WI: Venezuela-British Guiana border dispute leds to war.

Okay this is something I have been curious about for a while, I apologize if this has been asked before but I have never seen it posted and I did a search. Okay so in the 1890s Vezuela and the UK got involved in a boundary dispute over the western boundary of British Guiana, which almost caused the US to invoke the Monroe docturine which almost caused the UK and US to go to war. My question is, what would have happened if they did go to war?
 
I read a short TL on this once that lead to war in 1896. The U.S. and British fought a few skirmishes off the coast of New England, and Teddy Roosevelt led the Rough Riders in a conquest of Quebec. The war didn't last too long, and it led to American possession of Quebec, of all things.

It was interesting, but I don't have any idea how plausible the whole thing was. :p
 
this scenario was covered in "What Ifs? of American History", under "The Whale against the Wolf". The basic idea behind this war in 1896, according to the author, was that the US couldn't match the UK at sea, and the UK couldn't match the US on land (in North America). I'm not sure if that's true, because at this time, the US forces are damn poorly equipped... the US could probably put more men in the field, but there is a severe lack of modern military equipment around...
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
In my mind, if war breaks out between the United States and the British Empire in the 1890s, a few things will happen.

1. American commerce is swept from the ocean

2. The Royal Navy blockades the eastern seaboard, eating for breakfast any American fleet that tries to stop them.

3. The Americans say goodbye to Alaska and Hawaii.

4. The Americans conquer chunks of Canada, but at substantial cost and exposing structural weaknesses in the American military (as happened IOTL in 1898). A few strongholds will remain in British hands, thaks to Royal Navy support.

5. The British sit tight and wait for the Americans to come to terms, as the blockade and the shutdown of their international trade collapses the American economy.

6. If the war drags out, the Empire floods troops into Canada and begins to drive the Americans back. (Recall that, IOTL, they were able to eventually field 250,000 men in South Africa).

Long story short: the British win. They'll get Canada back, and probably take Alaska (with its newly-discovered gold) for their trouble.
 

67th Tigers

Banned
this scenario was covered in "What Ifs? of American History", under "The Whale against the Wolf". The basic idea behind this war in 1896, according to the author, was that the US couldn't match the UK at sea, and the UK couldn't match the US on land (in North America). I'm not sure if that's true, because at this time, the US forces are damn poorly equipped... the US could probably put more men in the field, but there is a severe lack of modern military equipment around...

I have point out in the past just how weak the US Army is. The regular army has 30 infantry regiments of 4-500 each (inc. 5 "redlegged infantry" regiments), 10 artillery batteries each with 4 gunpowder pieces and 10 cavalry regiments (again about 400 each).

They can put together a fairly reasonable army corps of about 10,000 bayonets, 40 guns and 2,000 sabres after the necessary overheads are taken into account to invade Canada. The Canadians of course have very little regular army, but a reasonable militia. If the British sent a single division to Canada (8,000 bayonets, 24 guns, 16 Maxims with a cavalry brigade of 1,500 sabres, 6 Maxims and 6 guns attached) then the US regulars are matched.

US mobilisation will follow the pattern of 1898. Barely 50,000 militiamen have ever even shouldered a rifle and they're equipped with Trapdoor Springfields, there is no reserve field artillery. Large numbers are required to man the coastal defences. Over time they can start fielding greater numbers (as can the British) but for the first 6-12 months (at least) the British have the advantage in trained manpower.
 
Are you sure the US would not have been able to defeat a UK. invasion.

The Endicott Board of Fortifications, created by Congress in March 1885, recommended a major improvement program for the modernization of port defenses along the Eastern seaboard and Great Lakes.
Read this:http://brokert10.fcla.edu/DLData/NF/NF00000148/00129.pdf


More information:

Endicott Era, 1891-1928 (including the Taft Era and World War I)

