[Oxymoron]

If a hyphothetical conflict arose between Great Britian and the US in 1900: who would win in such a war? what European contries would support either side? What would the war look like, where would it be fought?

[The Immortal Goon]

Probably an invasion of Canada. In fact, it did happen in the late 1800s.

From what I've read (and I think the article above that's linked says something a little different) the Britis eventually had to pretty much pay off Johnson to cut off the supply lines to the IRA and stop the invasion that way.

That said, it wasn't out of the realm of possibility. The US and the UK did not like each other at the time. The UK resented US dollars going in to support certain parts of / undermine their Government increasingly from the mid 1800's on. By 1900, the leader of the Irish Party, for example, was called the "Dollar Dictator" and conservatives thought that many of the reforms that the Liberals, Labour, and IPP were putting in to place (like abolishing the Lords' Veto and taxing sprawling estates belonging to the aristocracy) were a suspiciously republican (small r) corruption from the US.

For the US, they were by that time populated mostly by German and Irish Americans that had no affinity for England anyway; and as for the last major contacts most Americans had with the UK had been UK officers wining and dining with the Confederate elite and helping to train and supply their soldiers (allegedly). Before that it was constant border conflicts with Canada. Before that it was burning down the White House. Before that it was the revolution.

That said, Connolly in a piece I'm too lazy to look for and cite, once said that no matter what the people of the US and the UK think - they're not going to end up fighting. Both countries were making too much money off of each other at that time. Further, and this is something that was recently proposed by a historian named Pat Walsh, there is evidence that some of the Liberal Imperialists in London believed that they were watching a new transformation of the Empire from being physically controlled to economically controlled. This runs along the same lines as Connolly to some extent, but Walsh identified two competitors that England would have had: The US and Germany.

He maintained that the plan was to knock Germany out of the running and then integrate in to the US's growing market and get a perpetual piece of the pie, so to speak, while the Americans did all the grunt work. I have mixed feelings about the theory, but I think it's interesting.

At any rate, it probably would never have happened because of the money influence.

Were they to fight each other, I tend to think that it would have been a rather boring war with advantage to the British. Since they had the premier navy at the time, they would probably contain the American Atlantic fleet easily enough, and be able to stage advances through Canada to the south. They probably would have tried to make a few significant early gains and then immediately sue for peace. Taking New York would be a much bigger blow against American confidence than taking Quebec would be against British confidence.

I think it would be unlikely that the US would be able to persuade anyone to fight on their behalf in Europe against England; and if they were, there's the damnable striaght and the British Navy problem again.

[peter_co]

If a hyphothetical conflict arose between Great Britian and the US in 1900: who would win in such a war?

Germany

[Oxymoron]

Perhaps a Joint German-US Alliance, and the US fleet by that time was not a joke either they did beat the Spanish fleet quite easily. I think the British would have a problem defending Canada because it would be difficult to move a large force across the atlantic. Perhaps a Japanese American Alliance in Asia.

[Noelnada]

I Think France would have taken side of US against UK , and then Germany would have taken UK side in order to invade France .

[peter_co]

I Think France would have taken side of US against UK , and then Germany would have taken UK side in order to invade France .

These speculations are simply getting more and more outlandish because of how improbable the original hypothetical event would have been. But I doubt Germany would have attacked France. Even in 1905 when Russia was weakened by the Japanese War and Germany had an excellent choice of destroying France, they did not make such a move.

[Noelnada]

These speculations are simply getting more and more outlandish because of how improbable the original hypothetical event would have been

Yeah and we know history only through the institutionalized biases laid down for us , so ...

[The Immortal Goon]

Perhaps a Joint German-US Alliance

In the unlikely event official open hostility broke out, I would be surprised if Germany joined either side. It avoided conflict with Britian in WWI (or desired to do so anyway); and even when hostility broke out, it had no means of attacking Britain. Further, WWI broke out in 1914 after Germany had been building a modern navy for 14 years. There would be little point for them to join in such a conflict unless they wanted to get their asses blockaded.

and the US fleet by that time was not a joke either they did beat the Spanish fleet quite easily.

The US navy wasn't quite a joke on a world scale, but it was a joke by British standards. The Spanish fleet was a joke by everyone's standards by the Spanish-American War.

I think the British would have a problem defending Canada because it would be difficult to move a large force across the atlantic.

The Canadians could have been drafted in to service themselves, and probably would have had an American invasion been possible. Further, as I said, in such a conflict Canada would only be in there as a secondary concern for the British War Office. They would probably, as I said, go after Chicago, or New York, or some other big symbolic victory at the price of whatever the US could grab in Canada.

Perhaps a Japanese American Alliance in Asia.

