If the USA’s main competitor post 1900 was Britain, why wouldn’t they join the central powers in WW1?>easily annex Canada and gain vast amounts of new land for states and resources>become dominant global naval power earlier than WW2
As crazy as this sounds given what the US government has become, it actually used to be pretty democratic. And the US policy of isolationism was entirely down to this.Every major military venture that wasn’t defensive, especially colonial ones like taking the phillipines. Was down to politicians deciding to opportunistically do it against public will.So first of all, there really isn’t the will to become the dominant global naval power because they don’t have a global empire to defend, this also makes the economics behind doing so much less palatable too. The USA could only become navally dominant globally because their economy exploded post WW2 even further than it already had, which was already ahead of all European countries this will also sound strange to the uninformed bur the US active army was pretty small pre WW1. They weren’t in a position to invade a country as extensive as Canada.Economically the vast majority of US trade was with Britain or British dominions and colonies, that plus France made a decision between losing trade with Germany and the central powers or trade with Britain and France simple (especially since Britain controlled the seas so you ain’t trading shit to Germany even if you wanted to, you’d effectively be waging war on Canada, ordering conscription to try and achieve naked expansionism against a civilised white state while isolating yourself from global trade. Good luck not losing the election to somebody promising to undo all this)
>>18479241Realistically, England was always going to end up as an American vassal. The US leadership was more concerned about the prospect of a Europe under German rule kicking out American finance
>>18479241Freemason leaders wanted to side with Communism
>>18479241It wasn't a main competitor at all. The US, despite supposedly maintaining Monroe Doctrine, did little to nothing despite the numerous Caribbean colonies Britain had, plus Belize, Canada, Guayana, etc, all in the Americas.And more notably the US was not on the level Britain was at this time either. While both had industrialized, I would argue the British still had a significant advantage and headstart in this regard.Moreover, the US and Britain had no real reason to compete. An often overlooked fact is that up until the tail end of the 1800s, the majority of immigrants to the US were British and Irish people. So there were cultural and ethnic ties there. Additionally the US was, around this era, embrpiled in a number of conflicts such as the Spanish American War (which won the US the Phillipines and led to yet another war). So they were already quite occupied.
>>18479241Because WASPs are level-headed enough to be economic competitors without militarily chimping out over it.
>>18479241Although destroying the British civilization was a motive of America's elite, they understood this would happen naturally over time and it would actually be better to pretend to be on England's side for a time, making the English population more stupid and oblivious to the mortal threat America poised to their nation
>>18479241If America had actually went to war with England to seize Canada, the English would have realized America wasn't their friend and more likely than not formed an alliance with Germany and Italy.Instead America pretended to support England during its most dire moments so they could bankrupt it and gradually reduce it to vassal status
>>18479317>>18479318>Oi mate, the bloody Yanks stole our empire!Yeah, because it could be because of the repeated and blindly obvious fuck ups by the British government...
>>18479241By 1900 it was apparent that the enemy was no longer Britain but Germany.
Canada wasn't ruled by faggots, trannies, and suckers of Chinese cock at the time. It was considered the Sparta of North America. Also armies weren't as good at maneuvring at the time, as we'll see in WW1.American invasions of Canada would have failed, even in the relatively pro-US west. And then the US would have been saddled with Quebecois who hate all things Anglophone and at the time was a Catholic theocracy.
>>18479241No one says that, the special relationship was nearing it's strongest in the first half of the 20th century.
>>18479241By 1900 the relations between the UK and the US were very cordial, I think your premise is wrong to begin with.
Because the USA was easily going to surpass Britain due to its massive industrial capacity. Why wage war on a country pointlessly for geopolitical posturing you don't care about?
