Printable View
Hi, the title says it all really. I read on the net about the near break out of hostilities between the British Empire and the USA in the 1920s. However I cannot locate any source material anywhere.
I think it had something to do with trade and the size of navies iirc. Anyone got a veiw on this?
Thanks.
You sure. I know war plans were made(War Plan red I believe) for a war between US and the Empire(by us anyway). Not that that means anything, since warplaners just make this stuff up to stave off boredom.
I know what your talking about, something about attacking Canada and 'Scarlet' (I assume thats the Empire)...
No, this was something I came across a few months back. However I changed HDD and I cant locate it anywhere. It was something to do with the number of battleships and armourments or trade iirc...and it was either in the 1920s or early 30s.
I dont think it got that far, it just intrigued me....
Something to do with the treaty of Versailles? The fact that the US were building up its navy instead of disarming?
I have heard something about this. We wanted to destroy the US fleet, because it was getting too big and powerful.
war ? nop
crisis ? yes
disagreement ? certainly , even to this day
He he he! An war between the States and the UK...Sorry, I just find that a funny thought, especially in light of the past 100 years, heck the last 10.
Any wars plans out there for fighting France in the 20th century for either country? I am amazed by this topic anyway, so I just thought I would ask.
Azi
Probably. Didn't GB declare that if either Germany or France declared war on the other they would attack the aggressor?Quote:
Originally Posted by Azi Tohak
Sounds like its related to the Washington Naval Treaty.
Many countries were either designing or already building super battleships & the traditional naval balance of power was under threat.
ie the Brits faced not being top dog anymore
The Washington treaty restricted BB guns to 14 inches, cruisers limited to 10,000 tons (imperial tons?) divided into heavy with 8 inch guns & light with 6 inch guns.
Also I think there was a max displacement for destroyers.
It limited the max tonnage permitted per signatory & divided it up between size classes.
UK, USA & Japan had non complying BBs in build or near it & were allowed to finish off 2 each but scrap the rest.
UK got Rodney & Nelson + the compliant King George V class BB + Ark Royal new CV.
US got Lexington & Saratoga (originally battlecruiser hulls) + Enterprise (new design) + Wasp (small to fill out the US tonnage quota) & kept her old BBs.
Japan used hers for I think Akagi & Kaga (ex BB hulls turned CV)
US & Japan were allowed to have much bigger navies than they had at the time while England had to cut back + keep many old generation ships in use.
Only britain actually stuck to it.
Almost all 'treaty' cruisers were well over 10,000 tons & they just lied about it while the UK actually built a heap of sub 10,000 ton cruisers as they needed lots of smallish boats to patrol the empire.
Destroyers too were generally built bigger than treaty limits.
This is why the UK ships of the time seem so comparitively weak.
... Or look here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Naval_Treaty
Cheers for that hoom, yes I too perused the Washinton Treaty also the Geneva conference on the same thing.
I'm inclined to think that this may be what the kerfufull was all about, that the UK kept to the treaty whilst no one else did (this sounds awfully familiar to English ears ~;) )
However there must have been another factor at play here as from what I remember it wasnt Japan or Germany that were going to get the 'treatment' it was the US....
I wonder if their were any territorial disputes going on at the same time?
And thanks for the replies guys.....we'll get there in the end.
You know that was one of my first thoughts. Then I remebered that in the 7 years war (1756-1763) the guys who had fought side by side to drive the French off mainland America fought each other less than 13 years later in the American Revolution....so perhaps not too far fetched.Quote:
Originally Posted by Azi Tohak
Well the yanks wanted a navy 'second to none' while the UK had the long running fundamental policy of 'Britannia rules the waves'.
There was clearly some serious diplomatic head butting going on at the time at the very least.
Its my understanding that my country which is a long standing ally of the US & UK has for a long time considered the US to be the most likely source of a military threat.
We wouldn't stand a chance so just pretend it isn't true I think...
Thats a very interesting observation hoom, from wence do you hail?
(A PM would be fine)
BTW guys thanks for all the input, I know the initial post was sketchy at best...
I think we might be 'fleshing' out the topics I read in the first instance...
(cant help wondering who would have won such a war)
Thats a topic for another day...
Well there are certain advantages that come of being about 1000km away from the nearest neighbour (& thats a small island).
A really big moat is quite a good defense even in these modern times.
If you know how to work a map that should be ample clue ~;)
Somewhere in the Pacific?
I wonder who would have won such a war.
I would have been iffy, as America's military was basically crap. If it came to that.
Not sure about our navy at the time.
Correct but most island groups are more or less right next to each other &/or not sovereign.Quote:
Somewhere in the Pacific?
The funny thing is that most of our population is busy complaining about our military being weak & that we have to be scared of Indonesia/China & even India invading us when its really only our long term allies UK, France, possibly Australia & esp USA that actually have the equipment required to succed in an opposed landing & occupation so far from a friendly base.
Given even only one of these allies coming to our aid I think we could hold off anyone but the US just by being hard to reach.
*assuming of course that theres not already a big global war with various other places already successfully invaded*
Anyway, back on topic:
UK would have gone the way of Germany in a UK vs England war in the 20s & for the same reasons.
Namely population numbers + industrial capacity.
UK would have gone the way of Germany in a UK vs England war in the 20s & for the same reasons.
Namely population numbers + industrial capacity.
Not really , the British Empire had a bigger population and industrial capacity than the US . It was ahead of America in Naval , Aviation and Land weapons design .
The clincher would have been the fact that it was bankrupt and its Empire would not have been much assistance as its merchant marine had been decimated .
Population figures for the English Empire would be including India.
India being kinda rebellious at the time would have had little effect on any UK vs USA war.
Heck, it had little effect on either actual World War.
I guess it would depend a lot on the nature af said war.
If they just had a bit of a fleet engagement & border skirmishes between US & Canada then the UK might have won, but if it was a serious long term war I can't see the UK winning through.
Unlike the UK and the other major European powers, the US maintained a small peacetime army until post WWII. Each time a significant conflict broke out this was a major problem to mobilizing. 1812, Mexican-American, American Civil War, Spanish-American, WWI, WWII. Due to size and "remoteness" this was mostly a speed impediment, rather than preventing successful prosecution of a war. However, after WWII with US troops in Europe on the "front" of the Cold War, small peacetime armies were no longer practical for defense. WWII had shown how rapidly Western Europe could be over run with modern armies and weapons.
There's also the little detail that owing to four years in the trenches and some fairly obscene casualty figures the whole of Europe was suffering from acute war weariness and what the Germans called Granatschock or something like that. Know why the French gave up so easily when they realized they'd been outgunned and out-generaled by their traditional enemy the Germans twenty years later ? They weren't about to have another round of desperate bloodbath, thankyouverymuchnowwhatweretheterms.
And this would be 1920, when everybody and especially the main belligerents was still badly messed up and looking at a large gap in the "male, young" segment of their demographics. Had the British governement been dumb enough to actually go and declare a war on any "European" opponent they'd have been lucky not to get lynched within three days by irate subjects who'd had quite enough of that sort of thing for a while, thankyouverymuchnowpassthenoose.
America might have won such a war because they were rather less messed up at the time, but qualitativly, quantitavly and institutionally Britain had them beat at that time. However the Empire was broke.
Maybe thats where is came from. All those nice resources in the "Colonies"