Was the US a superpower before WWII?

You know a global 1870 game seems like a neat idea…

you could have those neat ironclads and cool looking “great white fleet” warships and you could make it balanced and still be historical since nobody can really claim anybody was much stronger than another and Japan would be represented

Japan against Russia.

England indirectly against Russia ( trying to deny them a warm water port in Europe, by diplomatic blockade)

Ottomans involved against Russia

France and England vs. Germany, Austria, and Italy

US fighting a civil war then latter joining the war or not depending on which side wins ( north or south) If North wins they stay neutral and fight Spain, if South wins they fight in Europe with UK and France.

Spain might join the triple alliance ( Germany , etc).

A 1870-80 World at War game would rock. I love that era, the height of European power.

The U.S in 1865 had the largest and most powerful military in the World. Had the desire been there the US could have been a huge world power.

http://www.greatwhitefleet.info/GWF-The_Battleships.html

I really like how these ships looked, so perhaps this idea would be 1895 'ish, or be a hypothetical world war based on the 1905 (Moroccan incident, which almost started WW1).

Looking at them around 1870 and its a big difference, plus larger artillery were developed and the game could have air-power as technology .

The central idea is a global war was possible because this was the time when Africa was being colonized, and conflicts over empire building could have easily developed on a global scale.

The look of the forces would still have all the goodies, but perhaps not poison gas.

I think a 1890-1905 geopolitical axis&allies style game could be really cool. The pre-dreadnought era may fit A&A gameplay even better than the WW2 era. Ships moved alot slower. No ideologies just imperial ambition. Lots of interesting wars/battles in remote parts of the world like the Russo-Japanese War and Spanish-American War. It would be interesting to see how a Pacific war between Japan and the US would play out during this era. Until they were defeated in the first Sino-Japanese War(1895). China had a sizable modern navy so even they could be an important power. The total lack of ideologies means diplomacy should be a factor and players should be able to choose there friends and enemies( and make secret alliances). Nations who were allies in the Boxer Rebellion were fierce enemies just a few years later.

Personally I always believed “superpowers” were nations during and after WWII that were the “game changers” or in other words were some of the most important nations. The US, UK, Soviet Union, Germany, and Japan. After the war we had US, the Soviets and Britain ( :?).

I think a 1890-1905 geopolitical axis&allies style game could be really cool. The pre-dreadnought era may fit A&A gameplay even better than the WW2 era. Ships moved alot slower. No ideologies just imperial ambition. Lots of interesting wars/battles in remote parts of the world like the Russo-Japanese War and Spanish-American War. It would be interesting to see how a Pacific war between Japan and the US would play out during this era. Until they were defeated in the first Sino-Japanese War(1895). China had a sizable modern navy so even they could be an important power. The total lack of ideologies means diplomacy should be a factor and players should be able to choose there friends and enemies( and make secret alliances). Nations who were allies in the Boxer Rebellion were fierce enemies just a few years later.

Yea and since everybody is doing it, nobody is really a “bad guy”, while Germany could still have its kaiser and nations like Spain and Ottomans would play their part.

All the technology could enter latter, plus as you mentioned a diplomatic phase would be a big part of the game, just like it was during the Moroccan crisis.

Plus as you also mentioned players would be free to make alliances in a free form game, like risk, except with AA style pieces.

You could even add in rules for fighting natives and looting Africa for gold or lumber to build ships. Zeppelins could transport supplies or just bomb the enemy ( this would be technology)

You could even make Mexico a minor power that could fight USA, or add Indian wars where units cost western developments for the US player.

Yes, technically, the US emerged out of ww1 as a super power, Japan was ignored, Soviet Union wasnt recognized, UK and France were financially/militarily in horrible shape.

I think a pre-WWI game would be great. SOOOOOOOOOOOOOO who’s making it again?  :-)

Call them whatever you want Superpower, Great Power, Global Power, Empire, the Spanish-American war marked the rise of the US as one, and removal of Spain from the category.  The creation of the country Panama and the building of the Panama canal is a testament to the US’s new status.

Prior to WWII I would classify the Super Powers as US, UK, Japan, and to a lesser degree France.  Notice I do not include Russia, Germany, Austria-Hungry, or the Ottoman Empire.  I condisder these regional powers, only the first group had the capability to project power far beyond their shores.  I would argue that even after WWII the Soviet Union did not deserve the title of Super Power, it would have been hard pressed to conduct a major military campaign far beyond it’s borders.  Even a campaign in next door Afghanistan proved too much for them.

I disagree. We can’t forget the Cold War.

Super power status does imply ability to project power.  At the start of World War I, the US standing army including reserves was smaller than Greece, Turkey, Bulgaria or Romania.  Even by the end of WWI, the US army was only ranked fifth in total size.  Germany and England had had a naval arms race, although Germany lost the race, the ended up with the world’s #2 ranked navy.  Had the US and Germany fought a war in 1914 on land or on the ocean, the US would have been spanked.  Germany might not be able to project much power along the western coast of the US, but had the US had to fight Germany over Africa, they would have lost.  I would suggest that Germany was more of a superpower than the US was in 1914.

