[Spin]

Panama was late 1900s.

Shit, you're correct. I confused it with Suez.

Though, if such a conflict broke out after the Canal was finished then I could see it as something the British would want to sieze and keep

Yes, although it would almost certainly destroy it if it felt the need. However it would be even more likely that the US and British govs would avoid a war so that they could both profit from the increased trade it would provide.

[Clausewitz]

Some population data:

Code: Select allTHE GOOD
==============================
United States     75 million
Philippines       10 million
Cuba              2 million
Puerto Rico       1 million

THE BAD
===============================
Great Britain              37 million
Ireland (all)              4 million
Canada                     5 million
Australia                  4 million
South Africa               5 million
SUBTOTAL                   55 million

British India              294 million
All Other                  45 million

THE UGLY
==============================
France            40 million
Germany           56 million
Austria-Hungary   50 million
Russia            133 million


In 1900, the home population of the US was over 75 million, while the population of Great Britain and Ireland was about 41 million. (so sayeth the worldmapper) This says that U.S. pig iron production was almost twice Britain's at this time, which I've seen used as an indicator of overall industrial output in the period.

• Though it would greatly depend upon the circumstances, I think continental powers would stay the hell out of any shenanigans in America. The continental powers seemed way more interested in keeping to themselves in 1900 than they did 14 years later, though any such involvement would be unlikely to affect war with America.
• I can't conceive of any really plausible reason that the British and Americans would get into a war at that time, but anyway...
• The British would dominate the Americans at sea, if they ever left port, but due to military technology of the time seaborne landings are nasty affairs due to mines and coastal fortifications (witness Gallipoli) on top of the fact that any landings on the American coast would have to be supplied and reinforced from British territory far away while the Americans would be on their own internal railroad network. The likelihood that such a landing would be quashed before it was viable would be high. These are some reasons why it was never attempted on the German coast, in spite of the morass on the Western and Italian fronts.
• British white settler colonies and the UK altogether still had fewer manpower than the United States by about 20 million of 75 million Americans. The contributions of British India and the remainder of the colonies tend to be relatively low, so I think in terms of effective manpower the British Empire and the U.S. are already about at parity at this time.
• American industrial output was at least as high as British output at this time.
• Unlike Germany, Russia, and Austria-Hungary, the United States was relatively stable in 1900, with effective institutions, and could more than feed itself. Naval blockade would be an irritation, not the slow road to defeat that it was for the Central Powers in WWI. The blockade would be pretty bad for Britain too given her previously extensive trade ties to the U.S.
• Land technology in the period made for extremely bloody, extremely long, extremely slow and indecisive battles, as we all know, so I doubt that given the logistical difficulties confronting the British any land victory would be attainable without the social fabric of the U.S. disintegrating.
• Whatever the reasons for fighting, I'm highly skeptical that the war could possibly end in any decisive conclusion. The harder they fought, the more blood would be shed, but probably to no viable conclusion. It would be a more dismal version of the Russo-Japanese War: a decisive naval victory for one side, but inability to secure any significant terms.

[Oxymoron]

Clausevits nicely done, I think you win the prize for best answer, congrats,.

[Spin]

The British would dominate the Americans at sea, if they ever left port, but due to military technology of the time seaborne landings are nasty affairs due to mines and coastal fortifications

No it's probable that the British would just shell American coastal cities.

British white settler colonies and the UK altogether still had fewer manpower than the United States by about 20 million of 75 million Americans.

Yes, but in any such war the US would be at a disadvantage because much of the ship building would have to be done on the East coast due to the length of time ti took for ships to round the Horn. Not to mention encountering the British at the Falkland islands. How much would that affect production?

Whatever the reasons for fighting, I'm highly skeptical that the war could possibly end in any decisive conclusion

Agreed. Anyway what resons could there possibly be for the need of a decissive conclusion? The Monroe doctrine was still recognised on both sides of the Atlantic and neither would have any other major problems with the other.

[Clausewitz]

No it's probable that the British would just shell American coastal cities.

How much did the British shell Central Power coastal cities in WWI, and how much did it matter?

Yes, but in any such war the US would be at a disadvantage because much of the ship building would have to be done on the East coast due to the length of time ti took for ships to round the Horn. Not to mention encountering the British at the Falkland islands. How much would that affect production?

I don't think much of America's production was dependent on the shipping route around the Horn.

Agreed. Anyway what resons could there possibly be for the need of a decissive conclusion? The Monroe doctrine was still recognised on both sides of the Atlantic and neither would have any other major problems with the other.

Right.

[The Immortal Goon]

How much did the British shell Central Power coastal cities in WWI, and how much did it matter?

That's a good point, but they were also fighting the Central Powers on an all or nothing total war with the goal of toppling the Government. The only way I can even begin to think about the US and UK involved in such a war wouldn't be the same. The UK would never be able to occupy or topple the US. I would imagine, and I assume this is what Spin was thinking as well, shelling cities from the sea would be more a way to sue for peace on good terms - as the US would be almost certainly fighting on its own soil and have about a 0% chance of taking the war to Europe.

I don't think much of America's production was dependent on the shipping route around the Horn.

Not all, but more than you'd think. As of 1900 there was only one rail that went from coast to coast. Much of the distribution of goods was actually done via a Canadian railway, the Grand Trunk. Assuming a war with the UK happened, the west would have been largely cut off. Not that it would have done much good, only some parts of California had any real infrastructure to speak of that would have aided in any kind of war. The rest of it, the Southwest, Northwest, most of the middle, didn't have a hell of a lot to aid in at that time. There was, it is true, a tremendous advance at this moment, and by 1918 there were multiple connections with the rest of the country. In 1900 this stuff was really in its infancy.