As the United States completed its westward expansion and continued to industrialize in the late 1800’s, the government turned its attention to establishing the United States among the world’s great military powers. The Navy expanded to become a truly international force, and the Army assumed responsibility for the defense of the nation’s coasts and ports. President Cleveland established the Endicott Board in 1885 for the purpose of modernizing fortifications. Chaired by Secretary of War William Endicott, the board recommended new defenses at 22 U.S. seaports. The new reinforced-concrete gun batteries that resulted are known as Endicott batteries, and in fact the Endicott Era of coastal defenses lasted 50 years, with some modification, until the end of World War II.
The Endicott Board deemed San Francisco Harbor second only to New York’s in strategic importance. As a result, an extensive series of forts, batteries, and guns were proposed for the harbor entrance, occupying both shores of the Golden Gate. In the Presidio of San Francisco construction began in 1891, when ground was broken for Battery Marcus Miller. On the north side of the Gate, Battery Spencer followed in 1893. Batteries were subsequently built south of the Presidio at Fort Miley (Land’s End), north of the Golden Gate at Forts Baker and Barry, and in the inner-harbor, at Fort McDowell (Angel Island) and Fort Mason.
Recommendations by the Endicott Board included Coastal defense ships just like monitors and one Harbor defense Ram ship. But it seems when it came to coastal defense ships the US was the last major nation to build them. Seems the fortifications and battery implacements did a better job.
 

67th Tigers

Banned
Are you sure the US would not have been able to defeat a UK. invasion.

Read this:http://brokert10.fcla.edu/DLData/NF/NF00000148/00129.pdf


More information:

Recommendations by the Endicott Board included Coastal defense ships just like monitors and one Harbor defense Ram ship. But it seems when it came to coastal defense ships the US was the last major nation to build them. Seems the fortifications and battery implacements did a better job.

In 1898 only around 140 of the nearly 3,000 planned guns were in place. No US coastal fort would last an hour against a single RN Battleship.
 
The U.S. is going to lose any serious war, and would most likely lose any limited war. The problem is that Britain is not going to be able to inflict any long term damage on the U.S., and any war that both exposes U.S. weaknesses (which will then be corrected), and leads to humiliating American losses (ie Alaska) is going to result in an angry U.S. that will soon dwarf Britain both economically and militarily. That would mean a crushing defeat for Britain in a second round sometime in the 20th century without some near ASB diplomacy work.
 
I read a short TL on this once that lead to war in 1896. The U.S. and British fought a few skirmishes off the coast of New England, and Teddy Roosevelt led the Rough Riders in a conquest of Quebec. The war didn't last too long, and it led to American possession of Quebec, of all things.

It was interesting, but I don't have any idea how plausible the whole thing was. :p


I've read a similar essay in the WhatIf? Collections.
 

67th Tigers

Banned
The U.S. is going to lose any serious war, and would most likely lose any limited war. The problem is that Britain is not going to be able to inflict any long term damage on the U.S., and any war that both exposes U.S. weaknesses (which will then be corrected), and leads to humiliating American losses (ie Alaska) is going to result in an angry U.S. that will soon dwarf Britain both economically and militarily. That would mean a crushing defeat for Britain in a second round sometime in the 20th century without some near ASB diplomacy work.

Dwarf? Not necessarily. Around this period US production (with a population of 100m) is just about equal to the British Home Islands (with a population of 40m), but much of the resources driving industrialisation lay on the fringes; Californian gold and silver, Texan oil, Michigan iron and copper and Pennsylvania coal. A bad war could massively curtail future US power.
 
Dwarf? Not necessarily. Around this period US production (with a population of 100m) is just about equal to the British Home Islands (with a population of 40m), but much of the resources driving industrialisation lay on the fringes; Californian gold and silver, Texan oil, Michigan iron and copper and Pennsylvania coal. A bad war could massively curtail future US power.

And how do you propose Britain being able to inflict such a defeat on the U.S. starting from essentially a colonial war that it would be able to deny the U.S. any of the above? Britain can raid the coasts and pick off U.S. non-mainland possessions (such as they are), but there's no chance in hell they could invade the mainland itself in any meaningful way. By the turn of the century, the U.S. is no longer significantly dependent on foreign investment, its median per capita income has already caught up with Britain leading to a massive internal market thanks to its population, and British investors stand to lose immense amounts of money from their decades of investment that were just beginning to pay off.
 

