NationStates Jolt Archive

What would the world be like if America had lost the revolutionary war?
It would be fascinating to see what the world would be like if that had happened, same with WWII.
What do you think the world would be like?

The British would still dominate the world thanks to the resources and industry of their American collonies.

Well, Britain wouldn't have been forced into a somewhat more enlightened point of view for colonial administration is one thing...

Everyone west of the Appalachian mountains would be speaking French.

America probably would have gotten its independence eventually anyway, probably slightly later. Also it wouldn't be so larger

Everyone west of the Appalachian mountains would be speaking French.
WHY?

Well, isn't that something to do with the British not wanting to explore west of them? And so the French would have held that area, but spanish would be spoken too surely as the spanish owned some of that area too? Or am I wrong?

WHY?
Britain extended the borders of Quebec to all lands west of the Appalachian just before the Revolutionary War. French civil law, the Catholic Church, and the French language became the official institutions in British North America to the Ohio River. Britain forbade the extension of English-speaking colonies west of the Appalachians, which is actually one of the policies that angered the Americans and sparked the Revolution.

Everyone who spoke english would have bad teeth.

WHY?
We got the Louisiana territories because the Napoleon couldn't afford to keep up a state of war against the British any other way. He wouldn't have sold them TO Britain in the middle of a war against them.

Granted, he might have lost them AFTER the war, but he might not have.

I think that the German Reich would have won World War I and become the ruler over Europe, with other states like France, Italy or Russia shrink to less more than satellite states of it.

(I am not by any means an nationalist, I simply think that the Entente wouldn't been able to stand against the Kaiser's army without american help.)

I actually wrote a speech on this for AcDec a few years back. Its always an interesting thing to consider. People like Washington, Jefferson, and Adams would have gone down in history as martyrs, as they would most certainly be hung. Spain, France, and Britian would all own various parts of America, for a while at least. I also think, however, that unless Britian changed its attitude toward the colonies they would have rebelled again and perhaps won. Who knows, though?

Well, isn't that something to do with the British not wanting to explore west of them? And so the French would have held that area, but spanish would be spoken too surely as the spanish owned some of that area too? Or am I wrong?

Spanish = what is now Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and possibly Nevada. French = everything else west of Appalachia and the Mississippi (Louisiana Purchase)
Russian = Alaska

I think that the German Reich would have won World War I and become the ruler over Europe, with other states like France, Italy or Russia shrink to less more than satellite states of it.

(I am not by any means an nationalist, I simply think that the Entente wouldn't been able to stand against the Kaiser's army without american help.)
If Britain kept control of America then Britain would have vast resources and manpower from its American land, easily allowing the Entente to defeat the Germans.

I actually wrote a speech on this for AcDec a few years back. Its always an interesting thing to consider. People like Washington, Jefferson, and Adams would have gone down in history as martyrs, as they would most certainly be hung. Spain, France, and Britian would all own various parts of America, for a while at least. I also think, however, that unless Britian changed its attitude toward the colonies they would have rebelled again and perhaps won. Who knows, though?
Spain and France already owned parts of what is today America even after the USA attained independence. Britain would most likely take over the Spanish and French land just as the US did in real life.

If Britain kept control of America then Britain would have vast resources and manpower from its American land, easily allowing the Entente to defeat the Germans.
I think that it's manpower would be instead much lower because they would've been forced to send troops not only to fight Germany, but also to opress the Americans who maybe would have seen another chance for their independence revolution while GB is busy with the Reich. So, after the Germans would have defeat Russia (as they did in the real war), they could have used their full military strength to overrun the Allies on the Western front, invade Paris and by this force the Allies to sign a truce.

I'd guess that we (Britain) wouldn't have made so much effort to settle Australia and that the French would probably have colonised it instead, assuming that we got rid of them from the rest of America.

Then, seeing as I might as well hypothesise wildly, Napoleon would have used Australia as a launchpad for a joint Franco/Japanes invasion of China and he'd have then attacked Russia from both sides and by now we'd all be citizens of the French Interplantary Republic! (having all the world's resources they'd also have developed nuclear spaceships by now and have bases on the moon and mars).

Frankly i think the world would be a better place, the current affairs of today would be far more stable, as allthough the british empire would probally not exist in the form it was know in 1789 the comonwealth would have proved a far more u.n like stabilising force due to the american colonies still being in it.
The idea about america being any less 'free' show an overall lack of knowledge about british colonial liberalism, each colony being a pretty much self governing body (honestly do a bit of reserch), frankly i dont understand what the reasons for the american rebellion where, coulnt stand a small tax hike to beat back monarchist france i think. Yes britain was a democracy by the 18th cent do a bit of reserch on that do, visa ve 1604 consitution, oliver cromwell and the english revolution before you aruge about this. As for the napeolonic war this most probally would have happend as well, france was a power keg well before the late 1700's when it finaly exploded, and i bet this would have wiped out most of americas revolutionary zeal, as it would certainly have been a combat ground against the french. World war one was a certainty as well as by the mid 1750's most of europe powers, prussia, russia, france britian (spain was out of the running by now) where having an ongoing building up that lead to several regional wars, crimean, napeolonic ect and it was going to end up all out at one stage allthough the side may have been difrent most likely. Which throws ww2 into some doubt, allthough im sure the seeds of communism and facism would be sown and grow enventually depening on who lost a large war before that may have changed this. As for russan communism, this is far more certain various revolutionary groups existed in russia very far back mid 1800's if not earlier, and due to the peastants of russia basically being shat on constatly by their tzars, and the fact that no other country in europe still had pesants would probally have made this end up in some form of radical commuism/socialism when ever the country entered the next great strife.

