WI the French finished the Panama Canal

At this time Panama is still part of Columbia, US does as OTL and supports a Panamanian revolution and the canal is now in a different country that demands their sovreign territory back, if France refuses the US helps Panama take it

In any case Panama cannot run a canal on their own and will need to make an agreement with the US to run it, that just happens to give the USA de facto ownership of the Canal

Why do you assume automatically that it would be the US that back such a regime., If the French choose to back either party (the one which preserves their interests best) what would the US reasonably do......Nothing I tell you... the whole Manifest Destiny, Monroe doctrine Roosevelt corollary thing is past its time and honestly... was never worth the paper that anyone printed it on... It was all a bunch of hot air...smoke and mirrors
 
Its possible the US might get involved in the war earlier if there are American shipping losses resulting from a (weak at best, but still destructive) German naval presence.
 
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.

Why?

Relations with France were very good historically...If they own the canal, tolls will only really effect commercial shipping interests. How is that any different from the US owning the Canal...I donèt think Washington would really give two figs about it as long as US shipping interests were not being gouged more than any of their rivals.

As long as everyone is on the same playing field...it really won t matter.

Argueably the americans have good reasons for keeping their relations with France tight. Even so Im sure the US would still be able to transit military vessels at will in peacetime.
 
how cliché...almost laughable really

Again cliché... for what reason....?

Without simply calling it cliché, how is it not logical that the Americans would want to keep imperialism that wasn't their own imperialism out of the western hemisphere?

At any point of significant French weakness, any, I feel that America would, rather than let France fatten herself off of the Canal in better times, attempt to work out a deal.

Politically speaking, it's dangerous for America to let the French keep the canal.

This is ignoring the fact, obviously, that the French canal would not, and could not be finished as planned. Even somehow considering the original plan as feasible- which it wasn't- the French hadn't developed measures to counteract the diseases which predominated that region, and decimated the French expedition. America, after suffering relatively high losses from disease in the Spanish American war, developed measures to fight disease.
 
At any point of significant French weakness, any, I feel that America would, rather than let France fatten herself off of the Canal in better times, attempt to work out a deal.

Agreed, for a Presidential hopeful, promising to be aggressive over French imperialism will get votes.
 
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.

But wouldn't it be much more profitable for the French to keep the canal? And seriously, who is threatening it? Chile?

I'd see the French giving up the Canal, at the same time they gave up Corsica or Breton.
 
Agreed, for a Presidential hopeful, promising to be aggressive over French imperialism will get votes.

How would it be french imperialism....and how is this a detriment to the US to whom they have had very good diplomatic relations for the most part.

Obviously the auspices under which a french Canal is built in Colombia s Panamanian provinces will be far different from those of one built by the US in an independent Panama. thus the Colombian-french diplomatic shuffle will likely colour any possible US approach. Its also likely to determine Colombia s future disposition with respect to the Canal. Colombia is not Nasser s Egypt. Which was coloured by the whole NATO-Soviet dynamic...and mandated the response there that occurred OTL. Its not likely to be the same with Colombia. At best I see the French and Colombian gov ts negotiating a Co- Dominion deal before one with the US. They may even do that from the start, an agreement that over time may see the French reduced to a minority position, but still a significant stake holder.
 
But wouldn't it be much more profitable for the French to keep the canal? And seriously, who is threatening it? Chile?

I'd see the French giving up the Canal, at the same time they gave up Corsica or Breton.

Perhaps over time, but the French would want money quickly to rebuild. Huge swathes of land would have been destroyed, immense numbers of people displaced and if this is like OTL they would want to keep a large army. They would be dangerously low on money and selling the Panama Canal could bring in lots of it. Keeping it would make huge bundles of money, but over time. Too much time in the eyes of people living in the North east of the country.
 
Without simply calling it cliché, how is it not logical that the Americans would want to keep imperialism that wasn't their own imperialism out of the western hemisphere?

At any point of significant French weakness, any, I feel that America would, rather than let France fatten herself off of the Canal in better times, attempt to work out a deal.

Politically speaking, it's dangerous for America to let the French keep the canal.

This is ignoring the fact, obviously, that the French canal would not, and could not be finished as planned. Even somehow considering the original plan as feasible- which it wasn't- the French hadn't developed measures to counteract the diseases which predominated that region, and decimated the French expedition. America, after suffering relatively high losses from disease in the Spanish American war, developed measures to fight disease.

It is cliché in the sense that it is generally assume d here that because something may not necessarily be deemed in the best interest of the US though not actually harmful, that they would automatically scheme to undo it regardless of the power that they may have to deal with.

That the US would scheme to steal or force a sale from the French when they are obviously in no position to force such an action and again have no compelling reason to endanger what have been probably the best of diplomatic relations this side of the 19th Century...is what is so cliché.
 
Truly, taking complete military and economical control of the canal from the nation that built it would only serve to harm US relations.

Unless you wish to keep the American Imperialism route, alienating the European powers and existing alliances would be a bad move.

The US will be diplomatic and make a deal that won't be outright gourging.
 
Perhaps over time, but the French would want money quickly to rebuild. Huge swathes of land would have been destroyed, immense numbers of people displaced and if this is like OTL they would want to keep a large army. They would be dangerously low on money and selling the Panama Canal could bring in lots of it. Keeping it would make huge bundles of money, but over time. Too much time in the eyes of people living in the North east of the country.


Wow, that is one gigantic pile of wishful thinking you've got going there.
 
Their navy is hurt and they would have cared about short term cash to repair France more than a longer term investment.

It would help if there was some reason to believe that the French would not care about the long-term utility of owning the canal. Honestly, would anyone - French or not - give up such an important asset unless they were forced?
 
With what troops? Pre world war I/II american army was a joke.
Seriously the USA we are talking about is not yet a military superpower it's army was small badly equiped and trained. Trying to seize territory in shameless landgrab without any reason is going to be frowned upon.
 
Last edited:
With what troops? Pre world war I/II american army was a joke.
Seriously the USA we are talking about is not yet a military superpower it's army was small badly equiped and trained. Trying to seize territory in shameless landgrab without any reason is going to be frowned upon.

If a war happens between US and France, the French will be remembered as Cheese eating kickass monkeys.
 
Lol, yeah. The US might very well underestimate the French in light of the botched intervention in Mexico a few decades before.
 
If they completed the canal as they tried OTL, how many tens of thousands of workers would have died from malaria?
 
Top