Dividing up the USA among foreign states

[zoomar]

I'm tired of presumptious Americans always assuming the rest of the world - or at least poor Canada - existis so that we can absorb it. So, here goes this:

Assume a series of varyingly improbable economic crises, internal conflicts, and international reversals of your choosing over the course of the 20th century left the United States in 1965 as a weak, decentralized, and unstable assortment of 48 states and several outlying territories like Hawaii and Alaska. It has no nukes, no significant military ability, and no strong national identity, but its population is the same as OTL (about 185,000,000 in 1965 IIRC). Assume also that the USA was surrounded by more stable and powerful nations in Canada, Mexico, and in Eurasia and is ripe for the picking. Who would grab what and would parts of the USA be incorporated as existing states, or recombined/split up?

 

[Leo Caesius]

Well, here's a possible division:

 

[zoomar]

Well, here's a possible division:

Leading possibly to the Arctic War as Canada and the Soviet Union fight over Alsaka, with it being partitioned by the Congress of Nations into Aleutia (Russian) and West Yukon (Canada)

The rump "USA" consisting of the former Confederacy east of the Mississippi and border states is a hoot.

 

[FederationX]

Leo, I hate to ask this, BUT do you have a blank outline of this map? Thanks.

 

[Leo Caesius]

Sure, I'll post it in the Help and Feedback section.

 

[Paul Spring]

The problem with most partitions of the USA, at least in the 20th century, is that each piece of the USA would likely be wealthier and/or more populous than either Mexico or Canada. In the timeframe suggested, you could split the US into 7 or 8 pieces, and each one of them would be equally or more prosperous than almost any of the world's other countries.

In the map shown below, the sections joining Canada and Mexico would be far more powerful than the country they were joining. The same thing would be true of Florida joining Cuba. The only area where this would not be the case would be Hawaii joining Japan.

 

[Leo Caesius]

Ah, but Zoomar's POD was that

Assume a series of varyingly improbable economic crises, internal conflicts, and international reversals of your choosing over the course of the 20th century left the United States in 1965 as a weak, decentralized, and unstable assortment of 48 states and several outlying territories like Hawaii and Alaska [...] Assume also that the USA was surrounded by more stable and powerful nations in Canada, Mexico, and in Eurasia and is ripe for the picking.

My rationale regarding Florida was that it could be incorporated into some kind of Caribbean Confederation consisting of (at least) Cuba and the Dominican Republic.

 

[Paul Spring]

To get the US that weak and its neighbors that strong by 1965, you would probably need a POD well before the 20th century. Even then, it would be extremely improbable.

 

[Max Sinister]

Two ideas:
- The plan of the mad doctor (forgot his name) from the Wild Wild West movie works and isn't disturbed. The USA are divided between Britain, France, Spain, Mexico, and the rest goes to doctor X.

- The Europeans are pissed off, so their scientists invent the time machine, go back into the Stone Age where they steal all of the oil and other material and put it back to Europe. The USA still can exist, but they'll be a poor place and easily overwhelmed by Europe & others.

 

[zoomar]

Sorry, but I don't accept the notion that a strong, unified USA was so inevitable that it takes nearly ASB-ish intervention to stop it. Until the mid 19th century, the USA was a weak and underpopulated backwater (it had a fairly large population but it was very spread out). Give European powers any real reason to break the federal union up (such as some alterations in the Napoleonic wars, ot other hypothetical "world wars" in which the USA become embroiled on one side or the other, it could have happened. A sucessful Southern secession could also have led to a balkanized and gobbled up USA - as could any possible other internal implosion. I would ague that only in the OTL early 20th century did the concept of American nationalism so supercede State loyalty among most people that a breakup of the USA becomes virtually impossible. But it didn't have to happen that way.

 

[Adam Parsons]

- The plan of the mad doctor (forgot his name) from the Wild Wild West movie works and isn't disturbed. The USA are divided between Britain, France, Spain, Mexico, and the rest goes to doctor X.

That would be Dr. Arliss Loveless. God, that was a shitty movie.

 

[Grey Wolf]

Sorry, but I don't accept the notion that a strong, unified USA was so inevitable that it takes nearly ASB-ish intervention to stop it. Until the mid 19th century, the USA was a weak and underpopulated backwater (it had a fairly large population but it was very spread out). Give European powers any real reason to break the federal union up (such as some alterations in the Napoleonic wars, ot other hypothetical "world wars" in which the USA become embroiled on one side or the other, it could have happened. A sucessful Southern secession could also have led to a balkanized and gobbled up USA - as could any possible other internal implosion. I would ague that only in the OTL early 20th century did the concept of American nationalism so supercede State loyalty among most people that a breakup of the USA becomes virtually impossible. But it didn't have to happen that way.

John, I would entirely agree with you in this.

A continent-spanning USA may have been in someone's dreams in the early nineteenth century but they didn't even know what was in the middle of the continent ! Think Lewis and Clarke.

In my Ottoman Domination timeline I am getting a wee bit fed up with people saying that over a certain size the empire will collapse and that its all implausible. Apart from Russia and China which are truly huge and were empires, the USA came to mind as both huge AND unlikely from any timeline other than our own.

How long did it take the USA to acquire even Florida !