In conclusion i feel the world would probally have been a far more stable place, this idea may not sit very well this americans due to their view or igorance of the british empire that makes them view it more like the third reich, as oposed to the liberal trading empire it truelly was.
If your going to aruge against me please do a bit of reserch first instead of mearly spewing retoric.

+ i apolise for the spelling grammar lack of paragraphing, im a bit under the weather.

these hypothetical napelonic ww1 senarios are forgetting that,
1 without america england still beat france without too much hassel and proped up most of europe in the process
2 Britian was by far the biggest contributor in world war 1 american effort in 1918 was largely asthetic, and it was the britsh who did break though in the end of 1918, besides by the end of 1917 the germans were basically finished even with russias surrender, the royal navy had takend the reichs one out of action in 1915 and blockaded all there ports for two years, the spring offisive of 1918 was a last ditch attempt and after that it was over.

Britian was the sole world power 1800-1918 soley becuase of its huge gold reserves from trading, these sadly were mostly spent durng ww2

I like the australia point, allthough im pretty sure they were sending convicts there before the war of indipendance, it wasunt a full fleged colony till a bit after wards however.

I think that it's manpower would be instead much lower because they would've been forced to send troops not only to fight Germany, but also to opress the Americans who maybe would have seen another chance for their independence revolution while GB is busy with the Reich. So, after the Germans would have defeat Russia (as they did in the real war), they could have used their full military strength to overrun the Allies on the Western front, invade Paris and by this force the Allies to sign a truce.
There wouldn't be any need for Americans to rebel. By this time America would be loyal to Britain because the British would have given many concessions to the American colonists (as they offered to do in real life). There would be no reason for Americans to rebel if they are sharing in the prosperity of the British empire. Even in real life there were many Americans who strongly opposed independence; 30,000 Americans served in the British army during the American Revolution.

Most of the fore fathers considerd them selves british, which is nice, i think jefferson was born in edinburg too, like ive said ive never understood the motive for rebelling

I like the australia point, allthough im pretty sure they were sending convicts there before the war of indipendance, it wasunt a full fleged colony till a bit after wards however.

I don't think Cook reached Aus until about 1778/1780. I'm assuming we put so much effort into Aus largely because we lost America. We actually used to transport convicts to America originally. If we'd kept hold of America, I believe we'd have used the bulk of our colonising efforts on it as it's nearer than Aus, has better farmlands and we were already established there. I believe, but I'm not sure that the French may even have made a claim on Aus before us, but we basically ignored their claim.

After that my hypothesis may have got a bit silly, but surely that was the point of the thread!

these hypothetical napelonic ww1 senarios are forgetting that,
1 without america england still beat france without too much hassel and proped up most of europe in the process
2 Britian was by far the biggest contributor in world war 1 american effort in 1918 was largely asthetic, and it was the britsh who did break though in the end of 1918, besides by the end of 1917 the germans were basically finished even with russias surrender, the royal navy had takend the reichs one out of action in 1915 and blockaded all there ports for two years, the spring offisive of 1918 was a last ditch attempt and after that it was over.

Britian was the sole world power 1800-1918 soley becuase of its huge gold reserves from trading, these sadly were mostly spent durng ww2

I don't agree with you. Germany's army was much more stronger than the British, and I believe that without American help the spring offensive of '18 would have been a success, forcing the allies to sign a truce and ensure the German domination of Europe. (As you surely know, our former leaders tend to be a BIT megalomaniac...)

(I must repeat that I am no nationalist and very happy about the fact that my country was defeated in the two world wars, especially the second.)

There wouldn't be any need for Americans to rebel. By this time America would be loyal to Britain because the British would have given many concessions to the American colonists (as they offered to do in real life). There would be no reason for Americans to rebel if they are sharing in the prosperity of the British empire. Even in real life there were many Americans who strongly opposed independence; 30,000 Americans served in the British army during the American Revolution
Would they? Nah, I don't think that the British would have brought prosperity to the Americans. Instead I think they would have exploited them the same way they did with all their other colonies. Besides that, you may not forget the people's urge for freedom.

We'd all be bitching about Britain right now.

well we were pretty keen on wool and aus/nz potential for this would probally be realised, its an intresting point to think on these colonial what if's.

