When was the last time that Britain could have defeated the US militarily?

The big issues of that time was Napoleon and all of Europe, not just GB, was threatened by his expansionist policies.

In 1812, Wellington was fighting the Peninsular War. No one’s mentioned the relative merits of military leaders of respective periods but I’d rather fancy Wellington would have produced very different results given the opportunity and resources: Superb tactical sense, innovative when required…difficult man to beat.

Gosh, owl, you’ve got a real bee in your bonnet about this issue, haven’t you… Have a read of a couple of history books and get back to us. Or you could have a quick skim here. I’m afraid, on the “years” of fighting, that “the English” have a serious upper hand.

I think that there might have been some effect from former British immigrants.

Even after the colonial war in the Northern American Peninsular had begun there was still a sizeable contingent who might well have sided with Britain but for certain policies.

Had Britain decided to allow a more local and representative government then who knows, this might have been enough to reduce support for the nascent US nation.

Here’s that other thread for you.

I wish I could remember where I recently came across an article that described Germany’s 1890-1910 plans for an invasion of New England and occupation of Boston and New York if it became necessary to go to war with the US. The idea was quickly capture some important cities and then wait out the ensuing siege, forcing the Americans to destroy their own territory to throw the invaders back into the sea. Make the costs of doing that high enough, and the Americans would negotiate a withdrawal instead.

Part of the thinking that led to the Western Front.

  1. In reality, the Americans in the field (New Orleans) had no knowledge of the Treaty of Ghent. While they may have been aware of peace negotiations, any word of the signing of a treaty arrived long after the battle.

  2. In the British eyes, the Treaty was a ruse. Pakenham had orders to take New Orleans, regardless of any treaty. Had Pakenham won, the Brits would have reputiated the treaty and kept on with the war now that they had control of the Mississippi River. However, because Pakenham lost, and lost decisively, the Treaty provided an easy way out of the humiliation.

The point is, the Brits had no intention of honoring any treaty had they won at New Orleans. At least this is what we uncovered in our primary research when I worked at the Battlefied in the 1980s.

Hmm… well, for one thing, Americans don’t “heel” very well, even to our own government, much less an invading force. Japan thought blowing up Pearl Harbor would result in us staying out of their affairs. For their trouble, they lost their country. Just because we’re fat and lazy and rotting our minds in front of the TV most of the time doesn’t mean we don’t get pissy if you smash the TV and take away our beer and chips. (Or for you Brits, smash the telly and take away our colored water and crisps)

I’m trying to think of what, in 1913 terms, could have caused so much “damage and disruption” on the coast that an entire continent would surrender. If you blow up Belgium does Hungary “sue for peace”? The USA is huge. It wouldn’t be like the UK vs. Spain or France, it would be like the UK vs the entire continent of Europe as far as manpower and resources. I’m not saying it’s impossible, but it’s going to require more than just a bunch of boats outside of Boston and Washington. It’s a lot of coast to patrol.

And, certainly we COULD have reached Britain - no question about it. Granted, it’s a long sail from the west coast to Europe, but it had been done successfully for centuries. As I said, unless you blockade BOTH coasts it’s a little pointless.

Unfortunately it’s a thread that I can’t access, as I play around on these boards when I’m at work and don’t have a PC at home (never do anything else otherwise).

My work PC has a filter to get rid of “dodgy” content which usually means sweary words, which someone has obviously used as it wont let me open the thread.

I’ll try to get into an internet cafe, but it won’t be today.

But yeah I do think that Ireland has been waging a low level undeclared war against Britain since 1922, and especially since 1969.

And just because we may have historically had the upper hand it doesn’t mean it isn’t happening.

No, but the fact that it isn’t happening means that it isn’t happening.

Get to that thread soon, I’m interested to see your evidence.

Warrington
Regents Park
Canary Wharf
Grand Hotel - Brighton

I imagined these or these bombs were planted by other English people.

We are not planting bombs in our own shopping centres - someone else is doing that.

We are not macerating our own children - someone else is doing that.

We are not blowing up our own brass bands - someone else is doing that.

We are not attempting to assisinate our own government - someone else is doing that.

Those “someone-elses” have one thing in common. Where they come from and where they can find support and succour.

If Afghanistan’s acceptance of Al-Quaeda on its soveriegn territory made it a terrorist state, surely the country that allows these “someone elses” to remain on its own soverign territory is a terrorist state too.

I’ll try and get a look at it tomorrow, but Easyeverything in Tottenham Ct Rd is shut for renovations, so i’ll have to track a PC down.

I will try and join in though.

On the OP:

Up to the American Civil War, the British could have successfully launched an invasion from Canada, sunk the US Navy and done enough damage to US coastal trade in the Atlantic and Caribbean for them to impose terms. In other words, whatever the cause of the war was, the British would get their terms accepted in the treaty. Call it a win to the British.

