RF wrote:Ted, the main premise in that thread was naval rivalry between Britain and the USA, exacerbated by a British naval blockade of France resultring in British seizure of US merchant ships trading with France. Prior to WW1 the US Navy had considered the possibilty of a naval war with Britain caused by British interference with US trade on the high seas. In reality it was German interference with US trading commerce that forced the US into WW1 as an ally of Britain.
The other aspects of this were that a conflict between the British and Americans creates a front on the US-Canadian border, so the main areas of US heavy industry are in the front line. Mexico is induced into declaring war on the US to reverse the defeats of the 1840's, by the Germans and British so the US has a land war on two fronts, while the Japanese threaten Hawaii.
A sequence of events such as this is unlikely to prevent war, as the US atitude would be very robust.
Another aspect is Panama - of great strategic importance to whoever controls the Panama Canal. And if Colombia is induced into declaring war on the US to recover Panama (originally part of Colombia until 1903 when separtatists backed by the US broke away, after Colombia refused the US permission to build the Panama Canal) by the Germans then another threat to the US is created. Incidently in the spring of 1914 the Kaiser did ask the German Naval Staff about the possibility of the High Seas Fleet leading a German expedition to Panama to seize the Canal. This didn't go very far before other events closer to home refocussed the Kaiser's attention.
And of course the USA had 'Plan Red', updated as late as 1935, to invade Canada in case of a war with Britain and the Commonwealth. However the point I was making was not about a war on the USA, but what might have changed if Britain and Imperial Germany had had an alliance at the end of the 19th Century and not Britain and France. Of course such a Anglo-German Alliance could probably only have endured so long as Germany did not try to build a huge fleet, but then if she was in an alliance with Britain why would she need one?
In that situation I don't see why there would have been a war at all, since Russia was far from robust and France could have seen no prospect of victory at all against both Germany and Britain and in the event of one, would have faced defeat in Europe and the loss of most of her Colonies.
The problem with any scenario of a war between Britain and the USA from C.1870-1930 is neither side would, in the end, have gained very much by it, while both would have lost a good deal by it. The USA might have captured Canada, or parts of it -although the US regular Army for most of that period was tiny even by British standards- but would there be much point if the population had no desire to belong to the US? Likewise the British could raid parts of the US coast or, more easily, island bases, but again to what end?
"It only takes two or three years to build a ship but three hundred to build a tradition" Admiral Cunningham RN