Would they? Nah, I don't think that the British would have brought prosperity to the Americans. Instead I think they would have exploited them the same way they did with all their other colonies. Besides that, you may not forget the people's urge for freedom.
The British only exploited non-white people in their Empire. The 13 American colonies, Canada, Australia, and other white British colonies have always been prosperous. The American colonies' urge for freedom was never that great; only about 1/3 of Americans supported independence, and most people preferred the prosperity and protection of the British. We (the USA) won the war mainly because of the huge amounts of financial and military support the rebels got from France and other European nations.

We (the USA) won the war mainly because of the huge amounts of financial and military support the rebels got from France and other European nations.

Yeah. You and those snail eaters cheated and blockaded our poor troops on that nasty beach!

Americans wernt in france for the spring offisive of that im sure or at least not in pratical possitions. Im not debating about the quality for germany's armies, but by that stage in the war even with russia out of it germanys economy was smashed and revolutionarys left and right were making life very diffucult for the kaiser.

To say britian exploited her colonies is going a bit far, as far as you could go with this was to say britian changed the colonies economies to 1 or 2 main products, but this was largely benfical because allmost all good were provied for becuase of the closed market emipre system.

The British would still dominate the world thanks to the resources and industry of their American collonies.
.............And South America and France.

The British only exploited non-white people in their Empire. The 13 American colonies, Canada, Australia, and other white British colonies have always been prosperous. The American colonies' urge for freedom was never that great; only about 1/3 of Americans supported independence, and most people preferred the prosperity and protection of the British. We (the USA) won the war mainly because of the huge amounts of financial and military support the rebels got from France and other European nations.
C'mon, don't fall into my back while I am praising your country for saving the world from our domination plans.^^

But maybe there would have been a German-American alliance against Britain in the WW1, then?

Americans wernt in france for the spring offisive of that im sure or at least not in pratical possitions. Im not debating about the quality for germany's armies, but by that stage in the war even with russia out of it germanys economy was smashed and revolutionarys left and right were making life very diffucult for the kaiser.
Only the left revolutionarys, and even them (the SPD) only got the power over the state because the allies only wanted to sign a truce with a democratic Germany. The Kaiser's police-state was very good in keeping them down.

Everyone west of the Appalachian mountains would be speaking French.

*shudders* ;)

We (the USA) won the war mainly because of the huge amounts of financial and military support the rebels got from France and other European nations.
Oh yeah lol i forgot this point it used to be one of my favs, think about it america was a tiny little sea side colony which only real product was tabacco, were did it get all its guns and millitary expert training and naval support from, the british's good old friends the french, who insist on screwing us as evey turn for the last 1000 years, and yes there still doing it now in the e.u

This thread reminds me of a series of books I saw in Waterstone's once. I don't remember the author's name but I remember that the US Civil War ended in a dead heat. Then in WW1 the Union came in on Germany's side as Britain and the Confederacy were allies. I should have got them really. They looked like fun.

harry turtle dove hes called, dont that man cant write to save his life, he just writes so many books he has to sell a few.

I think what put me off buying them was that I saw his 2nd series where all the sides in WW2 unite to fight off the alien invaders.
So it's definitely a case of read the back, go 'nice idea' then move on?!

This thread reminds me of a series of books I saw in Waterstone's once. I don't remember the author's name but I remember that the US Civil War ended in a dead heat. Then in WW1 the Union came in on Germany's side as Britain and the Confederacy were allies. I should have got them really. They looked like fun.

i know it wasn't your idea, but why the hell would the union join germany? i would think the confederacy, if anybody, would join with them, if only in the interest of preserving their spot on the human heirarchy and slavery.

Hey, it's not that we hold slaves at that time being, you know.^^

i know it wasn't your idea, but why the hell would the union join germany? i would think the confederacy, if anybody, would join with them, if only in the interest of preserving their spot on the human heirarchy and slavery.

I would assume that the author was extrapolating from the reasons why WW1 got so big so quickly which was all the treaties of mutual protection between nations. The point being that the Union would have been enemies of Britain due to Britain's ongoing support for the Confederacy. But I'm only guessing. As you said, I didn't write them.

Edit: I just re-read your post. The Confederacy would have been allies of Britain, and therefore automatically have gone to war against Germany, which would have triggered the Union's support of Germany under the enemy of my enemy principle.

Hey, it's not that we hold slaves at that time being, you know.^^

...i'm well aware, but at the time the interests of confederates (slavery) and nazis (holocaust, jews) would have been at least somewhat aligned. whereas the union wouldn't have any good reason to join with germany. at least that i can think of.

I would assume that the author was extrapolating from the reasons why WW1 got so big so quickly which was all the treaties of mutual protection between nations. The point being that the Union would have been enemies of Britain due to Britain's ongoing support for the Confederacy. But I'm only guessing. As you said, I didn't write them.