Between the Civil War and WWI the USA could have successfully invaded Canada, but still the British would have sunk the US Navy and done enough damage to US coastal trade in the Atlantic and Caribbean so that the terms of any treaty would be a compromise. After all, the loss of Canada would not necessarily be fatal to Britain’s aspirations. Call it a draw.

Between WWI and WWII the USA could have successfully invaded Canada, sunk the Royal Navy and destroyed Britain’s economy. The USA could have imposed any terms it liked on the British without landing a single soldier in the UK. As a side effect, Australia & NZ would possibly join Canada in becoming US colonies (and potentially states 49+ along with Alaska and Hawaii). The rest of the British Empire would have gone to Hell, with France, Italy and the USSR filling their respective boots in Africa and India. Call it a win to the USA but the consequences of the collapse of the British Empire before WWII don’t bear thinking about.

Post WWII the question is meaningless. The USA and UK have no need to go to war under any conceivable circumstances. (There are, of course, lots of inconceivable ones, e.g. the UK becoming a fundamentalist Muslim theocracy and supporting of Osama Bin Liner.)

On the OP:

Up to the American Civil War, the British could have successfully launched a short range invasion from Canada, possibly as far as Washington, sunk the US Navy and done enough damage to US coastal trade in the Atlantic and Caribbean for them to impose terms. In other words, whatever the cause of the war was, the British would get their terms accepted in the treaty. Call it a win to the British.

Between the Civil War and WWI the USA could have successfully invaded Canada, but still the British would have sunk the US Navy and done enough damage to US coastal trade in the Atlantic and Caribbean so that the terms of any treaty would be a compromise. After all, the loss of Canada would not necessarily be fatal to Britain’s aspirations. Call it a draw but the world economy would have taken a severe beating with the two largest economies slugging it out.

Between WWI and WWII the USA could have successfully invaded Canada, sunk the Royal Navy and destroyed Britain’s economy. The USA could have forced unconditional surrender on the British without landing a single soldier in the UK. As a side effect, Australia & NZ would possibly join Canada in becoming US colonies (and potentially states 49+ along with Alaska and Hawaii). The rest of the British Empire would have gone to Hell, with France, Italy and the USSR filling their boots in the Middle East, Africa and India. Call it total victory to the USA. However, the consequences for Europe of the collapse of the British Empire before WWII don’t bear thinking about.

Post WWII the question is meaningless. The USA and UK have no need to go to war under any conceivable circumstances. (There are, of course, lots of inconceivable ones, e.g. the UK becoming a fundamentalist Muslim theocracy and supporting of Osama Bin Liner.)

In all the above speculations, I would argue that the main area of ground fighting would be eastern Canada. The capacity for either country to launch trans-oceanic opposed invasions didn’t exist before WWII. Raids, sure, but full-blown, hundreds of thousands strong, country conquering invasions a-la-Overlord, no way.

I also exclude the pressure that could be put on Britain by the other Great Powers because of the vulnerability of the Empire to attack - India from Russia/USSR; Africa from France and Italy; Middle East from France and Russia/USSR; Far East & Australia/NZ from Japan. This puts Britain at a severe disadvantage in any war so overall, I think that Britain could never at any time have forced unconditional surrender on the USA but post WWI, the USA could certainly force it on the UK.

What about allies?

What if the UK persuaded Mexico to join in? Presumambly on the promise of southern US territory (Texas? California?). Any other possible Allies?

Could they, at any time, have diverted enough forces to occupy the US on the Southern flank? (I doubt it).

And the US could sink the RN before WWII. Are you sure? I didn’t think the US navy was much of a threat pre 1939 (which you may be suprised to know is when WWII started)

I never envisioned a ground invasion of the US mainland. I imagined a strangle hold blockade, and bombardment of coastal cities which would lead to a peace on Britain’s terms.

I’m still sticking with 1913.

And calling football “soccer” is provocation enough.

Post WWI the RN was a lot larger but a lot older and worn out after a hard war. The Washington and London naval treaties interwar set the two navies at same size, so the numerical superiority lost. Even then, the USN was qualitatively superior with newer, better designed ships. It also only had two theatres of operation, the Atlantic and Pacific, whereas the RN had the North Sea, the Mediterranean Sea, the Indian Ocean, the Caribbean, Australia and NZ.

Economically, Britain was substantially poorer, with a weaker economy and smaller, less efficient industrial base. That smaller economy also had to subsidise large chunks of the empire. India was no Jewel in the Crown economically and it distorted defence requirements.

The USA had been the world’s largest economy since 1870, when it passed the UK. By 1935, the USA was in a league of its own. By 1945, the US economy was equal to the rest of the world’s combined. Weapons are important but the sheer size of the economy wins wars in the long run.

As for allies. The UK may have got Mexico interested but would the Mexicans have been so foolish to invade? Pre-Civil War, maybe, post, I think not. Besides. For most of the 19th Century Mexico was wrapped up in its own civil wars (not sure how long they lasted, though, I’m not big on Mexican history). By the 20th Century the USA was so big that few Mexicans would have thought they stood a chance. After all,they’d lost every previous war with the USA.

