be pumped into the Empire, including a (probably) larger Canada and South America. The Texans will probably not see the USA as quite so desirable a protector in this time-line.
After losing the War of 1838 the Americans directed there anger towards the natives Americans and so began the "Indian purges of the 1840" what would come to later be known as the "Slaughter of the Plains" The Americans all but wiped out the Natives in the land they controlled.
OK in principal, but the USA never really got onto the plains until the late 1850in OTL. In your time-line there is probably less emigration and less capital flowing into the USA so one would expect a slower advance of the frontier westward. You should also note that there are far less plains for the Americans to occupy in your time-line the Oregon country and most of the states in the Northern West; Wyoming, Nebraska and the Dakotas are probably in Canada.
The Americans would then direct there attention towards there neighbor to the south, Mexico. The war lasted from 1846 to 1849, and resulted in a massive gain of territory for the US.
I’m happy to accept this as a given but if you had a potentially much larger Canada sitting on your northern border just how much of your army would you be willing to risk in a southern adventure?
How much Mexican territory has the USA taken? How many more Mexicans have become American citizens than in OTL? Will this become a major racial problem for the USA.
At first after the end of the war it seemed as if for the first time in a long time the Americans were without an enemy that they could stomp on, although they did find use for the military with the "Lesser Indian Purge of the 1850's".
Do you mean the Mexican-American war? You are not very clear in explaining what is going on.
There were never that many plains Indians in the first place. You have had one ‘Slaughter’ already. There can’t be that many left and they will probably cross over the border into Canada.
‘Lesser Indian Purge’ is probably a poor choice of words. It sounds like a morning spent speaking to God on the great porcelain telephone after as small biriyani.
In 1856 James Buchanan would become the first Republican president. For America Life was starting to become a lot better the economy was growing and so was the infrastructure.
Why should Buchanan become President? The politics will be completely different to OTL.
Why is the economy growing any faster than it was a few years earlier? From your own revenge premise it is unlikely the British are pumping in capital and emigration is down and probably more heterodox earlier that in OTL? Indeed can the USA afford all of those railway lines that it built in OTL without significant British capital? The canals and major turnpikes are different but they are already several years old, if not more by 1856.
It seemed that maybe there would never be another war again. Then in 1861 President Lincoln ended both slavery and the state of peace in America. The Great American Civil war was a war the likes of which no one on the earth had ever seen the brutality and loss of life was astounding.
The balance between the slave and free states is almost certainly different in this time-line to OTL. There are also lots more brown-skinned US citizens from the Mexican conquests than there were in OTL (apparently, you did not make it clear how much of Mexico the USA got). How does this change things for the USA? Is a Civil War still likely? Surely not at the same time ours was?
Why Lincoln? The divergence happened in 1838 and as previously discussed it has to have been a big divergence.
In OTL the ACW was not a particularly bloody or large war, it was co-incident in time with the Tai Ping which had around 20 million troops engaged. Solferino had recently come and gone. The ACW is essential a parochial experience, it is not that special internationally.
The British Empire would through out the war secretly send supplies to the Confederates which would cause the war to be dragged out until 1866.

If the British Government are going to send supplies to the CSA (assuming it exists) then they may as well intervene, they have no reason not to.
Lincoln was successfully able to prevent a simultaneous war with Britain although had stated "We shouldn't be at war with ourselves we should be at war with those dammed Limmeis. Trying to make America crumble, well one day we'll get them back ten fold."
Hmmm! I have a little trouble with Abe talking like a stroppy 10 year old.
How did Lincoln avoid war with the British? You have set-up a situation where it is almost inevitable.
When the war ended Lincoln began an age of reconstruction to rebuild America so that one day they could fight there true "enemy".
So Lincoln does not get shot? I think this bit is just plain silly.
The American "Empire" would continue to grow through the purchase of Alaska from the Russians by Lincoln.
In OTL I think the Russians offered the British Alaska first and they said “no thanks”. In this time-line if the Russians follow the same process then the British are highly likely to say yes.
In 1892 the Spanish American war began. It was a short war but it saw the rise of several big names, Teddy Roosevelt and George Custer being the most famous. Teddy would go on to be elected President.
OK but it looks a bit too like OTL.