@MrMalachiCrunch:

Super power status does imply ability to project power.  At the start of World War I, the US standing army including reserves was smaller than Greece, Turkey, Bulgaria or Romania.  Even by the end of WWI, the US army was only ranked fifth in total size.  Germany and England had had a naval arms race, although Germany lost the race, the ended up with the world’s #2 ranked navy.  Had the US and Germany fought a war in 1914 on land or on the ocean, the US would have been spanked.  Germany might not be able to project much power along the western coast of the US, but had the US had to fight Germany over Africa, they would have lost.  I would suggest that Germany was more of a superpower than the US was in 1914.

Standing reserves are not the same thing as the total number of forces which could be made available…unless the war can be very quickly finished.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_in_1900

British Empire = 367M
Russia = 132M
French Empire = 81.5M
USA = 76.2M
Germany = 56M
Japan = 42M

Of course other things, like the level of industrialization or the size of Navy at the start of conflict matters also.  But clearly the USA was already significantly larger in population than Germany or Japan.  This means the USA could have fielded a significantly larger military force in 1900 than could Germany.

@Emperor:

Call them whatever you want Superpower, Great Power, Global Power, Empire, the Spanish-American war marked the rise of the US as one, and removal of Spain from the category.  The creation of the country Panama and the building of the Panama canal is a testament to the US’s new status.

Prior to WWII I would classify the Super Powers as US, UK, Japan, and to a lesser degree France.  Notice I do not include Russia, Germany, Austria-Hungry, or the Ottoman Empire.  I condisder these regional powers, only the first group had the capability to project power far beyond their shores.  I would argue that even after WWII the Soviet Union did not deserve the title of Super Power, it would have been hard pressed to conduct a major military campaign far beyond it’s borders.  Even a campaign in next door Afghanistan proved too much for them.

I like your definitions, they make a lot of sense to me.  Yes, the USA would have been a super power at 1898 as demonstrated by the Spanish-American war (where America projected power across the globe; Puerto Rico, Cuba, Philippines…)

Would the opening of Japan by the Americans in 1853 as an example of actions by a superpower have counted do you think?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Ships

Under your hypothesis, when was the USA a regional power?  I would guess at the Adams-Onasis treaty of 1819 where Spain gave up claims to Florida and Oregon, simply because the USA wanted these.

Florida was pretty much totally a swamp in the early 1800s, giving that up was not much of a concession.  I think the US just wanted to be able to go into Florida to impose a bit of law and order.

I don’t think the ability to field a large army given sufficient time should be a factor in being a super-power, by that definition China would have been the largest superpower.  Standing reserves consist of men who have already had military training and can quickly be mobilized into a fighting force.

I still think the US was a superpower by the late 1800s, but in the early 1800s the US could not defeat the British in the backyard of the US (northern america) even while the Brits were involved in a major European conflict.  Allowing a foreign power across an ocean to burn your capital is not a sign of a superpower.

The war of 1812 showed the US was not yet able to project power.  The spanish-american war was a preview of the future of the US as a superpower.

However the war of 1812 showed that America could hold it’s ground. Britain did not take anything from America other than pride which turned into anger which turned into more pride which became American patriotism and nationalism. Also I think the US wanted Flordia because of manifest destiny. Can you imagine flordia being a Spanish territory nowadays? I can’t. It’s part of mainland USA.

1812 was a bit early for any consideration for US as ‘superpower’ . The industrial revolution was yet to come and we just came out of war like 20 years before…too soon for expansion.

If it was 1850 perhaps we would have made Canada into more states.

If in 1850 the US had tried 1812….then the British would not have had any other enemy other than the US, unlike having to fight Napoleon AND the US in 1812.  If the Union had problems with the south during the civil war, imagine the south with the Brits as an open ally.  The north would have been make into a few provinces and got their independence in 1867 peacefully, the Canadian way :-)  In 1814 by the end of the war of 1812 things were not looking good for the US.  Once the brit forces were freed up from Continental Europe they came to the Americas and burned Washington to the ground, New England was thinking/talking about leaving the union and the US was nearly bankrupt.

Of course things are great between the US and Canada now, Canadians get cheap petrol and firecrackers across the border and Americans get cheap prescription drugs and Cuban cigars in Canada.

From what I recall about Florida, bandits and restless natives hiding out in a lawless territory of Florida were the main reason for US control.

@Imperious:

If it was 1850 perhaps we would have made Canada into more states.

Sure… and perhaps Washington would have been burned down… again!

Why would we want a territory because it’s filled with bandits and robbers? Okay maybe to stop them from hiding there but the main reason was probably more land. The South would want another slave state. Which brings me to my other point. In 1850 America was a decade away from the bloodiest war in American history. It really doesn’t have anything to do with this but I had a grandfather (a great-great grandfather or something like that) fight in that war. More Americans died in the Civil War than both World Wars COMBINED! If that didn’t weaken America then I don’t know what did or could. It took America a while to recover especially the South.

A war in 1850 would have united both sides to fight this war and General Lee and others would have easily taken out Canada. England would not be able to supply Canada too well compared to America.  I guess it would have to be after the Missouri compromise however. That would have bought the time to finish that war.

Probably could have taken out Mexico too considering what happened about 2 years before. They were very weak after they lost.