I suppose this is possible; the US and Japan traditionally have had solid enough relations, having both come in to the world stage at the time. Japan probably would have loved an excuse to go after British China anyway. That said, I seriously doubt that the British would have allowed it to get to that stage of war. There's no way that they could win a long protracted war against the US in such a cirumstance.

I Think France would have taken side of US against UK

Though I would like the romantic idea of the two sole republics in the world taking a stand together, I doubt it. France would have been much in Germany's same position, even if it wanted to attack what was becoming one of its most key allies in the world.

These speculations are simply getting more and more outlandish because of how improbable the original hypothetical event would have been.

Indeed. Each step you take in such a discussion merely establishes a step that one can't imagine any of the players taking.

[Oxymoron]

Well the US navy would be defending close to its Bases, the British Navy would need to go all the way to Canada to resupply. Landing a force strong enough to capture NY and hold it while at the same time fighting the US fleet would be very dangerous especially since it would leave Britain vunrable in Europe.

[Unperson-K]

Well the US navy would be defending close to its Bases, the British Navy would need to go all the way to Canada to resupply. Landing a force strong enough to capture NY and hold it while at the same time fighting the US fleet would be very dangerous especially since it would leave Britain vunrable in Europe.

I do not think you quite grasp the size or the capacity of the British navy circa 1900. They probably could have defeated the American fleet and kept the Channel sufficently well defended at same time. The British navy was meant to be the force through which Britain could stretch out its power to anywhere in the world - that was the main way in which the British held together their widely dispersed empire.

[Thunderhawk]

During the American civil war, how many soldiers did the North field?

Canada's population around 1900 was ~5.3 million. If the USA could get their people behind the war they could swamp Canada, and the British would have to take and hold Quebec and the Maritimes for a foot hold to which strike south, and they'd have to ship alot of troops. Canada's population was spread out, getting local troops would be possible, but they would be distributed and would have to travel a long distance before they could concentrate in numbers large enough to challange American forces.

Besides, what would the end results of the war be?
Would the USA want parts of Canada? would the British be willing to give up parts of it?

If the British were winning, what would they take?

[Oxymoron]

I could be way off but if the Americans mobilized their industrial might like they did in 1941 I think they could have fielded a bigger fleet then great britain. Canada would have be captured perhaps the British might strike an early victory by siezing NY but I think they would have a hard time holding it for long. And If the US allied with Japan perhaps Britian would worry more about India then Canada and would have to send a large fleet to meet the Japan/US Navy, again this is all what if, and we must remember the Japanese easily defeated the Russian Navy in 1905 so it owuld have been interestin.

[Thunderhawk]

The Japanese victory over the Russian fleet had many factors which would not have repeated: The flag ship and several other ship the Japanese had were British made. The Russian fleet was steaming out single file at tomkin. The Russia Pacific fleet and the Baltic fleet were largely OLD, and largely consisted of coastal battle ships (which were actually large destroyers, poorly suited for deep waters).

The British fleet would not have suffered any of these handicaps, while the Americans (and the Japanese) would have: old, small, limited tactical ability.

Even if the USA poored money and industry into ship building they would have a very hard time in 1900 to match the British. The German industry (superior to the USA in 1900s) eventually did catch up with the British, but that took a decade and alot of industrial might. America would not have had the time nor the industry to do that.

[The Immortal Goon]

Well the US navy would be defending close to its Bases, the British Navy would need to go all the way to Canada to resupply.

As was pointed out, the British fleet pwned the world at this point. And Canada isn't too far to go when needing to resupply.

Landing a force strong enough to capture NY and hold it while at the same time fighting the US fleet would be very dangerous especially since it would leave Britain vunrable in Europe.

Again, the British navy could (and did during WWI) successfully mobilize its fleet all over the world while guarding its shores against a much stronger naval power (Germany in 1914 was considerably more powerful than Germany in 1900 at sea).

I would guess the only practical solution would be for the Brits to take a big US city and sue for peace. I can't imagine what other tactic they could hope to see through. Further, the US couldn't do shit to the English mainland, so a front there is not an option.

I could be way off but if the Americans mobilized their industrial might like they did in 1941 I think they could have fielded a bigger fleet then great britain.

I agree - you're way off. The American navy in WWI wasn't terribly impressive in comparison to the British navy. Since the theater of war would almost have to be almost entirely on North American soil, it is doubtful that the US could mobilize in the same way it did in the forties. Furthermore, the British had largely been on a downward spiral between the two world wars while the US had been rising. It would take way too long to even get to an even rate in 1900 before exceeding that of Great Britain. Especially as in the US the infrastructure just wasn't there yet. In some of the East, sure - but the west was still largely disconnected from everything.

Traveling around in Pacific Northwest, I think it was William O'Brien, but I'm too lazy to look it up, came across an old Fenian who was living there. When they started talking about world politics some of the people there were surprised to hear that the British were still a power - they had assumed that most of Europe had just kind of collapsed. That's an example of how isolated a lot of the Americas - even states, not even territories - were from each other and the rest of the world at the time.