Well, that’s a little different - we were discussing USA vs. UK (the British Isles). Throwing in hypothetical allies does change things a bit.

Mexico used to own Texas, Nevada, New Mexico, Arizona, California, and I think maybe Colorado and on up the west coast the Canadian border. Yeah, they’d probably like to have all that back. But, I can’t recall them ever defeating the US in a war. Yes, they did win at the Alamo - but at the time Texas was NOT part of the United States. So, while they might have wanted to join in, by 1913 they were getting this feeling that attacking the US maybe wasn’t such a good idea, because every time they did they lost territory. (I think Mexico is still a little peeved that we gave Japan back to the Japanese in the 1940’s, but they haven’t gotten any of their territories back)

Other potential allies? Other than Canada, none with a land border with the US.

Mexico attempted this several times - remember, they occupied the US Southwest and were forced out, and made more than one attempt to get the territory back. Never managed to do so. They answer is no, backed up by history.

Again, I’m asking you just how much damage do you think the RN could actually do in 1913. Blockade? Fine, we’ll trade more with Asia. No blockade on the Atlantic coast alone could possibly qualify as a “stranglehold”. Inconvenient, yes. Annoying, yes. But it doesn’t stop west coast trade, or overland routes (Mexico might well ally with the US rather than Britain to appease their northern neighbor). Plus, what did the US lack up until 1913 that they were forced to go to Europe or Africa for? Indeed, the rest of Europe might have protested at being unable to buy our raw materials and oil - we were the top petroleum producer at the time, if I recall. Definitely we were self-sufficient food-wise.

So the hypothetical blockade must do more than blockade - it must also attack. Which cities? How many ships apiece? At what cost to make us surrender? May I remind you that a failed British navel bombardment, at a time when the the RN truly outclassed the infant US fleet, was the inspiration for our national anthem? Perhaps I should also remind you that Americans display a surprising tolerance for blood baths when they believe in the cause they’re fighting for - WWII never touched US soil after Pearl Harbor, yet we laid down tens of thousands of American lives for the cause.

Also, all that cleverness that in peacetime results in such innovations as the assemblyline, aviation, computers, TVs, Britney Spears CDs (OK, maybe that was a bad example) and other fun consumer goods gets turned to more sinister purposes during wartime. The UK would also have to deal with the inventiveness and viciousness of people who have given the world such items of warfare as the machine gun, landmine, submarine, and trench warfare - which I will also point out that we invented prior to 1913. In fact, we came up with them way back in the 1860’s and used them on each other. We’re extremely nasty in a fight.

You can’t neglect the psychological aspects of a battle or a war. In the type of seige you’re proposing, victory comes when the other side gives up. What are you proposing the make the US give up in this sceanario? A bombardment? Did that induce the UK to surrender in WWII? Or did it make them more determined to resist? Americans have no less affection for their territory than the British do. With an entire continent worth of resources to support the country, how will you “starve” them out? Even if we had to abandon some of the east coast cities, would that actually make us surrender, or accept British terms? Unless you’re going to stage a land invasion to finish the deal I don’t think this would work (and we’ve pretty much agreed a land invasion wouldn’t work either). All the US would have to do is hold out until the British get tired and go home. It’s an effective strategy. It’s what won the war in Viet Nam for the Vietminese, it’s what worked against the USSR in Afganistan. It’s one instance in which a small, third-rate country can take on a superpower and win. Between 1865 and 1913, the US was not a superpower. but it was not on the bottom of the heap, either.

But, by all means, please tell me how you think an east coast RN bombardment would bring about the surrender of the US and agreement to terms.

Well I did say that I though we would seize Hawaii to give us a base on the West coast too.

I think that an invasion of Hawaii is manageable.

Given that; the blockade would have been about stopping the few things that the US needs getting through (It worked for slavery remember).

The bombarments of Washington, New York etc could have been savage. A dreadnought packed a hell of a punch.

There would most certainly have been an arms race. We would have been an equal competitor at that time.

However if the US showed unexpected fortitude they could simply outlast us and we would slink away.

How do we invade Hawaii? Spend months sailing around the world with a finite number of ships and troops and then have no way to reinforce or resupply.

Oh, I forgot this…

I stumbled across this website years ago and keep an eye out for monthly updates. It’s an alternative history since 1933, where Britain and the Commonwealth side with Nazi Germany to oppose the US as two global superpowers. The horrors of Nazi Germany seem downplayed somewhat (I’m not sure if the author(s) are deniers or just assuming diplomacy could have moderated Hitler’s actions). It’s a cracking read - currently, in 2002, naval tensions are at an all-time high between the British and the US, with the recent discovery of the jet engine threatening a shift in the balance of power.

http://www.butteredcat.com/1933chronology.htm

Ok maybe it’s not possible in 1913.

Given that it was possible once, at what point did it cease to be possible?