Grey Wolf

 

[ComradeFlyer]

cuban missle crisis goes nuclear..... USSR obliterated, US hit bad enough to degrade the centers of power, regional conflicts spring up as states seek to better themselves, neighboors decided to take a piece of the pie.

edit:

blue - Dominion of Canada (independent)

green - Republic of Mexico (independent)

lighter pink - Deseret (canadian backed)

darker pink - Republic of Louisiana (french backed)

yellow - New England Confederation (british backed)

gray - American Union (british backed)

light brown - Caribbean Confederacy (british backed)

light green - Kingdom of Hawai'i (british backed)


now, some may wonder why i would argue british involvement in NA, but think about it, if the USSR was hit hard, and the US broken up, *someone* would have to fill the void as the worlds leading power and i'd bet our friends across the pond would love to have another go at world domination.

 

[zoomar]

Comrade

I rather like the nice touches like the breakup of Texas and California into two states and the French mucking about in Louisiana - although this might be more realistic the state was divided north/south, with the French focusing on the more Francophone New Orleans/Gulf Coast area and the north staying with the American Union - perhaps annexed to Arkansas

This reminds me of the book WarDay, when, after a limited nuclear war destroying the USSR and crippling the USA, various parts of the US are occupied by Britain, Japan, and other European powers under UN mandate to help humanitarian reconstruction and assist US and State authorities in restoring order. California, which was not hit in Soviet strike, has already sealed its borders against refugees from the rest of the USA and is essentally independent. The reconstruction effort results in what amounts to be "occupation zones" and one gets the impression than it may lead to eventual reduction of Federal power in the USA and the rise of several regional confederations of states

 

[Paul Spring]

Sorry, but I don't accept the notion that a strong, unified USA was so inevitable that it takes nearly ASB-ish intervention to stop it. Until the mid 19th century, the USA was a weak and underpopulated backwater (it had a fairly large population but it was very spread out). Give European powers any real reason to break the federal union up (such as some alterations in the Napoleonic wars, ot other hypothetical "world wars" in which the USA become embroiled on one side or the other, it could have happened. A sucessful Southern secession could also have led to a balkanized and gobbled up USA - as could any possible other internal implosion. I would ague that only in the OTL early 20th century did the concept of American nationalism so supercede State loyalty among most people that a breakup of the USA becomes virtually impossible. But it didn't have to happen that way.

The US could definitely break apart, but I thought we were talking about outright conquest and partition among other nations.

Remember that by 1864, the United States raised the world's largest army. The second largest army in the world in 1864 belonged to ... the Confederate States! The US was already a formidable power. Even if it broke up into 5 separate nations (let's say it breaks into the CSA, northeast, midwest, west coast, and central states) each nation would have the population and resources to defend itself against a substantial invasion by an outside power.

 

[zoomar]

Yes, in 1864, the USA (and CSA) had large armies - but only because they were fighting a war against each other. There is no way the US or southern people would have tolerated continuation of conscription and war taxes once the war was over - regardless of how it ended. Assuming, as I do, that European diplomatic (if not military) intervention would have been necessary to secure Southern Independence and that the USA and CSA might very likely further fragment once the precedent is set that it can be done, the former USA would be in a much weaker position to defend its interests - and europeans may already be active staking out their own interest areas. Assuming for the sake of argument your hypothetical further division of the USA into 4 further divisions, I would suspect that only the northeastern and possible midwestern sucessor states would have the population and infrastructure to make viable defense against outside incursion possible.

 

[EmperorNorton]

Yes, in 1864, the USA (and CSA) had large armies - but only because they were fighting a war against each other. There is no way the US or southern people would have tolerated continuation of conscription and war taxes once the war was over - regardless of how it ended. Assuming, as I do, that European diplomatic (if not military) intervention would have been necessary to secure Southern Independence and that the USA and CSA might very likely further fragment once the precedent is set that it can be done, the former USA would be in a much weaker position to defend its interests - and europeans may already be active staking out their own interest areas. Assuming for the sake of argument your hypothetical further division of the USA into 4 further divisions, I would suspect that only the northeastern and possible midwestern sucessor states would have the population and infrastructure to make viable defense against outside incursion possible.

So you're saying that Americans would only support large militaries in time of war. Tell me, why does "outside incursion" not qualify as a time of war?

 

[MerryPrankster]

Thing is, in the event of a large-scale nuclear conflict, the European states and Japan would be in even more dire straits than the continental United States.

There was a little-read "future history" scenario where a future weak US (Alaska is a UN eco-protectorate, Hawaii is part of a China-Japan Pacific confederacy, and the nuclear arsenal has been decommissioned) is used as a battleground between the EU and the China-Japan group. I can't remember the title though; it looks pretty cool.

 

[EmperorNorton]

Thing is, in the event of a large-scale nuclear conflict, the European states and Japan would be in even more dire straits than the continental United States.

There was a little-read "future history" scenario where a future weak US (Alaska is a UN eco-protectorate, Hawaii is part of a China-Japan Pacific confederacy, and the nuclear arsenal has been decommissioned) is used as a battleground between the EU and the China-Japan group. I can't remember the title though; it looks pretty cool.

I'm pretty sure you're thinking of Jet Stream. Never read it myself, but you're right, it did look interesting.

 

[zoomar]

So you're saying that Americans would only support large militaries in time of war. Tell me, why does "outside incursion" not qualify as a time of war?

In the Nineteenth Century, yup, they would not accept conscripted peacetime standing armies. Plus, I am unconvinced people in the eastern parts of the USA, which would have had just lost a horribly costly civil war in this scenario, would have been to eager to do it all over again to keep New Mexico, Idaho, or even California in the fold.