Edit: I just re-read your post. The Confederacy would have been allies of Britain, and therefore automatically have gone to war against Germany, which would have triggered the Union's support of Germany under the enemy of my enemy principle.

oh shit you're right i was thinking WWII. sorry. good call.

edit: same to you, schoeningia

btw, what does schoeningia mean in german?

Britian only supported the Confederecy because they figured it would be easier to get the US back if it was split. Plus, you people are figuring that the Civil War was all about slavery. Abe only said it was about slavery because he figured that once Britain thought it was about that, they would pull support so it didn't seem like they supported slavery.

Edit: I just re-read your post. The Confederacy would have been allies of Britain, and therefore automatically have gone to war against Germany, which would have triggered the Union's support of Germany under the enemy of my enemy principle.

makes sense. wow i really botched on my history just then.

I don't think that the Union and Germany would have join forces. The Union was a strong supporter of democracy.

what does schoeningia mean in german
"Schöning" is my name. Schoeningia is accordingly my nation.^^

Indeed it was. But don't forget that in this 'history' it would have had a hostile southern neighbour for half a century. That's the sort of pressure that can really change a society's values.

Anyway. Back to my France colonising space idea. At least then the astronauts would be gauranteed edible food!

I don't think that the Union and Germany would have join forces. The Union was a strong supporter of democracy.


"Schöning" is my name. Schoeningia is accordingly my nation.^^

where did you learn to speak english?

Honestly, I would prefer even a world-wide German Reich instead of living in a french-speaking country.^^

@Star fighter:
At school, I think.^^

Indeed it was. But don't forget that in this 'history' it would have had a hostile southern neighbour for half a century. That's the sort of pressure that can really change a society's values.


i don't know that the south would have been hostile. it depends on at what point they would have been content with their acquired territory. the war began when the south went on a little fort-sacking rampage and the union finally defended at sumter. hypothetically, had the south stopped at sumter and the union never further attacked, perhaps they could have co-existed???

They may well have been able to. To be fair to me, the idea of them being super-hostile was on the back of those books I never even read, so I'm afraid I don't know the details!

I'll admit that my knowledge of the US civil war doesn't go much beyond an Encarta demonstration and knowing that we built the Confeds a ship which you sunk off the coast of england.

I don't even know too much detail about their Independance War, except that Mel Gibson was a bastard for making the British into Nazis in the Patriot ;)

They may well have been able to. To be fair to me, the idea of them being super-hostile was on the back of those books I never even read, so I'm afraid I don't know the details!

I'll admit that my knowledge of the US civil war doesn't go much beyond an Encarta demonstration and knowing that we built the Confeds a ship which you sunk off the coast of england.

I don't even know too much detail about their Independance War, except that Mel Gibson was a bastard for making the British into Nazis in the Patriot ;)

no worries. that movie sucked all-around anyway. :gundge: :p

I don't even know too much detail about their Independance War, except that Mel Gibson was a bastard for making the British into Nazis in the Patriot
It's holywood, someone has to be the evil-to-the-bones guy.

I don't agree with you. Germany's army was much more stronger than the British, and I believe that without American help the spring offensive of '18 would have been a success, forcing the allies to sign a truce and ensure the German domination of Europe. (As you surely know, our former leaders tend to be a BIT megalomaniac...)

You're vastly over-estimating the power of the Kaiser's army as of 1917. The war was basically already over by the time we entered into it, the American entry merely sped up the process of German defeat. Not to mention that WWII simply would NOT have happened as the moderation of Wilson would have had NO effect on the Treaty of Versialles and Germany would probably have become very near a third-world country, if it wasn't broken back up into the individual states it had been before Bismarck's unification wars.

As to the topic:

The French revolution would have come later if at all. Possibly well into the early 1800's, perhaps up to 1810. By this time, Britian would have been much more prepared to face any upstarts (as such a drastic change in time would probably have prevented Napoleon from rising to power), leading to a greatly subdued France between Britain and the German-speaking states. Come Bismarck's conquests, chances are they would have either been put down by Britian or they would not have been as successful (since Bismarck couldn't have played France against Austria-Hungary).

So, let's see, a greatly weakened France, a very small or non-existant Germany, and a greatly over-powered Britain. I could see the English Empire holding sway in the world well into the 20th century, perhaps even up until now.

So, let's see, a greatly weakened France, a very small or non-existant Germany, and a greatly over-powered Britain. I could see the English Empire holding sway in the world well into the 20th century, perhaps even up until now.

We came so..damn..close!



As to the Hollywood point. I know what you mean, but simply taking an SS atrocity and substituting the Brits in when we did nothing of the sort takes the piss a bit.

You're vastly over-estimating the power of the Kaiser's army as of 1917. The war was basically already over by the time we entered into it, the American entry merely sped up the process of German defeat. Not to mention that WWII simply would NOT have happened as the moderation of Wilson would have had NO effect on the Treaty of Versialles and Germany would probably have become very near a third-world country, if it wasn't broken back up into the individual states it had been before Bismarck's unification wars.

I don't think that the Reich would have accepted Versailles without the points removed by Wilson. The British would then have made this moderations themselves, because they too were exhausted by the war.

