WI the French finished the Panama Canal

And I'm guessing French finances in the late 19th century were in good enough shape that the US wouldn't be able to simply buy up the rights to the canal for a low price.

Assuming that the US doesn't go to war to seize the canal, leaving it in French hands, how would US naval doctrine change? Would the US seek a closer alliance with France in order to ensure access to the canal for military purposes? Or with the possible aversion of the Spanish-American War, would there be any need for the US to maintain a Pacific squadron beyond a few small riverine gunboats in China?
 
Well, Teddy Roosevelt is god...

Yes, I've noticed quite a few people think that.
I think you missed the bigger point in that the French had problem against Germany, and later its own colonies, so they probably wouldn't fare well against somebody stronger than Germany. America might not have had the arms, but its industrial might would compensate.
 
The French didn't do all that well against Ho Chi Minh; what makes you think they stand a chance against Teddy Roosevelt?


I'm sorry, was Teddy Roosevelt acting in the 1950's and 1960's? The France and America during and after the second world war were very different Frances and America's prior to the first world war.

And there's very little to say that France would not have had British support in ownership and operation of the Canal. From about 1850 through to 1940, France and Britain were allies.

British/American relations? Not so tight.

So, if it wasn't going to hold the Canal itself, and that was a possible option, in whose hands would it favour? I think the Brits would support France against America on this one.
 
And how, exactly, would the United States "snatch up" the canal from the French?

Militarily. Really, the French just gave the United States a HUGE incentive to act against the French. If there is a Great War, and at this point it seems very unavoidable, the Americans will side with the Anti-French Bloc.
 
Someone remind me on the American mindset.

If the Canal was finished by the French, how do the Americans justify taking such an important asset from another nation, especially when it is built, not just a natural formation?

Maybe a sum of money that appears to be generous while forcing the French to accept?

What price would the Americans use to 'pay' for the Canal?

Would a equally likely scenario be to force a joint American-French control of the Canal and equal share in the company administering it?
 
France was a globe spanning empire and hardly weak.
I'm well aware. I was sarcastically pointing out the apparent mindset of some of the posters in this thread who were acting as if a France which successfully built the Panama Canal would be as much of a push-over for the all-powerful Americans as the Spanish were.

The French didn't do all that well against Ho Chi Minh; what makes you think they stand a chance against Teddy Roosevelt?
France lasted 12 years against Ho Chi Minh, and the Americans didn't actually fare much better when they gave it a go. And of course, this is after France was ravaged by two world wars...

Teddy Roosevelt is not some superhuman demi-god capable of winning wars on his own, much less wars against other superpowers with a global presence (which, it should be noted, the US didn't have prior to the Spanish-American war).

Militarily. Really, the French just gave the United States a HUGE incentive to act against the French. If there is a Great War, and at this point it seems very unavoidable, the Americans will side with the Anti-French Bloc.
Antagonizing whoever holds the Panama Canal would do more harm than good for American interests in the short- and medium-term.
 
I think it's possible the US would side with France in a European war but still eventually acquire the canal as part of a destroyers for bases-type agreement.
 
I think it's possible the US would side with France in a European war but still eventually acquire the canal as part of a destroyers for bases-type agreement.
I doubt the French would hand over the canal just like that, even in dire straits. Probably the best the US could get out of it would be some sort of codominion deal.
 
Why do so many people on this thread seem to think America would just seize the Panama Canal? France was a major world power at the time and comparing France to Spain is just plain ridiculous. I think too many people on this thread are too caught up on their Roosevelt wank fantasies to actually look at this logically.

The USA may have been able to buy it down the road, but intervening to seize it would be out of the question. In fact Panama probably wouldn't exist either as the USA was the major power behind its independence. What I think is just as likely is that Colombia would nationalise it down the road in the style of the Suez Canal.
 
Given the tone of comments on this thread, it seems amazing that the canal was even ever given back to Panama.
 
Given the tone of comments on this thread, it seems amazing that the canal was even ever given back to Panama.

Well it was Jimmy Carter, and it still took 2 decades. I think Colombia would probably forcibly nationalise it by the 1950s if the French built it.
 
I don't think the USA would steal/seize/buy it (even if they could), but if history goes more or less as in OTL afterwards, and France falls in WW2, the USA is likely to occupy the Canal zone in the chaos following all that; it's just too important. But they'd also turn in back over to France after the war is over...
 
Wouldn't the US have to stay on pretty good terms with France to ensure year round access to the Canal for use in transferring ships from the Atlantic to Pacific fleets and vice versa?
 
Militarily. Really, the French just gave the United States a HUGE incentive to act against the French. If there is a Great War, and at this point it seems very unavoidable, the Americans will side with the Anti-French Bloc.

Instead of a possibility of a franco-american war wouldn't there be a greater possibity of more franco- american cooperation?

I mean this might threaten the monroe doctrine but couldn't there be an agreement that Americans get relative free shipping in the Panama canal?
 
I doubt the French would hand over the canal just like that, even in dire straits. Probably the best the US could get out of it would be some sort of codominion deal.

Nah, without the means to defend it the French would either have to sell it to the US for much needed resources or give up defense of it to the US. After the war, the US buys it.
 
Why would France want to sell it after the war?

Really, this is just a weird thread. It's like people seem to think that the US has a genetic entitlement to the Panama Canal.
 
Why would France want to sell it after the war?

For money which they are low on, and they don't have the means to defend it as before. Their navy is hurt and they would have cared about short term cash to repair France more than a longer term investment. The US (assuming their French friends) is the perfect choice. Plus French naval ships could use the canal.

It's like people seem to think that the US has a genetic entitlement to the Panama Canal.

Well the US certainly felt that they did.

They saw the canal zone.
They saw Columbia in the way.
They supported rebellion in Columbia
They took the Canal.

While I agree the US may not get the canal in a TL, it is certainly the most likely option, one way or another.
 
Given that the French canal was a sea-level one, which would have been... interesting to build, to say the least. Given that it was undercapitalized, and that the disease régime was worse than anyone expected (partly due to strange habits of some mosquitoes), the OTL canal is simply not feasible.

IF, if I say, the French government decided it was a matter of national pride, took over the private company that was building the canal (Note: private company), and ordered a complete revamping/redesign of the whole project, then, maybe, you could get a French canal built.

But completing the canal requires such a major PoD that we can't possibly discuss much what happens afterwards without knowing HOW the canal managed to get done in the first place.

The only way I can see the canal getting done is if the French government/people decide it's a matter of national honour and/or pride. In which case prying it out of their hands will be like prying Algeria out.

IMO

I èd agree, that it would only complete under Fr. Govt auspices after a complete re-evaluationof what is feasible to actually do...

If completed in that manner...there is simply no amount of money that the French would accept from any quarter to give it up, given the trouble it will no doubt still cause to build. In that respect it would be considered a triumph of French engineering. and a matter of national pride.

Not to mention that the tolls that would be exacted would be an extremely valuable source of income. Especially in the aftermath of a WWI analogue in paying down any war debts.

The question would really be then do Americans actually go ahead an build their own rival canal. The French are likely to keep tolls low enough to make such a project a non-starter. but high enough to be a valuable source of income.
 
Top