67th Tigers

Banned
And how do you propose Britain being able to inflict such a defeat on the U.S. starting from essentially a colonial war that it would be able to deny the U.S. any of the above? Britain can raid the coasts and pick off U.S. non-mainland possessions (such as they are), but there's no chance in hell they could invade the mainland itself in any meaningful way. By the turn of the century, the U.S. is no longer significantly dependent on foreign investment, its median per capita income has already caught up with Britain leading to a massive internal market thanks to its population, and British investors stand to lose immense amounts of money from their decades of investment that were just beginning to pay off.

All US heavy industry is within striking distance of the RN and any expeditionary force backing it up. Should the British land a moderate force of a single 40,000 Army Corps anywhere on the US coast what is going to oppose it? Sure the British can't be everywhere, but whereever the British decide to be the US can't do a thing about it.
 
All US heavy industry is within striking distance of the RN and any expeditionary force backing it up. Should the British land a moderate force of a single 40,000 Army Corps anywhere on the US coast what is going to oppose it? Sure the British can't be everywhere, but whereever the British decide to be the US can't do a thing about it.

Yes, because Britain has such experience with massive trans-Atlantic amphibious operations. The world is actually a game of Victoria, where all you have to do is get the transports and order the troops to disembark onto an empty province. There's absolutely no problem with the enemy somehow detecting the invasion flotilla and making use of the most densely railed territory outside of Europe to disrupt the landing. Just like in Victoria, the U.S. Navy will have committed suicide against the RN, instead of conserving their strength for just such an opportunity. Mines, the North Atlantic weather, local garrisons that may not be great soldiers but more than capable of messing up landing boats, none of it matters. None of the problems with the army demonstrated in the Boer War a few years down the line exist. There would be no major problems with sending such a large proportion of the British regular army across the Atlantic instead of supporting all of Britain's other commitments. Once the Corps lands in a matter of hours in perfect fighting shape, they can then march inland through hostile territory and a heavily armed hostile populace without any fear for their lines of supply to burn industry mostly owned by British investors. Smashing victory.
 
Last edited:
All US heavy industry is within striking distance of the RN and any expeditionary force backing it up. Should the British land a moderate force of a single 40,000 Army Corps anywhere on the US coast what is going to oppose it? Sure the British can't be everywhere, but whereever the British decide to be the US can't do a thing about it.


But are the British willing to do this over a colonial war? I picture the British getting dominance of the seas and basically cutting of the USA from the outside world, collapsing American trade and taking their foreign holdings. The USA invades Canada. After a hard fought battle, they win by sheer numbers. The British may be able to launch a massive huge army against the USA, but IMO, by this point the war will have hurt both parties, and anti-war sentiment will be looming large. They will agree to a peace by which the USA leaves Canada and the British return American holdings, and the British get that tiny sliver of Venezuela the war was fought over.
 
All US heavy industry is within striking distance of the RN and any expeditionary force backing it up. Should the British land a moderate force of a single 40,000 Army Corps anywhere on the US coast what is going to oppose it? Sure the British can't be everywhere, but whereever the British decide to be the US can't do a thing about it.
All US heavy industry is within striking distance? Just how is the Royal Navy supposed to invade Pittsburgh?
 

Eurofed

Banned
The U.S. is going to lose any serious war, and would most likely lose any limited war. The problem is that Britain is not going to be able to inflict any long term damage on the U.S., and any war that both exposes U.S. weaknesses (which will then be corrected), and leads to humiliating American losses (ie Alaska) is going to result in an angry U.S. that will soon dwarf Britain both economically and militarily. That would mean a crushing defeat for Britain in a second round sometime in the 20th century without some near ASB diplomacy work.

Exactly. Any American poor performance in this war shall result into an hawkish Congress and President getting elected that shall be dead-set on correcting such weaknesses. Cue in massive expansion and modernization of the US Army and Navy for the rematch. Moreover, before the ink of peace treaty is dry, US diplomats are in Berlin to discuss making the USA the fourth unofficial member of the Triple Alliance, which shall make Italy stick to it, by the way. Cue in a WWI which USA eagerly joins from the start, where a one-million US Army swamps Canada and the RN has to fight a massive USN and HSF in the Atlantic, the RM in the Mediterranean...
 