We came so..damn..close!
Germany would have become a superpower again in less then a decade, as it did in real history. Besides, you forgot the russian bear in the east.^^

We did kind of shoot ourselves in the foot a bit by being so harsh on you lot. After all WW1 was pretty much everyone's fault equally. Hell, if we'd been less punitive, we could probably have avoided Hitler and then Stalin would have been a bit less crazy because he'd have no immediate threat to the west. What-ifs sure turn crazy pretty quickly.

I don't think that the Reich would have accepted Versailles without the points removed by Wilson. The British would then have made this moderations themselves, because they too were exhausted by the war.

You forget just how soundly Germany was defeated. The only thing that actually allowed any sentiments in support of the Nazi movements to foster was the Stock Market crash of 1929 that ruined the Wiemer Republic. Now, imagine a couple dozen mini-Wiemer Republics instead of one, and no military whatsoever in between them. The second reich was in dire straits as of the end of the WWI, hence Wilhelm's abdication, the elimination of most of the German military, and an immensely powerful Britian sitting within a small time's travel of their coasts.

Now, imagine it if Wilson HADN'T been there yelling in the Europeon's ears to go easy on Germany. Imagine it if the Marshall plan had never happened. Germany would be piss-poor, most likely broken up into a dozen constitute states, and perhaps even marginally occupied by the British around the coasts.


Germany would have become a superpower again in less then a decade, as it did in real history. Besides, you forgot the russian bear in the east.^^

Germany, as a nation, most likely wouldn't have existed.

As to the Russians...without American aid, the Russians would never have survived with as much as they did in WWI. Perhaps they would have been conquered and it would be the Kaiser who came in and put down the October Revolution. Russia would be returned to its normal self after the war, of course, but as little more than a puppet of the British.

You forget just how soundly Germany was defeated. The only thing that actually allowed any sentiments in support of the Nazi movements to foster was the Stock Market crash of 1929 that ruined the Wiemer Republic. Now, imagine a couple dozen mini-Wiemer Republics instead of one, and no military whatsoever in between them. The second reich was in dire straits as of the end of the WWI, hence Wilhelm's abdication, the elimination of most of the German military, and an immensely powerful Britian sitting within a small time's travel of their coasts.
Again I must insist that Germany would had not accept this scenario. To end the war the allies would have been forced to invade Germany and take Berlin, which I really don't think they were able to do 1918. The power of all nations, except the US, were at zero at that time being.

Now, imagine it if Wilson HADN'T been there yelling in the Europeon's ears to go easy on Germany.
I really think that the Europeans than would have went easy on Germany by themselves. At least, they wanted a peacefully Germany and they knew that Versailles was kind of unfair, because the WW1 wasn't solely Germany's fault.

it if the Marshall plan had never happened.
That was after WW2, but we are talking about Weimar.

If the USA had not achieved independence, Canada would be much larger. Quebec too.

The population in North America would be much lower than it is now. It was the USA's aggressive immigration policies in the 19th C that brought millions of people for colonization of the west. The British would have been far less aggressive.

There would be far more buffalo, and many more American nations still around. Alaska would still be in Russian hands. The Spanish colonies would have been granted independence and membership into some kind of Spanish Commonwealth late in the 19th C, but still living in the shadow of the British Empire.

Germany would still have lost WWI (c'mon, does anyone seriously believed the US played such a large role in that one?). They would have also lost WWII. Japan would have lost after a long war of attrition. The Soviet Union would have been invaded shortly after sparing us all from a long Cold War.

And everyone would be complaining of British interventionism.

They would have also lost WWII.
Ok. You can argue about the end of WW1 and if Germany would still have lost the war without America, but speaking of WW2, without the US, and without Germany concentrating it's effort in the invasion of Russia, the Wehrmacht would have overrun the British island and occupate it in less than two months.

If the United States remained a part of the British Empire I think that history would have been completely different. It might even be unrecogizable. Even though the US would have eventually become independent anyway as Canada and Austrailia did, North America would be radically different. I don't know if it would even be possible to predict. The French Revolution would have likly occured later therefore Napolean's role would likely have been different. All of the Historical actors that we are famillier with would have never been born if they were born beyond a certain amount of time after the moment when things started to go differently. The Spanish Colonies would have also revolted later. I suspect that "World War 1" would have been fought either earlier or later depending on what served to start it. In any case it wouldn't be the World War I that we know. World War II? who knows if there would even be a World War II. Japan would have modernized later without the visit from the US navy or someone else may have shown up earlier.

other British colonies rebeled remember (well some of them did eg India) so the British empire would of probly come to an end eventually and what about racism without WWII there would still be facist rallys everywhere and Jews and other minoritys would live in fear

Ok. You can argue about the end of WW1 and if Germany would still have lost the war without America, but speaking of WW2, without the US, and without Germany concentrating it's effort in the invasion of Russia, the Wehrmacht would have overrun the British island and occupate it in less than two months.
Yes, I was thinking about that. But who says Russia wouldn't be a factor? After all, the Soviet Union existed because Germany let Lenin go and start a revolution there and that would free German troops from the east to use on the west. The same would have happened in this scenario.