It is May first 1903 and President Roosevelt along with the congress has issued a declaration of war on the "True Enemy".
Some casus beli would be a prerequisite I think.
This war will be more devastating then anything seen before, and the British Canadians have know idea that the American forces are armed with weapons the likes of which the Canadians have never seen weapons like the Gardner gun and Railroad cannons, and the traction engine powered Ironclad cavalry units massive armored “tractors” armed with Gardner guns and a range of different sized artillery pieces.
This is frankly a bit silly. There is nothing in your time-line to suggest the British will not remain the pre-eminent industrial and technological power in 1903. There are several point, already discussed that suggest the USA will be industrially weaker than in OTL. You then imply that the USA has some sort of weapons technology advantage. This is not impossible but rather unlikely especially given the weapons concerned.
Gardner gun: So the British won’t have Maxim guns, Nordenfeldt cannon and QF Guns?
Railway guns: Used since the 1870s in Europe, their use earlier in the ACW was widely reported. Frankly in Canada there is not that much railway to exploit. In the USA however ...
Armoured tractors: Fair go I have been speaking about these myself of late but remember the British in OTL were already using steam traction engines for artillery tractors in the Crimea. In 1891 in OTL Ruston and Hornsby are building heavy oil engines (i.e. pre-Diesel). The bottom line is that if the USA uses them the British will have them in greater numbers, more advanced and better built within 6 months.
In your next post you respond to some questions. It has lots of typos in it. You would really help your own cause by checking them before you post.
the minor funding of the CSA was simply to keep the US getting to uppity and butting heads with them again, although I think I will chang that because of what you [Falastur] have said.
The British are usually a bit more subtle than that.
They Didn't quickly turn to Mexico, I forgot to put in that the War of 1838 ended in 1840 lasting only two years.
That would have been a rather long war against the British. I think you can assume the complete loss of the US Navy and merchant fleets, the burning of some key coastal cities and some occupation of parts of Canada.
In the six years between it and the Mexican-American war the Americans went after the Native American populations. The slaughter of the plains brought back some of Americas self asteam.

OK
Plus the Americans needed to win an actual war, men volonteered in droves to join in the war effort against Mexico. But even with the increase in troops it still took the Americans three years to beat the Mexicans, the Americans anaxed Baja California, Sanor, Chihuahua, Coahuila, Nuevo León, and Tamaulipas most of which were slightly less populated then the rest of Mexico.

What you have said implicitly is that Alta California, New Mexico, Arizona and Nevada remain part of Mexico, I bet that is not what you meant to say.
Also remember you now have all those brown skinned people messing up the politics.

Also about what you said about the Mexican states in the Civil war, I hadn't written anything involving them yet because that ws just a praliminary draft but I was going to have them side with the Confederates which is another reason the civil war lasted much longer.
So all the brown skinned people that supported Mexican constitutional reform and the abolition of slavery in Mexico are suddenly pro-slavery when they join the USA? This is not reasonable.
The Racisim thing I hadn't thought about though thanks for bringing that up.

To be fair it was staring you in the face, you should have thought about it.
Onto the subject of weapons yah your right I did more reasearch an found that the Brits had already used the maxim gun in Africa so I am switching it to the Browning Machine gun lighter and more portable than the Maxim gun.
The 1895 Colt-Browing which is what I think you are referring to is not that great. Bear in mind that Armstrong’s brought the Maxim company in 1896 and it only took them a year to re-engineer it into the Vickers gun (albeit in 1912). There is absolutely no way the US can sustain a machine gun advantage in 1903 for more than six months if at all.
The "tanks" that I have are introduced and invented before the war as a means to take out entire divisons of highly trained British troops and minimise loses. They offer a protected platform from which the seven men armed with machine guns can in moderate safty kill dozens of enemy troops, along with proving a kind of mobile artillery.

As previously discussed.
The Rail road cannons were simply to keep the British from invading America, they had there own private rail road systems which allowed them to manuever to where they were needed in order to protect the coast.