[Spin]

How much did the British shell Central Power coastal cities in WWI, and how much did it matter?

The British didn't that much IIRC. Much of its navy was tied down defending against a possible German naval attack.

However I do believe that the original plan instead of Gallipoli was forcing the straights with battleships.

I don't think much of America's production was dependent on the shipping route around the Horn.

My question was more about ship production. How much of it would have been done in the West? And if minimal, wouldn't that have left Calafornia open to attack from British ships stationed in the East?

And couldn't any war in 1900 have left the US forces in the Phillipines stranded? The British could have forced battle there by blockading the islands.

[Clausewitz]

Not all, but more than you'd think. As of 1900 there was only one rail that went from coast to coast. Much of the distribution of goods was actually done via a Canadian railway, the Grand Trunk. Assuming a war with the UK happened, the west would have been largely cut off. Not that it would have done much good, only some parts of California had any real infrastructure to speak of that would have aided in any kind of war. The rest of it, the Southwest, Northwest, most of the middle, didn't have a hell of a lot to aid in at that time. There was, it is true, a tremendous advance at this moment, and by 1918 there were multiple connections with the rest of the country. In 1900 this stuff was really in its infancy.

These were the major rail lines in 1900:



I really doubt that there was much American shipping going around Cape Horn or on the Grand Trunk for that matter.

That's a good point, but they were also fighting the Central Powers on an all or nothing total war with the goal of toppling the Government. The only way I can even begin to think about the US and UK involved in such a war wouldn't be the same. The UK would never be able to occupy or topple the US. I would imagine, and I assume this is what Spin was thinking as well, shelling cities from the sea would be more a way to sue for peace on good terms - as the US would be almost certainly fighting on its own soil and have about a 0% chance of taking the war to Europe.

The British didn't that much IIRC. Much of its navy was tied down defending against a possible German naval attack.

However I do believe that the original plan instead of Gallipoli was forcing the straights with battleships.

I'm not a guru on naval warfare but my general impression of coastal bombardment is that it's rarely used, of minimal value, and when it is used, it tends to be very risky. Gallipoli is a perfect example - the British lost several high-value assets to cheap coastal defenses such as mines and coastal batteries. Those coastal defenses are cheap and ubiquitous, while the battleships and cruisers are quite expensive, so they either tended not to do it or it tended to be an expensive mistake like Gallipoli.

My question was more about ship production. How much of it would have been done in the West? And if minimal, wouldn't that have left Calafornia open to attack from British ships stationed in the East?

I don't think the Americans would contest British naval supremacy by building warships, and if they did, the war would have to go on for a very long time and the Americans would need a good bit of luck to succeed.

They could build blockade runners on either coast, but by this time running blockades is a highly unprofitable enterprise, so I don't think American shipbuilding would matter much.

And couldn't any war in 1900 have left the US forces in the Phillipines stranded? The British could have forced battle there by blockading the islands.

The Philippines would have been lost in weeks unless the Americans came up with a Lettow-Vorbeck or something, but the loss of the Philippines and other outlying territories like Cuba and Hawaii would matter no more to the Americans than the loss of colonies in WWI mattered to the Germans.

[The Immortal Goon]

These were the major rail lines in 1900:

Holy shit, I stand corrected.

I totally thought that it was 1889 not 1869 that the trans-continental was completed. I guess it has been goddamned near ten years since I was really good at this stuff. I, then, respectfully withdraw my motion in favour of the hom. member from Texas.

[Piano Red]

Props to Clausewitz for your posts so far. 100% spot on, excellent work.

[Spin]

I'm not a guru on naval warfare but my general impression of coastal bombardment is that it's rarely used, of minimal value,

The Germans used it to scare the British populace in WW1. Gallipoli is a narrow area with little room for manouever, which would be a lot different to a bombardment of New York.

The Philippines would have been lost in weeks unless the Americans came up with a Lettow-Vorbeck or something, but the loss of the Philippines and other outlying territories like Cuba and Hawaii would matter no more to the Americans than the loss of colonies in WWI mattered to the Germans.

Would the loss of American troops due to abandonment in the Phillipines have gone down well? It was different for Germany because they were losing a lot of troops close to home.

Not that this war would ever have happened, and if so, it would probably have been the most limp wristed war ever as neither side had anywhere to do any sort of battle with the other. The Us would have gained Canada, the British, the Phillipines, Hawaii and Cuba.

[Thunderhawk]

Cuba might become hard to take and hold for the British. The USA could infiltrate soldiers over in small boats, and the Cubans were on friendly terms with the USA.

[Arthur2sheds_Jackson]

Clausewitz a good post except for this line:

The blockade would be pretty bad for Britain too given her previously extensive trade ties to the U.S.

A blockade would be an absolute bonanza to the UK in 1900. The three main traders in the world at that time was UK, USA and Germany.Under a blockade the British would take the lions share of US trade with Germany and all other european countries.

[Thompson_NCL]

Haha. Way to necro a thread

The USA would have struggled to win this war because they would be unable to inflict a decisive victory outside of North America. Canada would turn into a Boer War type conflict which would be a huge drain on the US military and the nations morale.

The UK would destroy the US Navy, blockade their ports, launch expeditions inland to destroy infrastructure and intimidate the US coastline with the threat of severe Naval Bombardment.

There was not much threat of European intervention for reasons discussed. A prolonged war would be bad for the UK as they had an Empire to maintain, but the support of the white colonies was guaranteed and India could be controlled with relativley small forces. I'm not sure what Mexico was up to at the time, but if anyone stood to gain from the war it would be them I'd have thought.

The war would probably drag on until winter hits in Canada and the US realised the futility of holding the territory captured. The UK would be unable to hold US territory for any significant time and would be happy to sit down and negoatiate.

War ends with stalemate.