I also assume that the draconian measures imposed on Germany would have allowed Hitler to come to power and create the impressive German war machine he created. He would be as hell bent in extending to the east as he was in RL. This would have brought the Soviet Union in, just like it happened. And this, more than anything else, is what defeated Germany.

Plus, Britain would have been able to use the resources and population of America right from the start.

Spain would be the unknown quantity, however. If the Spanish Commonwealth had supported Hitler more overtly than the real Spain did, we would be talking about a war all over the globe, with front lines in America and, quite, possibly half the world speaking Spanish and half German (remember that Spain would control most of the USA's Pacific coast, including the natural resources in Texas, California and in-between).

However, that's unlikely. More probably, the conservative forces that brought Franco to power wouldn't have been able to do so with the liberal Spanish America protecting the government.

Ok. You can argue about the end of WW1 and if Germany would still have lost the war without America, but speaking of WW2, without the US, and without Germany concentrating it's effort in the invasion of Russia, the Wehrmacht would have overrun the British island and occupate it in less than two months.

Actually Germany could never have invaded England anyway theyd land but the British navy would have bloked all supplys to them (suffering massive losses in the process) I watched it on t.v and it gave me a massive sence of pride and If the U.S hadnt of given Germany all that money (1 trillion I think) to Germany then a dictator (Hitler if he had been born or survived WW1) wouldn't have the funds to even start WWII (I think) (sorry about the spelling im a retared)

Well, isn't that something to do with the British not wanting to explore west of them? And so the French would have held that area, but spanish would be spoken too surely as the spanish owned some of that area too? Or am I wrong?

That policy was a temporary measure after the French Indian war because Britain, having just spent a large amount of money in that war didn't want to spend money protecting colonists until the Indians were "pacified." Also they wanted to keep the price of labor down by restricting the available farmland. Alexander Hamilton had the exact same plan and it was strictly for the purpose of keeping labor prices down.

It's holywood, someone has to be the evil-to-the-bones guy.

Yes, otherwise it's too appearant that Mel Gibson is a douche.

Would they? Nah, I don't think that the British would have brought prosperity to the Americans. Instead I think they would have exploited them the same way they did with all their other colonies. Besides that, you may not forget the people's urge for freedom.

No, they wouldn't have exploited the American colonies the same way. They didn't consider their other colonies to be English. When they took colonies in India and Africa they ruled Indians and Africans. When they conquered America they wiped out or drove off the Natives. Britain had already given the colonists all that they asked for before the war started. All that Parliament claimed was the right to pass laws for the colonies. And they needed that to keep tabs on the King. Really, the debates going on over Royal and Parliamentary authority vs. the authority of colonial assemblies sounded just like the later debates over State authority vs. Federal authority.

Also, remember that the Declaration of Independence was written the same year that the Manchester School of economics got started. England was already hip to the idea of market deregulation.

Ok. You can argue about the end of WW1 and if Germany would still have lost the war without America, but speaking of WW2, without the US, and without Germany concentrating it's effort in the invasion of Russia, the Wehrmacht would have overrun the British island and occupate it in less than two months.

Perhaps, but then the Capital would have temporarily moved to the America, then England would take Britain back from there. OTH With all those resources available they might not have bothered allowing Germany to become so powerful in the first place. And Germany wouldn't have had American bankers like Dubya's grandad Prescot Bush to finance it.

Yes, I was thinking about that. But who says Russia wouldn't be a factor? After all, the Soviet Union existed because Germany let Lenin go and start a revolution there and that would free German troops from the east to use on the west. The same would have happened in this scenario.

I also assume that the draconian measures imposed on Germany would have allowed Hitler to come to power and create the impressive German war machine he created. He would be as hell bent in extending to the east as he was in RL. This would have brought the Soviet Union in, just like it happened. And this, more than anything else, is what defeated Germany.

Ok, that's true. But I think the war then would have ended with a truce and not with the total defeat of Germany like it did in the real history. There would have been only the eastern border for the Germans to concentrate on, since the British wouldn't have been strong enough to open a new border in France or Italy without US help.

Plus, Britain would have been able to use the resources and population of America right from the start
We still have different ideas of a British governed America in times of war. I think of it more as a malus for the British because of the troops they have to separate from their main army to keep it unter their control, while you in return see it as a bonus because of the additional manpower they would get.