67th Tigers

Banned
Yes, because Britain has such experience with massive trans-Atlantic amphibious operations. The world is actually a game of Victoria, where all you have to do is get the transports and order the troops to disembark onto an empty province.

I've never played that game but yes, there is no problem with the British loading 40,000 men onto transports and disembarking them at any point they like, and in 1896 the US couldn't do a thing about it.

There's absolutely no problem with the enemy somehow detecting the invasion flotilla and making use of the most densely railed territory outside of Europe to disrupt the landing.

Yep, because 12" naval guns firing Lyddite shells aren't going to demolish any opposition. If a US force tries to oppose a British landing force that is under the cover of naval artillery then that US force will be destroyed.

Just like in Victoria, the U.S. Navy will have committed suicide against the RN, instead of conserving their strength for just such an opportunity.

What US Navy? There are the newly built Armoured Cruisers Maine and Texas, and the Battleship Indiana (plus, if we're charitable, the Massachusetts and Oregon might be finished in time), plus the unarmoured cruisers Chicago, Charleston, Baltimore, Oympia, Cinncinnati, Raleigh, Marblehead, Columbia and Minneapolis. The USN is so weak the RN actually withdrew all their battleships from the area as there was no need for them. The RN has 18 modern battleships in full commission with the Channel and Mediterranean Squadrons for immediate deployment, excluding the guardships and the reserve fleet.

Mines, the North Atlantic weather, local garrisons that may not be great soldiers but more than capable of messing up landing boats, none of it matters.

Oh, they matter, but the US has no mines (although could build some given time), the weather simply imposes delays, and local garrisons will literally evaporate under lyddite shells.

None of the problems with the army demonstrated in the Boer War a few years down the line exist.

What problems are these. The Boers had a larger military force than the United States and were far better armed. They could shoot better than the US (whose army still trained for volley fire at 100 yds in an era where the British were dropping massed targets at about 2.5km), had more field artillery than the US, and better artillery (better than the British).

It interesting to note all the Boer successes were in the early period where they had about a 3:1 advantage in manpower in theatre (70,000 Burghers vs 22,000 British and South Africans).

Of course, you may benefit from the fact that a lot of British rifles had faulty sights. Even with faulty sights, firing at entrenched targets over 500m away the British still hit with more than 1 round in 100, twice the hit rate the achieved by ACW infantry against massed targets 50 yds away.

There would be no major problems with sending such a large proportion of the British regular army across the Atlantic instead of supporting all of Britain's other commitments.

You do known the British had 6 Army Corps in the Home Islands? This isn't stripping the cupboard bare. The British have (going by Boer War forces and deducting the garrison of SA) 10 full infantry divisions and 2 large cavalry divisions available without stripping India or the like of any forces.

Once the Corps lands in a matter of hours in perfect fighting shape, they can then march inland through hostile territory and a heavily armed hostile populace without any fear for their lines of supply to burn industry mostly owned by British investors. Smashing victory.

What heavily armed populace?
 

67th Tigers

Banned
Exactly. Any American poor performance in this war shall result into an hawkish Congress and President getting elected that shall be dead-set on correcting such weaknesses. Cue in massive expansion and modernization of the US Army and Navy for the rematch. Moreover, before the ink of peace treaty is dry, US diplomats are in Berlin to discuss making the USA the fourth unofficial member of the Triple Alliance, which shall make Italy stick to it, by the way. Cue in a WWI which USA eagerly joins from the start, where a one-million US Army swamps Canada and the RN has to fight a massive USN and HSF in the Atlantic, the RM in the Mediterranean...

Okay, this is quite strange. For a start it has no resemblence to the alliance system of the time and assumes that the US is going to be revanchist, which is unlikely. If the US wants to ally themselves with an anti-British power then that is tsarist Russia, the bastion of tyranny.
 
Okay, this is quite strange. For a start it has no resemblence to the alliance system of the time and assumes that the US is going to be revanchist, which is unlikely. If the US wants to ally themselves with an anti-British power then that is tsarist Russia, the bastion of tyranny.


Well, Eurofed likes to have Russia and Germany allied. But you are right, if the US and Britain have a fight then America will get closer to it's good friend Russia, with whom they have been good friends since they first had diplomatic contact.
 
Top