baloo
Petty Officer 1st Class
Posts: 69 
Likes: 0
|
Post by baloo on Apr 13, 2017 17:42:11 GMT
I've long thought that not only was our entry into World War I on the British side a mistake that did the US no go whatsoever, but that we missed a chance to grab Canada, or part of it, while the Brits were busy in Europe. The only way I can think of to effectuate that is to have the 1895 Venezuela crisis heat up, with some shots fired before it's all settled, thus renewing the US animosity towards the British that could lead us to enter the war against them. Better yet, imagine that it all leads to a short war in Venezuela, and TR organizes his Rough Riders three years earlier than in OTL and joins the fight.
TR is picked as in OTL as McKinley's VP, and becomes President when McKinley is assassinated. But prior to that, McKinley places Taft on the Supreme Court. He doesn't make him governor of the Philippines because there's no Spanish-American war, that crisis having been settled by McKinley with the purchase of Cuba from Spain in 1898.
Therefore, in 1908, TR doesn't urge Taft to run for President, and instead backs Attorney General Philander Knox. Knox picks Joseph Foraker for VP. During the campaign, Foraker's support for the Black soldiers in the Brownsville affair becomes a big news item, weakening the ticket, and it loses to the Democrats' Wm Jennings Bryan and John Kern. This sets TR up for a renomination in 1912, and the Roosevelt-Elihu Root ticket beats the incumbent Bryan administration handily.
So, when the war breaks out in Europe, TR, a veteran of the short 1895 war against Britain, sees an opportunity for the US to strike a blow against the Brits and gain some territory at the same time. In a speech delivered in Detroit, he emphasizes that the Brits have "hogged North America," and that there are fewer than eight million inhabitants of Canada, and that the West of Canada, even more thinly populated than the rest, is "going to waste," and that "American entrepreneurs could turn the wasteland into a thriving community for farming, mining, and manufacture."
On 11 August, 1914, Congress declares war on Great Britain, and Americans are urged to volunteer for the armed forces to invade Canada. At the same time, the Navy heads for British Guyana and the British possessions in the Caribbean.
Please critique.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 67,966
Likes: 49,370
|
Post by lordroel on Apr 13, 2017 18:57:33 GMT
TR is picked as in OTL as McKinley's VP, and becomes President when McKinley is assassinated. But prior to that, McKinley places Taft on the Supreme Court. He doesn't make him governor of the Philippines because there's no Spanish-American war, that crisis having been settled by McKinley with the purchase of Cuba from Spain in 1898. What about the Philippines, Guam and Porto Rico. |
|
baloo
Petty Officer 1st Class
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
|
Post by baloo on Apr 13, 2017 19:11:53 GMT
I'm thinking we don't bother about the Philippines, but yes, Puerto Rico would probably be included in the Cuba purchase.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 67,966
Likes: 49,370
|
Post by lordroel on Apr 13, 2017 19:13:38 GMT
I'm thinking we don't bother about the Philippines, but yes, Puerto Rico would probably be included in the Cuba purchase. And Guam than, would it remain Spanish ore do you think they would sell it to the Germans. |
|
baloo
Petty Officer 1st Class
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
|
Post by baloo on Apr 13, 2017 21:21:58 GMT
My impression is that the Spanish were relieved to be relieved  of their empire, especially the more remote types, and would have been happy to sell it off, as you said. The background could be that McKinley told Spain privately that we could take Cuba if we wanted, so why not sell it and save us both some money and grief. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,832
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Apr 13, 2017 22:14:44 GMT
On the Spanish empire, while I have read that they were open to offers on the Philippines and did sell areas in the Pacific to Germany they were fighting pretty damned hard for Cuba and that Puerto Rico was fairly loyalist to the Spanish empire.