Actually Germany could never have invaded England anyway theyd land but the British navy would have bloked all supplys to them (suffering massive losses in the process) I watched it on t.v and it gave me a massive sence of pride and If the U.S hadnt of given Germany all that money (1 trillion I think) to Germany then a dictator (Hitler if he had been born or survived WW1) wouldn't have the funds to even start WWII (I think) (sorry about the spelling im a retared)
Hm, I don't think so. If Hitler would have had the idea that GB is the right Lebensraum for the German people and Germany would have concetrated it's main strength (still unused after beating such inequal enemies like France or Poland, beeing prepared for the invasion of russia) on the operation "Seemöwe", without careful treatments for the British like Dünkirchen (Hitler was possesed by the idea that he could force Churchill to sign a truce with him after this very strange strategic act), neither the British army nor the royal navy would have been great hindrances for another Blitzkrieg on the island, in my opinion. And with the heart of the Empire cut out of it, the British colonies (America too, if you ask me) would have surely used the chance to start some rebelions.

Besides, the German war machine wasn't only build up thanks to American credits.

If Britain had won the Revolutionary war, America would be pretty much the same as it is now.
The Louisiana Purchase would still have taken place, Jefferson would have simply spent the King's money instead of his fledgling country's.

Washington, or Jefferson, or even Adams would likely have been named Prime Minister

The idea that Britain wouldnt have expanded beyond the Appalachains is nonsense.
Western exspansion was the only way to go, when overpopulation, and need for rescources were felt.

The only difference, as I see it, is that the Native Americans would likely have been exterminated completely.
The British have a long history of conquering a place, killing of the native inhabitants, and stripping the land of any rescources it has to offer, and then moving on.

Its likely, that America would have gained its Independence anyway, after all, look at the trouble in Iraq, they arent taking to the form of government were offering, either.
Maintaining an occupation is costly, and moving the required troops and equipment is even more so, especially 200 years ago.

You cannot militarily occupy a country the size of America for very long, especially with its steadily rising population, when your home base is across the Atlantic, and you have to send more troops by wooden sailing ship.

Especially since the people will not take kindly to the occupation, and will constantly revolt, or pockets of rebellion will continue endlessly.

In the end, Britian would have conceded either way.

I think that the German Reich would have won World War I and become the ruler over Europe, with other states like France, Italy or Russia shrink to less more than satellite states of it.

(I am not by any means an nationalist, I simply think that the Entente wouldn't been able to stand against the Kaiser's army without american help.)

But the Entente would have had American help.Subjugated American help, but American help none the less.

I think that the German Reich would have won World War I and become the ruler over Europe, with other states like France, Italy or Russia shrink to less more than satellite states of it.

(I am not by any means an nationalist, I simply think that the Entente wouldn't been able to stand against the Kaiser's army without american help.)

Poor historical knowledge shown here. The Americans entered the war in 1917 and it was already 1918 before their presence was trully felt. The Germans essentially defeated themselves: they launched a successful attack and plunged deeper into allied territory than they had since 1914. However their communication and supply lines snapped and the Allied armies soon recovered and encircled them. Within weeks the Allies were in Berlin.

You are thinking along the lines of what if American didn't exist. America still would have existed in 1914 albeit under British control. The sheer number of troops that could have been provided by a colonial America might have stopped the Germans in their tracks. It might even have stopped World War One entirely for with America under its control, Great Britain would have had a continental sized army, an unstoppable fleet (but we already had that in 1914) and a massive amount of industry (the entire of the Empire, Great Britain and America combined). With that amount of power, its is unlikely Germany would have ever risked bringing Britain into open war. Therefore I surmise that if America had remained British, then it is entirely likely that World War One (and therefore World War 2) would never have happened.

Within weeks the Allies were in Berlin
?


The sheer number of troops that could have been provided by a colonial America might have stopped the Germans in their tracks
I mentioned that before...

With that amount of power, its is unlikely Germany would have ever risked bringing Britain into open war
The British' immense power before WW1 was exactly the reason why Willhelm was so pissed on them and build his own war machine to overtrump them. Don't think that the Germans would have feared the British Empire's might. They didn't fear anybode at that time. It took two whole world wars to show them that they are not invincible.

Hm, I don't think so. If Hitler would have had the idea that GB is the right Lebensraum for the German people and Germany would have concetrated it's main strength (still unused after beating such inequal enemies like France or Poland, beeing prepared for the invasion of russia) on the operation "Seemöwe", without careful treatments for the British like Dünkirchen (Hitler was possesed by the idea that he could force Churchill to sign a truce with him after this very strange strategic act), neither the British army nor the royal navy would have been great hindrances for another Blitzkrieg on the island, in my opinion. And with the heart of the Empire cut out of it, the British colonies (America too, if you ask me) would have surely used the chance to start some rebelions.

Besides, the German war machine wasn't only build up thanks to American credits.

Operation Sealion was defunct the day it was created, there is no way it would have ever worked in anyone's imagination. Had the RAF lost the BoB, then they would just withdraw to Northern England and Scotland, out of the range of Luftwaffe fighter escorts, but still able to intercept the Luftwaffe over Britain, albeit with less reaction time. The British were outproducing the Germans in terms of fighter planes, so the Germans cannot hope to hold on to Air Superiority the way they had in France against the Armee d'le Air.