Ships against trains. I know which way I would bet.
These instilations were more wide spread on the east cast which is why the British under cover of fog were able to make a successful landing in the State of Northern California, although the British troops were eventually pushed back by the local Californians and there use of Guerrila warfare.

If you say so. Why did the British attack Northern California? There is nothing of value there. What its wrong with the traditional approach? Sack San Francisco and Sacramento, Move on to Portland, Seattle, Long Beach and San Diego.
What you have done is a classic example of a T’sore arse – making the British do something really stupid so the USA can win a battle.
The Use of machine gunes on both sides (although for the first year the Americans had the advantage of the number of machine guns) resaulted in the first truely widespread use of trench warfare. I am rewriting it and making it more detailed and tweaking things to the timeline.
Your armoured vehicles would imply that trench warfare may not happen.

I was planning on the war lasting from 1903 to 1908, is it to short of quick? this is my rough out line of the Great North American War.
You have it the wrong way around, the war should be as long as it needs to be to achieve the result desired.

At first the Americans would be cutting into Canada like a hot knife through butter but after the first year the Canadian British troops became better equipped and trench warfare began to set in.
If the USA cuts through Canada like butter there is nothing left to equip and entrench in year 2 of the war.
Land began to be taken not in miles but yards and on several fronts Canadians were even able to push the Americans back.
You are proposing a trench line along the entire border length? It seems unlikely.
The only advantage over the Canadians would be the Land Ironclads the Americans had although unlike modern day tanks they don’t have tracks and are slowed even more by the trenches.
Pretty pointless then?
The British had expected a clear victory over the Americans in naval warfare but the Americans had been building up their ironclad navy for ten years and though the British have better dreadnaught class ships they are locked in a seemingly stalemate conflict as the Americans continue to churn out ships and as time goes on perfecting there own Dreadnaught class battleships.
This is different from OTL and not unreasonable given your original premise but I do suspect that the RN would have had a very good idea of USN capabilities and that the size of the Navy was sufficient to defeat it whilst holding a European navy at bay. If they can’t do this then the Empire is in decline and there will be a great deal more difference between OTL and TTL.
Is it reasonable for the USA to produce much larger numbers of ships in 1903 in the face of RN aggression? Probably not.
In 1905 the newest model armored horse adopts tracks in order to conquer the trenches it also is powered not by the slow moving traction engine but a diesel engine.
OK but where do they get the idea for tracks from? Is there a lot of fenland in the USA with industrial cities close by like there is in Lincolnshire?
General Custer’s Armored cavalry in a spear like charge offensive break through the British lines and capture Sudbury, the last major city to fall in Ontario spelling the fall of the entire province.
How old is Custer in 1903? I think you are borrowing a dodgy item from Turtledove here.
Your last post is as follows, it is very poorly written and edited. At times it is not clear what it is trying to say.
With victory in Ontario all but assured the American war effort turns to the Battle at sea. The Americans Concentrating in the Atlantic leave the west cost open to attack. On January 3rd 1906 the British invade the state of Northern California making land fall near Fort Brag.
Wikipedia says there is a Fort Bragg in North Carolina. Is there another in Northern California? As stated previously landings in Northern California are T’sore arse.
The British Troop push through with light resistance from American military as there is little there. Hoping to take Northern California and advance on the American captured territory of Lower British Columbia (Oregon and Washington) the British forces soon meet resistance in the form of guerrilla warfare from the armed civilian population. The British are Pushed back and loose there foothold in the west almost assuring the loss of Canada.
This is silly. How are the British pushed back by guerrillas? Why does a British loss in Northern California mean the loss of Canada?
The incursion leads to Teddy Roosevelt proposing a government funded build up of the west coast similar to what happened with the west coast. at the same time the last Maine class battleship the USS Missouri is sunk in a battle with the HMS Queen only to be sunk by the first of is class the USS Virginia.
OK.
As the year drags on victory in Canada is not as assured as it once was as loyalists fight against the American invaders tooth an nail prompting the President Roosevelt to authorize General Custer to enact Operation “Reduction”. In possibly one of the most violent acts of the war US troops round up thousands of Canadian men and ranging from ages 15 to sixty-five and execute the in mass droves. Not sense the “Great Indian Purges of the 1840s” had such and atrocity taken place.
I like this but realistically the British didn’t even do this to the Boers. Which near contemporaneous war you have failed to mention in your time-line. As a result of which the British have a deployable force on day one of the war of around 500,000 men or more.
The British would not stand for it and in vain attempted dozens of landings the most famous of which is the “Battle of the Bulge”. British troops attempting to get a foot hold in New England were unable even with the aid of the Rhomboid tank to break through the American lines.
We seem to be completely divorced from any history at this point it is all largely unsupported fantasy, which is fine but supported fantasy is better.
In 1907 the final straw that broke the Canadians back came to pass. The top secret flying machine built by the Wright brothers known as the airplane was putt into service. Able to fly over enemy lines and find vulnerabilities along with dropping small bombs on the enemy the Aircraft spelled the end for the organized Canadian resistance.