On the idea of a Anglo-American conflict over the Venezuelan conflict but unless that was shut down fairly quickly that could become a very messy war. [Actually have the skeleton of a TL on this basis where, after a lot of errors on both sides, Britain wins simply because its able to starve the US of nitrates and hence cordite. This sets things up for a N American theatre for a WWI equivalent. Roosevelt raises his militia raiders in Montana in TTL and ends up dying in combat there so isn't a significant figure politically].
If you have the US joining the central powers in 1914, without significant butterflies, then its going to be very bad for the allies. Almost certainly going to end up with a victory for the autocratic powers in Germany and Austria [plus possibly America] and serious degrade to social development.
However I think the US had passed its major imperialist phase by this time so think its not that likely that the US would attack its main trading partners simply for a massive land grab, especially given the resultant costs.
|
|
baloo
Petty Officer 1st Class
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
|
Post by baloo on Apr 13, 2017 23:43:42 GMT
On the Spanish empire, while I have read that they were open to offers on the Philippines and did sell areas in the Pacific to Germany they were fighting pretty damned hard for Cuba and that Puerto Rico was fairly loyalist to the Spanish empire. On the idea of a Anglo-American conflict over the Venezuelan conflict but unless that was shut down fairly quickly that could become a very messy war. [Actually have the skeleton of a TL on this basis where, after a lot of errors on both sides, Britain wins simply because its able to starve the US of nitrates and hence cordite. This sets things up for a N American theatre for a WWI equivalent. Roosevelt raises his militia raiders in Montana in TTL and ends up dying in combat there so isn't a significant figure politically]. If you have the US joining the central powers in 1914, without significant butterflies, then its going to be very bad for the allies. Almost certainly going to end up with a victory for the autocratic powers in Germany and Austria [plus possibly America] and serious degrade to social development. However I think the US had passed its major imperialist phase by this time so think its not that likely that the US would attack its main trading partners simply for a massive land grab, especially given the resultant costs. I expect that's true about Spain and Cuba, so it would have to be a generous offer plus a scary private threat. I did a little research into the Venezuela thing when I wrote the background for Roswell, Texas. www.bigheadpress.com/roswellI had the Republic of Texas going to war with Britain and winning. One of the war heroes in it was Phoebe Anne Butler who later became Texan President because of it. I'm looking forward to your Venezuela TL. And I'm not sure at all that a German/Austrian victory would retard development. Germany was already fairly democratic compared to most places then, and I expect the Second World War would have been milder, or wouldn't have happened at all. OTOH, would a British defeat have led to a communist uprising there? |
|
baloo
Petty Officer 1st Class
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
|
Post by baloo on Apr 13, 2017 23:44:28 GMT
Question: My first thought is that when the war opens, we simply capture all of Canada west of Ontario. Does that make sense?
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 67,966
Likes: 49,370
|
Post by lordroel on Apr 14, 2017 8:15:59 GMT
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,832
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Apr 14, 2017 15:24:09 GMT
Question: My first thought is that when the war opens, we simply capture all of Canada west of Ontario. Does that make sense? A lot depends on the circumstances. For instance, presuming your talking about 1914 after your 1895 short conflict. Questions: a) How much actual hostility is there after a short war with presumably no major border changes? b) If the US has diverged considerably, greatly boosting its peace-time military, especially on land, then an early attack on Canada is possible. However considering the economic and social costs of a much larger peace-time military and possible assorted butterflies how much internal hostility is there to such expenditure, especially if the clear aim is imperial expansion? We're talking about a larger navy and a much larger army as well as related infrastructure. Also possible impact on immigration of higher taxes and the danger of being conscripted for a war the immigrants have no interest in. c) If they haven't then the US doesn't have the military to invade just about anywhere, let alone a Canada that might be looking very cautiously at the hostile power to the south. [It wouldn't apply prehaps in this scenario but I remember on another board a suggestion of a US dow and quick invasion of Canada in 1915. Another poster pointed out there were more Canadians under arms and training for the war in Europe than in the US military at that point!] d) Do you really want to invade Canada, especially the prairie provinces in winter! In the longer term the US can very likely, by 1914, overwhelm Canada, even without Britain being tied up in Europe. However its likely to be a long and bloody conflict and then you have to hold an area larger than the entire US and face continued hostility from Britain [plus possibly France] and probably deep mistrust from Latin America. Steve |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,832