If the USA could get their people behind the war they could swamp Canada, and the British would have to take and hold Quebec and the Maritimes for a foot hold to which strike south, and they'd have to ship alot of troops. Canada's population was spread out, getting local troops would be possible, but they would be distributed and would have to travel a long distance before they could concentrate in numbers large enough to challange American forces.

The US would certainly have a numeric advantage and could probably take cities in Canada. The thing is, there wouldn't be much point. The British could stage an attack from the forest if they absolutly had to, and while the Americans were drinking wine in Qubec, upstate New York could collapse to the British or something. Canada's advantage at the time would be that there wasn't much up there to do - I think. That's why I think the war would fall, in large part, on the idea of the British really trying to take North American cities.

That said, all the states bordering Canada would probably send troops up to grab a bunch of land and try to hold it for when peace negotiations went in to effect. That may complicate Britain's situation, but Canada was so under populated it would almost be an abstraction - like me just going in to the woods and declaring that I own it.

Besides, what would the end results of the war be?
Would the USA want parts of Canada? would the British be willing to give up parts of it?
If the British were winning, what would they take?

That's the main problem. I just don't see such a war happening because there's no practical reason to do so, aside from the fact they didn't like each other too much at the time. I would guess the US would want big chunks of Canada. The English would probably want to be done with the war so as to deal with the rest of their Empire, South Africa, Ireland, and a few other places would have been major issues for them at the time and such a war would have been pointless for them to bother with.

In the end, it's possible the British would just shell the hell out of the US cities from the sea until there was a cease fire or negotiation.

[Spin]

In 1900?

No European powers would have interceeded, and if they did, it would more likely have been on the side of the British. The major states in Europe which had absolute monarchies were Germany and Russia, both of which were related to the British monarchy through the still alive Queen Victoria (although the British were wary of Russia). And for all the hostility that had been between the French and the British, the two empires had been at peace since 1815. In addition, it would only be two years later before Britain allied with Japan and 4 years with France.

On the other hand, there had been tensions between Britain and France over Africa, but those were concluded before 1900. In addition there was a bigger fear of Germany in France, and revanchism was still a factor in Franco-German relations.

However it was in neithers interests to fight in 1900. Britian was an economic super power and wouldn't have wished that to suffer whilst the US was trying to increase its world influence at the time.

Also, significantly, Britain was at war with the Boers and the US was in the Phillipines trying to quell an insurgency. Both sides were trying to put down the Boxers in China.

ventually did catch up with the British, but that took a decade and alot of industrial might.

No. They weren't playing catch up (as dreadnoughts changed everything in 1906), and they were still behind in 1914 IIRC (although the British force was more spread out).

[Thunderhawk]

No. They weren't playing catch up (as dreadnoughts changed everything in 1906), and they were still behind in 1914 IIRC (although the British force was more spread out).

In WW1 the German and British fleets that were avilable were comparable in numbers. The British fleet as a whole was bigger and better(IMO), but they had to leave ships the world over to protect against piracy and raiders. The Germans caught up - they just never did anything with it.

[Spin]

The Germans caught up - they just never did anything with it.

Well look at the size of the two fleets at Jutland

28 battleships
9 battlecruisers
8 heavy cruisers
26 light cruisers
78 destroyers
1 minelayer
1 seaplane carrier

vs

16 battleships
5 battlecruisers
6 pre dreadnoughts
11 light cruisers
61 torpedo boat

After the battle, the British had a 2:1 advantage over Germany in battleready battleships, and by 1918 the German fleet was refusing to sail agaisnt the royal navy.

[Thunderhawk]

They poured money into a fleet they never used.

I wonder if the Americans, had they (somehow) caught up in a similar fashion, would have done the same as the Germans, leaving their new and expensive fleet floating at home.

[Spin]

They poured money into a fleet they never used.

The mere existene of it caused the British a fair amount of trouble. More trouble than if it had gone out to sea. Britain was forced to defend against it, rather than engage it (as Britain wanted).

Whilst the Germans did well at Jutland, a second battle would have undoubtedly gone better after the British evaulated their mistakes.

I wonder if the Americans, had they (somehow) caught up in a similar fashion, would have done the same as the Germans, leaving their new and expensive fleet floating at home.

Possible, there is a lot of seaboard to defend. Although one wonders whether that would have forced the US to go on the attack.

Thinking about it though, the British could easily have hassively damaged the American war effort by attacking the Panama canal, which would have left a US fleet divided.

[Thunderhawk]

Thinking about it though, the British could easily have hassively damaged the American war effort by attacking the Panama canal, which would have left a US fleet divided.

Panama was late 1900s.
Early 1900s the USA wasnt even in Panama aside from killing mosquitos.
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.