Now they have to get across the channel, but in what? Unlike the Allies, they do not have a multitude of amphibious ships designed for invasion, they don
t even have designs for one. Instead they have Rhine barges, slow lumbering and big targets. They can't use them for long, without the Barges industry on the Rhine is screaming, they are desperately needed. The Kriegsmarine doesn't have eough surface ships to maintain dominance of the Channel the way the Allies do in '44, and the Luftwaffe is not trained to destroy ships (yet), so any fancy of them keeping the RN out of the Channel is pure imagination.

So now the Germans set off their invasion Army in slow lumbering barges, ecorting by the handful of destroyers and cruisers the Germans have. Within minutes RAF planes are zipping down on the German fleet, strafing at the slow barges and destroying the Germans air control. RN destroyers are moving in on the force, along with cruisers, torpedo boats, and (if they chance it) battleships. The German force can't manuever well, and they can't turn back fast enough, so they are forced to continue forward, sufer massive casualties at the hands of the RN, lose probably all the barges, and then surrender ultimately at the port they were destined to invade.

What would the world be like if America had lost the revolutionary war?


Then America would be called Canada

All I say is this. Thank God it never happened.

You are all discussing about changing an event that took place late 1700 and then want to talk about its implications in 1910!? WTF!? Any predictions anyone makes in here could only reasonably be known to about 1830ish anything after that requires making predictions based upon predictions based upon predictions and are really pretty much worthless.

You are all discussing about changing an event that took place late 1700 and then want to talk about its implications in 1910!? WTF!? Any predictions anyone makes in here could only reasonably be known to about 1830ish anything after that requires making predictions based upon predictions based upon predictions and are really pretty much worthless.

caaaaalm down

it's just a bit of fun

init

:sniper:

Hey, there's nothing funny about this. If our great great great granddaddies hadn't laid down their lives, we'd all be speaking English right now.

good point

:headbang:

Worse off, even though some current happenings are not right, the US has definetely put out more good to the world than bad.

As a sort of isolated case study, let us say that events would have proceeded normally after the defeat of the American colonists by Great Britain, and the the events of the 19th Century proceeded as they have in our history.

Now let us hypothesize that the Allies would still have won WWII [which I do not believe they would have with the Industrial Superpower that America was developing into, and which GB would have prevented the Americas from becoming]. Without Roosevelt's guiding hand, a situation similar to the Weimar Republic after WWI would have arisen. Churchill and Stalin wanted to make the Germans pay through the nose for what they had done; I wouldn't have put it past either of them to commit acts akin to genocide in Germany after the war had won. Of the Big Three, Roosevelt was the one most responsible for settling the issues in Europe which had caused continent-spanning war for, oh, 1091427580723458347859 years. There would have been a WWIII in a span of at most 50 years, with Germany or some other European state behind it, had the Churchill and Stalin been left to their devices. Probably Russia would have just conquered the world. Or maybe fought over it with China.

I dislike people looking at America through the scope of current events. Yes, the U.S. is doing not so good things now. But don't forget that you aren't speaking German and that you aren't living in a Communist state thanks to the U.S., and that Europe has been equally, if not more, devastating to the world. The U.S. isn't the Devil here. It's not an Angel, certainly, but Pax Americana wasn't that bad, was it?

I dislike people looking at America through the scope of current events. Yes, the U.S. is doing not so good things now. But don't forget that you aren't speaking German and that you aren't living in a Communist state thanks to the U.S., and that Europe has been equally, if not more, devastating to the world. The U.S. isn't the Devil here. It's not an Angel, certainly, but Pax Americana wasn't that bad, was it?
Depends were you lived. If you lived in LatinAmerica or SE Asia it was baad, baaaaad. Europe took care to make things miserable in Africa, though.

America, unlike the text in most history books says, got through the first 200 years on pure blunder. America's independence was partly monetarily driven. We wouldn't have won the Revolutionary war if Britian hadn't already been fighting France at the same time. And to all you wankers out there talking about how we might have been speaking a different language, that could have happened whether or not we won the Revolutionary war. Did you know that when our founding fathers were voting on which language Americans would speak, German lost by ONE VOTE! Two votes the other way and we would all be speaking German right now.

Did you know that when our founding fathers were voting on which language Americans would speak, German lost by ONE VOTE! Two votes the other way and we would all be speaking German right now.
Lost what by one vote? There's no official language in the US, there has never been. English is simply the language that most people in the US speaks, but that doesn't mean it's THE language of the US.

Other than that, you're right. I don't know why the fixation of some people for speaking one language or other.

It's a conveinient way of saying that the Third Reich [or perhaps the Second] would have conquered the West.

It's a conveinient way of saying that the Third Reich [or perhaps the Second] would have conquered the West.
I know, but it's kind of silly. Especially for people who don't live in third countries and we still need to learn a second language. Same deal.

Sure, maybe you mean that there would be less freedoms under a German Reich, but we don't know about that. And, again, for third world countries the fact that it was the allies and not the axis who won WW2 didn't make much of a difference.