Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Add Reply
The Special Relationship
Topic Started: May 15 2011, 06:59 PM (398 Views)
Basil Fawlty
Member Avatar
Post Tenebras Lux
Here is a subject we have not thoroughly discussed before, despite indirectly touching on it in a number of ways.

Was the Anglo-American special relationship inextricably linked to the rise of Germany and other new imperial rivals in the late 19th century, or was it more or less inevitable, given the historic cultural and linguistic ties between Britain and America?

Put another way, what sort of divergence would be necessary to see the hostile or lukewarm relationship from the 1860's continue, instead of the broad convergence of geopolitical goals that happened from 1890-1940? Would it take more than the mere absence of competition with Germany? Certainly there were other historic enemies out there (France, Russia, even Spain), but none had quite the same industrial potential in the short run.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Simon Darkshade
Member Avatar
Nefarious Swashbuckler
I wouldn't say it was directly connected to Germany per se, but rather to any Continental rival that would be able to use the resources of Eurasia to challenge the more oceanic based powers.

I would say some sort of rapprochment and increase of ties was inevitable, due both to the aforementioned ties of heritage and increasing economic interdependence. As the US grew and surpassed Britain in population, wealth and industrial capacity, it was in British interests to ensure that the relationship remained at best lukewarm.

To alter this general confluence of interests, no single PoD suffices. A more destructive US Civil War would delay the US passing Britain by a few years, and could be combined with a series of setbacks to the prospect of Prussian lead German unification. The latter would alter the whole (im)balance of power than emerged post 1871, and probably lead to much higher ongoing tensions with Russia; France was something less of a potential threat as the century went on.

Another cause of tension would also be useful, and a commercial idea is much more bitter competition over China, with the USA trying to break an effective British trade monopoly that somehow emerges.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Basil Fawlty
Member Avatar
Post Tenebras Lux
The problem with the economic growth argument is it's reversible: Germany's rapid growth, rather than fostering better relations, slowly drove the two powers apart. It was arguably in Britain's favor to maintain friendly ties with Germany, but that did not mean much in the absence of reciprocity.

The key difference, I suppose, is that the British and German economies were never intertwined to the same extent as America's and Britain's. Dominance of Europe and dominance of North America are also two very different kettles of fish.

Hawaii and Panama strike me as more probable points of contention, although Japan is more likely to cause a stir in the former case. From what I have read there was a movement in 1900 to withdraw unilaterally from the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty if no new agreement could be reached, under which the United States alone would control and own the canal. That certainly would have soured relations.

Throw in a more ambitious U.S. naval buildup and the absence of one or more main European competitors (Germany), and there is the potential for some serious rivalry to develop.

Unlike some of the colonial disputes with France or Russia, these issues strike right at the heart of British security. Any European power would always have to divide its focus between the army and navy, but the United States could afford to devote comparatively more resources to the latter (to say nothing of its having more resources to begin with). In the long run, it therefore was uniquely situated to overtake Britain in naval power.

Offsetting these are the historical U.S. reluctance to get involved in European affairs, and the less authoritarian nature of its government and policies.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Simon Darkshade
Member Avatar
Nefarious Swashbuckler
You hit the nail on the head with the point about Europe and North America being two different things.

A European power emerging as a rival is a direct and existential threat to Britain. An American rival is somewhat less pressing, given they are not immediately adjacent to the British Isles.

Because of the ability of an American state to harness the wealth of the New World, much more importance would be placed (and was placed) on good relations. The interests of a USA and the British Empire often coincide and rarely clash in the same way as they might with another European power, not to mention the decent returns on British capital from American interests. It is definitely an Old World vs New World situation.

A solely controlled US canal would have slightly soured relations, but there was much else that was sweetening them. The cultural, linguistic and historical ties are secondary to national interests, but played a significant part in and of themselves.

You'd need a much earlier point of departure and a decidedly different United States of America.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JBK
Member Avatar

I think that relations would have seriously soured has the USA not joined WWI, and had continued to build its fleet which would be "second to none".
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Simon Darkshade
Member Avatar
Nefarious Swashbuckler
The US Fleet was not really second to none at the time, but rather flawed, not having many of the necessary fleet units and being dominated by arguably obsolescent designs.

Even without the US joining the war, relations were still well and truly cordial, due to the impact of the Great Rapprochment that had already occured.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JBK
Member Avatar

Didnt the USA have a plan to build a fleet "second to none" before the Washington naval treaty? This would include six battlecruisers of the Lexington class?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Simon Darkshade
Member Avatar
Nefarious Swashbuckler
Their plan was inherently flawed, not the least by including the Lexingtons, which were extremely underarmoured compared to their contemporaries and the G3s.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Basil Fawlty
Member Avatar
Post Tenebras Lux
The "second to none" plan was put forth during the Wilson Administration shortly before Jutland, from what I know. It had to be tamped down in the press so as not to arouse opposition from those who saw no need for it.

What would really be needed is a balanced fleet from 1898 onward.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
« Previous Topic · Alternate History · Next Topic »
Add Reply