This is again silly for many reasons. In TTL there is no real reason to expect the Wright brothers to invent powered flight. There is a good chance they would be in the US Army. If mass executions won’t stop the Canadians why would an aeroplane?
On May 9th 1908 the British formally surrendered to the United States and there ally of Mexico.
Why would Mexico be a USA ally? It is far more likely to be a British ally in this time-line.
The Americans would gain control over all conquered portions of Canada leaving the British with Nunavut, parts of Quebec, most of Saskatchewan, and a portion of Manitoba. The British would also surrender all of there colonies in northern South America to the Mexican Empire as part of there deal with the US for not attacking them and allying with the British.
This is illogical, if the USA takes most of Canada why not all of it. If they have lost Canada why would the British give up Trinidad and Tobago? Why would Mexico want Trinidad and Tobago?

This time-line did not start to badly. Unfortunately rather than follow to a logical conclusion the impacts of your POD you tried to bend the thing to your will. There are a great many time-lines that one could easily set-up where in 1903 the USA gives the British a complete kicking and wins Canada for its empire. The POD you chose and did not even define properly probably does not lead to it happening. If anything based on logical extrapolation of the situation I would expect it to lead to a gigantic Canada, a balkanised USA, an independent Texas, maybe California too and a slightly larger Mexico.

In general a later POD would have suited your aims better.
 

67th Tigers

Banned
Given that this is a country which had problems with excessive budgetary surpluses by the 1890s (and had the world's largest single economy by the 1870s), I think they can have a somewhat smaller economy and still play with the big boys ;) Frankly, though, as I'm no expert on economics or history, I wouldn't hazard a guess.

No, the world's largest economy in the 1870's is Britain (the Home Islands only). The historic US pulls level with the British home islands in the mid 1890's to mid 1900's and doesn't surpass the British Empire until really WW2.

The US economic growth of the era is based around opening up new natural resources, which requires people and capital. Throughout the historical 1870's-1880's the US breaks their dependence on the UK. This is driven by plentiful coal and iron ores (the later mainly on the Canadian border, so close that an earlier UK-US war could have seen that advantage going to Canada), a protectionist economy (large tariffs to keep cheaper British goods out) and exceptionally low tax rates.

The scenario you've posited robs the US of many of the factors driving it's growth in the latter half of the 19th century. If the UK is brutal enough with the US in 1838 to create a revachist regime then the main industrial areas of OTL US are now Canadian, and Canada has an extra 10 million or so people (and the US many less people). The US without these industries, a large standing army, high taxation and low emigration is a much less mighty beast indeed. Indeed, the ACW is likely to be different, since Lincoln simply won't get in. The exploitation of the west will be slower, the UK may be inclined to accept the offer of California being annexed to British North America instead (which the Californians preferred). Who knows?
 

Dure

Banned
Tigers,

I pretty much argee with your analysis though you may be over egging the British position just a little. However, rather than continue doing the easy thing, which is clobbering truth is life, I challenge you to do the hard thing. The thing that General_Finley is really trying to get at? An outline time-line, involving as a POD, a third Anglo-American war between 1812 and 1900 which the Americans lose and then a forth war in 1903 which the British lose. I think he wants the British to lose the 1903 war quite badly but not in an unrealsitic Harrisonesque sort of way. What do you think? Can you do it, or at least suggest a good POD?