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Apr 14, 2017 15:38:17 GMT
On the Spanish empire, while I have read that they were open to offers on the Philippines and did sell areas in the Pacific to Germany they were fighting pretty damned hard for Cuba and that Puerto Rico was fairly loyalist to the Spanish empire. On the idea of a Anglo-American conflict over the Venezuelan conflict but unless that was shut down fairly quickly that could become a very messy war. [Actually have the skeleton of a TL on this basis where, after a lot of errors on both sides, Britain wins simply because its able to starve the US of nitrates and hence cordite. This sets things up for a N American theatre for a WWI equivalent. Roosevelt raises his militia raiders in Montana in TTL and ends up dying in combat there so isn't a significant figure politically]. If you have the US joining the central powers in 1914, without significant butterflies, then its going to be very bad for the allies. Almost certainly going to end up with a victory for the autocratic powers in Germany and Austria [plus possibly America] and serious degrade to social development. However I think the US had passed its major imperialist phase by this time so think its not that likely that the US would attack its main trading partners simply for a massive land grab, especially given the resultant costs. I expect that's true about Spain and Cuba, so it would have to be a generous offer plus a scary private threat. I did a little research into the Venezuela thing when I wrote the background for Roswell, Texas. www.bigheadpress.com/roswellI had the Republic of Texas going to war with Britain and winning. One of the war heroes in it was Phoebe Anne Butler who later became Texan President because of it. I'm looking forward to your Venezuela TL. And I'm not sure at all that a German/Austrian victory would retard development. Germany was already fairly democratic compared to most places then, and I expect the Second World War would have been milder, or wouldn't have happened at all. OTOH, would a British defeat have led to a communist uprising there? Its one of the couple of hundred or so that exist largely in my mind. Generally tend to be too busy/lazy to really work through the details, even more so than I used to do a few years back when I had a number of such drafts written in longhand. If you were ever on AH a few years back there was a TL on the subject called something like "And they call it Civilisation". Don't think it went very far and it had a number of oddities, such as the writer arbitarily making Haig an alcholic - he had flaws but that wasn't one - and having Lloyd George and the PM Lord Salisbury debating in Parliament -despite one being in the Commons and the other in the Lords! That was the trigger for me to have a look at the potential for the incident to develop into a wider war and how it might go. The problem would be the domination of Germany by the junkers and associated economic interests, which would probably be strengthened by Germany possibly winning a quick war and dominating Europe as completely as it would be likely to do. I can't see a moderate peace so its probably seeking to garrison large areas of conquered territory and hence continued unrest and a high military burden as well as even further militising German society. Also there would be the problem of continuing to maintain the Austrian empire if it stayed autocratic, let alone sought to expand its territory. Steve |
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 67,966
Likes: 49,370
|
Post by lordroel on Apr 14, 2017 15:41:48 GMT
I expect that's true about Spain and Cuba, so it would have to be a generous offer plus a scary private threat. I did a little research into the Venezuela thing when I wrote the background for Roswell, Texas. www.bigheadpress.com/roswellI had the Republic of Texas going to war with Britain and winning. One of the war heroes in it was Phoebe Anne Butler who later became Texan President because of it. I'm looking forward to your Venezuela TL. And I'm not sure at all that a German/Austrian victory would retard development. Germany was already fairly democratic compared to most places then, and I expect the Second World War would have been milder, or wouldn't have happened at all. OTOH, would a British defeat have led to a communist uprising there? Its one of the couple of hundred or so that exist largely in my mind. Generally tend to be too busy/lazy to really work through the details, even