American involvement in an Empire?

[ffutures]

Here's a passage from The Struggle For Empire - I've italicised a couple of bits pertaining to the USA:

The great European war, for which preparations were being made during the latter part of the nineteenth century, broke out with tremendous fury early in the twentieth. England, Germany, and the United States stood arrayed against France, Russia, Austria, Turkey, Italy, and a number of minor States. The earth was shaken by the convulsion. Torrents of blood were shed; armaments, the greatest that the world has ever seen, were totally annihilated in the terrible whirlwind of shot and pestilence. For a long time it seemed as if Great Britain must sink, overpowered by the vast hosts that beleaguered her, but she eventually came out of the struggle triumphant. Gigantic naval battles were fought at Dover, Gibraltar, Cairo, Constantinople, in the midst of the Atlantic, and in the Indian Ocean, and at last her enemies had not a ship or a colony left.

Then the drama was concluded on land. Germany crushed France and Austria in her iron grasp, and England subdued the rest, but not until some millions of her brave sons had perished on the field of battle.

The result of the war was that England obtained the whole of Turkey, a vast piece of the Russian Empire in Asia, and important ports and strongholds in France, Italy, and Spain; while Germany obtained as her share a good slice from France, Italy, and Russia. Shortly afterwards the United States were reunited to England, and the latter entered into a federal union with all the Teutonic States of Europe.

I need some sort of plausible reason for the USA to go along with this. My best guess here so far is secret treaties and one heck of a deal on post-war conditions - e.g. the USA ends up ruling Canada and gets help from its allies to conquer Central and South America etc.

Any better suggestions?

Comments

[dsample.livejournal.com]

Maybe England wound up so far in debt to the US, that they paid it off by becoming the 49th state (but to make it more palatable, they told themselves that the US joined them.)

BTW: did you really mean "armaments" were being annihilated, above, rather than "armies."

[ffutures.livejournal.com]

Yes, I really did. Weird, I know.

[ianirving.livejournal.com]

French involvement with Mexico? In this time line Napoleon III never withdraw from Mexico?

plus a super sized Spanish–American War

[ffutures.livejournal.com]

Interesting idea, but there isn't any evidence for it - or for my idea, of course.

[ianirving.livejournal.com]

there is also the Mexican Revolution of 1910
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_Revolution

"but there isn't any evidence for it" of involvement with Mexico? but they were http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_intervention_in_Mexico

[ffutures.livejournal.com]

What I mean is that there's nothing historical post the withdrawal of France that I'm aware of, and nothing in the book to support the idea that they didn't withdraw. Of course Britain might fabricate "proof" that the French intended to capture Mexico as a prelude to an invasion of the USA - it's a possibility.

[ianirving.livejournal.com]

okay I understand.

There is the Ypiranga incident http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ypiranga_incident in 1914 which involve a German ship supplying arms to the Mexico's. If US, UK and GR are already allied then it would be easy to written that as France trying to open up Mexico as a second front.

The US conquering Central America and even South America is straight forward Monroe Doctrine. They would be happy to fabricate "proof" themselves to justify it.

An alliance with the Teutonic States of Europe and growing trade with it could lead to close ties, but it would take either (or both) a strong external enemy and/or a greatly weaken and demoralized US to reunited to England/UK/GB. The "Shortly afterwards" part strikes me as very unlikely otherwise.

[ffutures.livejournal.com]

Thanks - a big lie plus the Monroe Doctrine is exactly what I need, I think.

[ffutures.livejournal.com]

And possibly a real Russian threat to use Alaska as an invasion route to Canada would make it more believable.

[ggreig]

America is crippled by the American Civil war going on for rather longer than 1861-65. The North are still the eventual winners, with Lend-Lease aid from the British Empire. Given the choice between many decades of crippling repayments, and a better deal conditional on re-joining the Empire, secretly-Canadian-born President Chester A. Arthur, who is keen for British support on civil rights and rebuilding the navy, campaigns successfully for the latter.

[ffutures.livejournal.com]

Maybe a little too much pre-1900 back story. I'm really looking more for something that doesn't need a huge retcon before the publication date of the novel.

[ggreig]

Fair enough. Most major national changes do have their roots in somthing at least decades back, if not centuries, but for an alternative maybe you could try something like the current changes in North Africa, where an ideology (loosely speaking, democracy) and a mechanism (the Internet) have come together to spark changes that seem sudden. I don't know enough about the setting to suggest an ideology that might drive the change, but religion's a good wild card.

[ggreig]

Perhaps a reaction against international socialism?

[ffutures.livejournal.com]

I'll see if I can work it in.