I was thinking of something like a Guano islands war in the late 1860 or 70s, once the US has the infrastructure and the major investments. I suppose a scuffle over the second round of Fienian raids might also do? Go on, try it, it is time you demonstrated that you don't think Britain can win everything.
 
No, the world's largest economy in the 1870's is Britain (the Home Islands only). The historic US pulls level with the British home islands in the mid 1890's to mid 1900's and doesn't surpass the British Empire until really WW2.

The US economic growth of the era is based around opening up new natural resources, which requires people and capital. Throughout the historical 1870's-1880's the US breaks their dependence on the UK. This is driven by plentiful coal and iron ores (the later mainly on the Canadian border, so close that an earlier UK-US war could have seen that advantage going to Canada), a protectionist economy (large tariffs to keep cheaper British goods out) and exceptionally low tax rates.

The scenario you've posited robs the US of many of the factors driving it's growth in the latter half of the 19th century. If the UK is brutal enough with the US in 1838 to create a revachist regime then the main industrial areas of OTL US are now Canadian, and Canada has an extra 10 million or so people (and the US many less people). The US without these industries, a large standing army, high taxation and low emigration is a much less mighty beast indeed. Indeed, the ACW is likely to be different, since Lincoln simply won't get in. The exploitation of the west will be slower, the UK may be inclined to accept the offer of California being annexed to British North America instead (which the Californians preferred). Who knows?
Ah, I had a source and everything :( Well, I didn't really see the POD as the US really getting it's tail kicked in some alt-Caroline Incident--rather, that said alt-Caroline caused the US not to give up on it's Canadian aspirations, so they continue through the 1890s suspicious of Britain and wanting to 'liberate' Canada (nevermind what the Canadians think!). And it's not *my* TL, you know :)

EDIT: So, perhaps this causes the US to go to war with the UK sometime in the 1850s (during the Crimean War, say). They've just beaten Mexico (atm I will assume they come out with the OTL settlement), and are feeling their oats, so they attack Britain while she's tied down in Russia. They don't really get anywhere, but do end up getting a little territory in the peace settlement. Also, the double wars cause the Sepoy Rebellion to happen earlier, so Britain is more overstretched in the 1860s. Another war in the 1870s is also inconclusive, and as the 1890s end and a new century begins tension between the US and Great Britain is racheting up once again...
 
Last edited:
Finley explicitly pointed out that Britain and the US already fought a war in 1838 and the latter wants 'revenge'; it is not, therefore, terribly improbable that the US has a larger regular force, a larger reserve force, and has better equipment and training for both. Similarly, it is likely that such a US WOULD participate in the Dreadnought race, and would have more formidable coastal defenses than OTL, so total superiority of the RN is not as much of a given as it was OTL at this period.

Faced with such a ASBly juvenile US the UK would also keep larger numbers on troops to hand in Canada. Nations don't work in vacuums.
 
Faced with such a ASBly juvenile US the UK would also keep larger numbers on troops to hand in Canada. Nations don't work in vacuums.

Which is true, but the UK simply has more pies to stick it's hands in (it needs to screw around in India, Africa, Europe, China, etc.; the US only has Canada), so unless the US is completely brain-dead (or much weaker than OTL, which I will grant as a possibility) the British forces are still going to be considerably outnumbered.
 
Which is true, but the UK simply has more pies to stick it's hands in (it needs to screw around in India, Africa, Europe, China, etc.; the US only has Canada), so unless the US is completely brain-dead (or much weaker than OTL, which I will grant as a possibility) the British forces are still going to be considerably outnumbered.

This one is a bit of a common myth.
The various parts of the empire largely looked after themselves; there were very very few British troops in India, the Indian army was full of Indians, it was largely just the commanders who were British (moreso once Britain took over India than when it was the EIC of course).