more so than I used to do a few years back when I had a number of such drafts written in longhand. If you were ever on AH a few years back there was a TL on the subject called something like "And they call it Civilisation". Don't think it went very far and it had a number of oddities, such as the writer arbitarily making Haig an alcholic - he had flaws but that wasn't one - and having Lloyd George and the PM Lord Salisbury debating in Parliament -despite one being in the Commons and the other in the Lords! That was the trigger for me to have a look at the potential for the incident to develop into a wider war and how it might go. The problem would be the domination of Germany by the junkers and associated economic interests, which would probably be strengthened by Germany possibly winning a quick war and dominating Europe as completely as it would be likely to do. I can't see a moderate peace so its probably seeking to garrison large areas of conquered territory and hence continued unrest and a high military burden as well as even further militising German society. Also there would be the problem of continuing to maintain the Austrian empire if it stayed autocratic, let alone sought to expand its territory. Steve I had once a idea of a Netherlands-Venezuela war in the early 1900s, but that idea has never got of the ground. |
|
baloo
Petty Officer 1st Class
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
|
Post by baloo on Apr 14, 2017 16:16:55 GMT
My thinking is that, rationally, it makes a lot more sense to use our resources to capture Western Canada than to use them to mess around with Europe, which did us no good whatsoever. Since Wilson convinced us to do the latter, I'd think TR could talk us into the former. I'm also counting on that area being thinly populated. Wikipedia says that BC had 524,582 people in 1921, Manitoba 610,118, and the others about the same. And would there be much collaboration? How many Canadians, at that time, would have preferred to be in the US where they could expect not to be drafted and sent to Europe? Of course, after we take the territory, BC and Alberta would have to be renamed Columbia and Roosevelt.  |
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 67,966
Likes: 49,370
|
Post by lordroel on Apr 14, 2017 16:35:57 GMT
My thinking is that, rationally, it makes a lot more sense to use our resources to capture Western Canada than to use them to mess around with Europe, which did us no good whatsoever. Since Wilson convinced us to do the latter, I'd think TR could talk us into the former. I'm also counting on that area being thinly populated. Wikipedia says that BC had 524,582 people in 1921, Manitoba 610,118, and the others about the same. And would there be much collaboration? How many Canadians, at that time, would have preferred to be in the US where they could expect not to be drafted and sent to Europe? Of course, after we take the territory, BC and Alberta would have to be renamed Columbia and Roosevelt. And Quebec will most likely be made a independent country. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,832
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Apr 14, 2017 23:04:33 GMT
My thinking is that, rationally, it makes a lot more sense to use our resources to capture Western Canada than to use them to mess around with Europe, which did us no good whatsoever. Since Wilson convinced us to do the latter, I'd think TR could talk us into the former. I'm also counting on that area being thinly populated. Wikipedia says that BC had 524,582 people in 1921, Manitoba 610,118, and the others about the same. And would there be much collaboration? How many Canadians, at that time, would have preferred to be in the US where they could expect not to be drafted and sent to Europe? Of course, after we take the territory, BC and Alberta would have to be renamed Columbia and Roosevelt. A couple of problems here. a) The Canadians strongly define their identity as not being Americans. They have defended that in two wars against the US, who would be seen as those "awkward buggers to the south". Since one of Canada's biggest problems in development has been that the richer and larger economy to the south has drawn off people from Canada. If there is a war in 1895 and hostile statements from the south not only would Canada take precautions but you would probably see a fair number more Canadians compared to OTL due to Canadians and Britons who didn't go to/left the US because of the hostility, b) Canada didn't instigate conscription at least in the early years of WWI and I think not at all. The people who might have problems would be the US if they introduced conscription to attack and conquer a neighbour. If done pre-war, which might occur, it could deter a lot of migrants moving to the US. Steve |
|
of their empire, especially the more remote types, and would have been happy to sell it off, as you said. The background could be that McKinley told Spain privately that we could take Cuba if we wanted, so why not sell it and save us both some money and grief.