Then of course to consider is that in many places it didn't take many men. In Africa for instance the Europeans needed very very few troops compared to the size of the forces fielded by most of the natives. They were just so much better armed. Even guns were a step above what most had in any significant numbers let alone machine guns.

Also the idea that the empire was just looking for a chance to revolt and would leap at any weakness.... Things generally weren't like that. There's a bunch of things against it.
1: News travelled slow and people were generally ignorant of the world. For some farmer out in the Indian countryside or even the more remote parts of Britain itself the USA might as well be Mars.
2: Nationalism and democracy were still developing phenomena, there was little sentiment of 'OK, why are these foreigners ruling us?'. Its the way history had been for centuries previously and the current situation was little change.

Additionally- the USA would be absolutely no threat to the UK if it only keeps its attention on Canada. Though it doesn't have so much in the way of a direct overseas empire it still has other commitments.
It too has to keep an eye on things in China then there is Latin America and of course problems within the US itself with natives.

Oh. And defenders generally need less troops than attackers.
The Canadians can hold off far bigger American forces if they have good enough defensive positions and enough machine guns and the like.
 

67th Tigers

Banned
Which is true, but the UK simply has more pies to stick it's hands in (it needs to screw around in India, Africa, Europe, China, etc.; the US only has Canada), so unless the US is completely brain-dead (or much weaker than OTL, which I will grant as a possibility) the British forces are still going to be considerably outnumbered.

1903?

The British can easily bring half a million troops to the party*, these troops are superbly armed and probably the highest quality in the world



* People forget that OTL there were HUGE defence cuts 1906-7. Each of the 6 original divisions of the BEF was a Corps before 1907. OTL Britain was in the process of doubling again the regular force** before Campbell-Bannerman got in.

** Each non-guards Infantry Regiment was being raised to an establishment of 4 battalions from 2.
 
This one is a bit of a common myth.
The various parts of the empire largely looked after themselves; there were very very few British troops in India, the Indian army was full of Indians, it was largely just the commanders who were British (moreso once Britain took over India than when it was the EIC of course).

Then of course to consider is that in many places it didn't take many men. In Africa for instance the Europeans needed very very few troops compared to the size of the forces fielded by most of the natives. They were just so much better armed. Even guns were a step above what most had in any significant numbers let alone machine guns.

Also the idea that the empire was just looking for a chance to revolt and would leap at any weakness.... Things generally weren't like that. There's a bunch of things against it.
1: News travelled slow and people were generally ignorant of the world. For some farmer out in the Indian countryside or even the more remote parts of Britain itself the USA might as well be Mars.
2: Nationalism and democracy were still developing phenomena, there was little sentiment of 'OK, why are these foreigners ruling us?'. Its the way history had been for centuries previously and the current situation was little change.

Additionally- the USA would be absolutely no threat to the UK if it only keeps its attention on Canada. Though it doesn't have so much in the way of a direct overseas empire it still has other commitments.
It too has to keep an eye on things in China then there is Latin America and of course problems within the US itself with natives.
Well, even the small overseas requirements are drains on the UK's resources that it probably doesn't want when going up against the US. Besides, while normally Africa (say) was not much of a drain, there's always things like the Boer Wars (progenitor of that 1/2 million man army, amirite?) to ramp it up significantly. Frankly, the US was never a threat to any bit of the UK asides from Canada anyways (it's utterly ASB to imagine a USN capable of defeating the RN as a whole prior to the 1920s or so, even OTL), so I don't see how that's an important criteria. Continued revanichist/anti-UK feeling will probably mean the US screws around less in China and other overseas places, and Latin America is sort of the American (and British! Don't forget they liked to fiddle with internal Latin Amercian politics, too!) version of Africa, except with even less military commitment most of the time. By 1900, too, the Native American threat had largely been eliminated, and didn't require the resources it once did, though it certainly will be a factor in any prior war (like with the once-every-20-years war I was posisting earlier)

67th Tigers said:
1903?

The British can easily bring half a million troops to the party*, these troops are superbly armed and probably the highest quality in the world

How about 1899, then? That army hasn't been formed yet, and now the British need to outfit one for Canada and South Africa at the same time. That's gonna be a pain.
 
Top